Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McGauran.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It has been an immensely difficult 18 months for Australia’s wheat growers. Last year they faced a devastating growing season as winter and spring rains failed and the drought continued to tighten its grip across the country.
Growers have also had to deal with continued pressure to dismantle their wheat single desk due to strong, but justified, criticism of the corporate behaviour of AWB Ltd stemming from the findings of the Cole commission of inquiry.
In spite of these difficulties and challenges of an almost unprecedented kind, growers continue to voice their desire to take control of their industry. This bill is a direct response to that call.
The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 retains Australia’s single desk for export wheat.
The key elements of this bill include:
In coming to its decision to retain the single desk the government undertook an extensive consultation process with growers, as promised. The Wheat Export Marketing Consultation Committee, an independent body established by the government and headed by Mr John Ralph, undertook 26 public meetings across the wheat growing regions of Australia and received almost 1,200 written submissions. I wish to express my personal thanks, as well as the government’s thanks, to Mr Ralph and his colleagues on the committee—Mr Peter Corish, Mr Roger Corbett and Mr Mike Carroll—together with the support of the secretariat from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. They performed their task with diligence and demonstrated enormous capacity. During the consultation process by the Ralph committee, overwhelmingly growers stated their support for the single desk. Almost as overwhelming was the call for the single desk to be operated by an entity entirely separate from AWB Ltd.
The government has decided to give growers until 1 March 2008 to establish a new entity to manage the single desk. This entity may be either a completely new, grower owned and operated body, or a completely de-merged AWB (International) Ltd, AWBI. Let me be clear: the holder of the single desk will have to have complete legal separation from AWB Ltd.
The government acknowledges that the challenge it has set the industry is a significant one. No-one should be under any illusions as to the difficulty of the task that lies ahead for the industry. It will require strong leadership and unity within the industry to reach a satisfactory outcome in the time allowed. It is now time for the industry to act. The government is giving industry the opportunity to set up what it has asked for; it is now the responsibility of industry to deliver.
While the government has agreed to maintain a single desk for wheat exports, it is not willing to allow AWB to retain the power to veto other bulk exports. Growers have suffered through AWB’s lockout from the Iraqi market and seen the risk of an inability to export outside of the single desk. This risk has left growers short-changed. This bill provides for an extension of the power provided to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in December last year to direct the Wheat Export Authority, WEA, to either approve or reject bulk export applications until 30 June 2008.
This is a power that will continue to be exercised in the public interest, on a case-by-case basis, but there is no intention of it being used to undermine the intent of the single desk. The interests of growers who deliver to the national pool and the impact on them from allowing other bulk export consents will be part of the public interest consideration.
While it is the government’s intention that the single desk be retained, AWB must be removed as its commercial manager as soon as possible, in order to maintain the integrity of the single desk. However, the task of replacing AWB will take some time. The commercial practicalities are such that AWB could not be replaced in time for the forthcoming harvest and will be allowed to market the 2007 harvest.
While this was not the government’s preferred course of action, at the same time we were not willing to jeopardise the export marketing of the upcoming harvest by putting in place a new company that may not have been ready for the task. The risks to growers in that case would be too high.
The government is aware that establishing a grower owned and operated body will take time. Growers will be given that time, so that the new entity operates in a manner that best serves the industry.
The wheat industry is a major Australian export earner of great social and economic significance. Growers must be given the opportunity to get it right.
The current Wheat Marketing Act does not include provision to change the single desk manager. To provide the government with the ability to transfer the single desk power to the new grower entity, this bill will empower the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to designate which entity holds the single desk.
The bill provides that the power to change the single desk holder will not come into effect until 1 March 2008. The government decided on this timing so that there was no possible cause for uncertainty. AWBI will be allowed to manage the 2007-08 national pool, and do so in the best interests of growers.
This power will maintain the system of just the one company being exempt from the bulk export controls in the Wheat Marketing Act.
This bill also makes a number of changes to the operations of the Wheat Export Authority.
The authority will be provided with the power to request information from parties other than AWBI, where it believes the request relates to the performance of its functions. This could include other exporters of wheat and associate companies that facilitate the wheat export supply chain.
This amendment is a significant broadening of the scope of the authority’s existing information-gathering powers. It reflects the government’s clear intention that efforts to undermine the interests of Australian wheat growers and to damage Australia’s international trading reputation will not be tolerated.
Further, the bill provides the minister with the power to direct the authority to investigate a broad range of issues relevant to its functions where he considers it in the public interest to do so. The authority will also be provided with the ability to pass on information to relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies where it has received or uncovered information that warrants further investigation. These changes will commence upon royal assent to this bill.
In addition to a strengthening of its information gathering and powers of investigation, the structure and governance arrangements of the authority will also be overhauled. The changes are based on reforms recommended by the Uhrig review into the governance arrangements of Commonwealth agencies.
The Uhrig review recommended two governance models designed to promote best-practice governance. The model that most appropriately suits the functions and operations of a regulatory agency like the Wheat Export Authority is the ‘executive management’ template. This model calls for the elimination of a traditional board structure and for the governance arrangements to be transferred from the Commonwealth Authorities and Corporations Act to the Financial Management and Accountability Act.
The government has agreed to implement this model for the authority. However, to maintain a level of independence from the government it has been decided that the authority would be made into a commission and renamed the Export Wheat Commission.
The commission will comprise up to six commissioners, including the chairman, and all will be appointed on the basis of the skills required for the effective operation of the commission. Consistent with the Uhrig review recommendations there will be no representational appointments or government members on the commission. All commissioners will be appointed by the minister and will be appointed on a part-time basis.
The views of growers will continue to be represented on the commission as the minister must appoint at least one commissioner, and up to two, based on their strong skills, knowledge and standing in grain production.
The commission will continue to be funded by the industry through the wheat export charge and export consent application fees. These funds will be held in a special account for the commission that can only be used to fund its operations.
The authority and the new commission operate as a link between the operation of Australia’s wheat marketing arrangements and growers. It is important that this link continues and the government expects it will be strengthened by these changes. In the statement of expectations to the commission I will request that it consult regularly with industry in relation to the performance of its functions.
To provide sufficient time for the authority to prepare itself for these structural changes, the change to a commission will not occur until 1 October 2007.
The final key element contained in this bill responds to another request of the industry—the deregulation of wheat exported in bags and containers. This will be done by removing the requirement for exporters to first obtain consent from the WEA to export in bags and containers.
This was not a decision taken lightly by the government. However, the government believes that deregulating this part of the market will encourage further investment in the industry and allow further development of high-value niche and new markets. It is not expected that exports in bags and containers will overtake bulk exports, as the economies of scale inherent in bulk exports mean that they have a cost advantage over bags and containers. Exports in bags and containers are likely to remain a small part of the market in comparison to the bulk export share of the market.
Growers have raised concerns that wheat exports outside the current arrangements could allow the potential for rogue traders to undermine the good reputation of Australian wheat. That is why this bill will make it a requirement that all wheat exports in bags and containers have to comply with a quality assurance (QA) scheme.
The purpose of the QA scheme will not be to dictate the quality of wheat that can be exported but rather to make sure that exporters are meeting the specification of their contracts with customers.
The quality assurance scheme will be developed by the WEA in consultation with industry. The WEA will be asked to have the scheme in place as soon as possible. It is the government’s intention that the scheme will work with existing industry standards and practices and impose as small a burden as possible on exporters.
The changes to deregulate wheat exported in bags and containers will come into effect once the details of the quality assurance scheme have been settled, on a date to be set by proclamation.
Over the last 18 months or more the wheat industry has faced a range of confronting issues. During this period the government has never wavered from its commitment to consider the interests of growers. It has kept their interests paramount in its policy considerations.
This bill maintains that commitment to growers and, most importantly, delivers on what they have continued to vocally and passionately support—the single desk. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Ms Plibersek) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ruddock.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The International Trade Integrity Bill 2007 continues Australia’s tough stance against foreign bribery and contravention of United Nations sanctions.
Australia is a significant player in international trade.
We have a reputation as a corruption-free trading partner and an important participant in enforcing UN sanctions against states which seek to avoid their international responsibilities.
This bill creates new offences and penalties against those who seek to get around UN sanctions and further restricts bribery of foreign officials.
The International Trade Integrity Bill 2007 contains the legislative changes arising from the recommendations made by Commissioner Terence Cole QC, who chaired the inquiry into certain Australian companies in relation to the UN oil for food program. Commissioner Cole’s inquiry led the world as an open, transparent and independent public inquiry with royal commission powers into corruption of the UN oil for food program in Iraq.
The report of the Cole inquiry was tabled in parliament on 27 November 2006, with five principal recommendations.
On 3 May 2007, I presented the government’s response to parliament on recommendations 1 to 3 of the report.
The bill in fact goes further than the Cole inquiry recommendations, which focused on Australian law in the context of an Iraqi sanctions regime.
The government considers that Commissioner Cole’s recommendations can apply to all UN sanctions enforced in Australia regardless of what countries or goods they apply to.
Enforcement of UN Sanctions
The bill introduces a new offence to the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 for contravening a Commonwealth law that enforces UN sanctions, with severe penalties as recommended by Commissioner Cole.
The bill also increases penalties for existing offences for acting in contravention of UN Security Council sanctions relating to terrorist financing.
The bill introduces a separate criminal offence for providing false or misleading information in connection with the administration of a UN sanction enforcement law.
Companies and their officers must certify the accuracy of information provided in connection with trading activities subject to UN sanctions.
If false or misleading information is provided it will be grounds for invalidating any authorisation to conduct business under UN sanction regimes.
As Commissioner Cole recommended, criminal consequences can also apply.
Agencies that administer UN sanction regimes in Australia will be granted an information-gathering power for the purpose of investigating whether companies and individuals are complying with UN sanctions.
Customs Act 1901
The bill introduces new offences to the Customs Act for individuals or companies who import or export prohibited goods without proper authorisation.
These offences carry identical penalties to the new offences in the Charter of the UN Act, to effectively deter and punish any contravention of UN sanctions by Australian companies or individuals.
Applications for authorisation to import or export UN sanctioned goods will be made on approved forms and false or misleading applications will attract criminal liability and invalidate authorisations.
Bribery of Foreign Officials
Criminal Code Act 1995
The bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to clarify the circumstances in which a payment to a foreign public official is not a bribe.
In future, a payment to a foreign public official will be allowed only if that payment is required or permitted by the written law of the place or country that governs the foreign official.
This will be so regardless of the outcome of the payment or whether it was purported to be necessary for any other reason.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
The bill will similarly amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide that an amount paid to a foreign public official is not a bribe only in circumstances where it was required or permitted by the written law that governs the foreign public official.
The failure to obtain the advantage sought by the bribe will not be relevant to determining whether a benefit paid is a bribe to a foreign public official.
The definition of ‘facilitation payment’ in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 will also be aligned with the definition in the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Facilitation payments are tax deductible and are not a bribe to a foreign public official.
This will clarify the current law by ensuring that a benefit paid to a foreign public official will be considered a facilitation payment only if it is minor in value and for the sole or dominant purpose of securing a routine government action of a minor nature.
Consultation
These are significant changes to the law but they accord with common sense.
Australian exporters and importers must obey sanctions and not make false and misleading statements.
To inform the public about these changes the government will commence a consultation program, focusing particularly on the financial sector and those businesses importing and exporting goods and services.
To allow sufficient time for this consultation to take place, amendments to the Charter of the UN Act and to the Customs Act will commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation or six months after the bill receives the royal assent.
The government will also refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for consideration.
The government is committed to promoting a culture of ethical dealing in connection with UN sanctions and international trade.
Legislation alone cannot accomplish this and it falls on Australian businesses to maintain their reputation of ethical dealing and integrity. Australia and our trading partners will benefit from seeking to eliminate the cancer of corruption in international trade.
Debate (on motion by Ms Plibersek) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ruddock.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill would amend the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 so that, where a federal judge is subject to the superannuation surcharge, reduced rates of surcharge which applied in 2003-04 and 2004-05 apply to the pension entitlements of the judge and the judge has the option of commuting a proportion of the pension to discharge a surcharge debt.
The surcharge is currently applicable in relation to the pension entitlements of judges who were appointed between 7 December 1997 and 30 June 2005 under a formula in the Judges’ Pensions Act. The surcharge has been abolished and does not apply to pension entitlements accrued from 1 July 2005.
The formula reduces a judge’s pension by averaging the rates of surcharge that applied to the judge in each full financial year of his or her service. There are, however, two technical deficiencies with the formula which need to be overcome.
The first deficiency with the formula is that it was drafted in such a way that it reduces a judge’s pension in respect of 2003-04 and 2004-05 by 15 per cent, notwithstanding that the maximum surcharge rates were reduced for those years to 14.5 per cent and 12.5 per cent respectively. The bill would amend the formula to reflect the lower maximum rates in those years. To ensure equity for any pensioner who had retired after the first of those reductions was made, this amendment would apply whether or not an affected judge retired before the amendment commenced operation.
Secondly, the formula does not recognise payments to reduce a judge’s surcharge debt made by the judge to the trustee of the Judges Pension Scheme, unless the debt is paid in full. The bill would provide an option for judges to have their pensions commuted to discharge their surcharge debts, rather than have the formula apply. Commutation would operate on the basis of actuarially-determined age based factors and would recognise the actual amount of a judge’s surcharge debt. Commutation would therefore automatically recognise payments which had been made to reduce the amount of the debt. Commutation would be available to any judge who retires on or after 1 July 2007.
The bill would also allow the trustee of the Judges Pension Scheme to draw on an existing special appropriation to pay judges’ surcharge debts to the Australian Taxation Office as they retire. Once a debt had been paid, it would be recovered from the former judge concerned under the formula or through commutation.
Finally, the bill would define salary for pension purposes. This would ensure increased flexibility for the Remuneration Tribunal in setting serving judges’ entitlements without the tribunal needing to take into account inadvertent effects that this could have on the pension entitlements of retired judges or their dependants. This arises because pension entitlements are set as a proportion of the salary of a serving judge. For example, it would mean that the tribunal could determine a cash allowance in lieu of other vehicle entitlements for serving judges, without the allowance needing to be taken into account in calculating the pension entitlements of either serving judges who retire or retired judges or dependants.
I commend this bill.
Debate (on motion by Ms Plibersek) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ruddock.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to implement the second stage of recommendations of the report of the review of the regulation of access to communications, undertaken by Mr Tony Blunn AO.
The review examined the issue of how best to regulate access to telecommunications in the rapidly changing world of telecommunications technology.
A core finding of Mr Blunn’s review was the desirability of a single comprehensive legislative regime dealing with access to telecommunications information for law enforcement purposes. This bill is the second step in implementing that recommendation and follows the passage of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 2006.
Transfer of provisions from the Telecommunications Act
The bill transfers key security and law enforcement provisions from the Telecommunications Act 1997 to the interception act. The transferred provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, and provisions regulating telecommunications industry interception obligations.
In doing this the bill creates a clearer regime for accessing telecommunications data for national security and law enforcement purposes. Telecommunications data refers to information about a communication, as distinct from its content, and includes the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. Agencies currently access telecommunications data using provisions of the Telecommunications Act.
In transferring these powers to the interception act, the bill consolidates and clarifies these provisions to better protect the privacy of telecommunications users. Changing technology is broadening the range of communications transmitted over the telecommunications network, and thereby changing the effective scope of the existing provisions. In particular, the capacity for the delivery of telecommunications information in real time involves a much greater impact on privacy.
For this reason, the bill creates a new two-tier access regime. The first tier encompasses the traditional access to existing telecommunications data. The second tier, which would be limited to a narrower range of agencies and require a higher threshold of authorisation, allows for access to future telecommunications data. Consistent with similar provisions in other parts of the interception and access regime, this bill creates offences for unlawful disclosure or use of telecommunications data.
The bill also establishes new record keeping and reporting obligations for law enforcement bodies including a requirement to report annually on the number of authorisations.
It is important to stress that this proposal does not represent new powers for security and law enforcement agencies. Rather it creates new, more systematic and appropriate controls over the existing access framework.
The bill also transfers existing provisions relating to cooperation between telecommunications carriers and government agencies.
This includes the transfer of the existing obligation on carriers to ensure that communications passing over their network are capable of interception, the capacity to make determinations in relation to interception capability and to grant exemptions from the obligations.
The bill preserves existing arrangements while at the same time simplifying provisions wherever possible.
The bill clarifies and streamlines arrangements in relation to interception capability plans submitted by the telecommunications industry and the making of interception related determinations.
In transferring provisions from the Telecommunications Act, the bill retains the existing framework for cost-sharing between the government and industry.
Amendments to interception provisions
The bill also contains a number of minor amendments to refine the operation of the interception regime.
The bill will broaden the offences for which interception warrants may be sought to include all child pornography offences.
The availability of interception in relation to the investigation of child pornography offences is crucial because of the central role that the internet and telecommunications play in the exchange and possession of child pornography. This bill will ensure that interception warrants are available to assist in the investigation of any offence relating to child pornography.
This bill also permits the disclosure of lawfully accessed stored communications to assist the Australian Communications and Media Authority with the enforcement of the Spam Act 2003; and allowing agencies to disclose stored communications material to each other in relation to investigations into police misconduct.
The bill also changes provisions relating to network protection and security. In 2006, the act was amended to ensure that the Australian Federal Police could adequately protect its network infrastructure.
The new bill expands this capacity to a Commonwealth agency, security agency or eligible state agency to ensure that their network administrators can protect network infrastructure without the risk of being in breach of the act. The provision acknowledges the seriousness that the government accords to ensuring network security. This amendment would be subject to the existing sunset clause.
The bill will also allow security authorities, which have functions that include developing or testing technologies, to seek authorisation from the Attorney-General to intercept communications for the limited purposes of that development or testing.
This power is highly specific, tightly regulated and necessary in certain circumstances to ensure new equipment actually functions as intended.
Conclusion
The key parts of this bill effect the direct transfer of an existing regime from one act to another. This consolidation will create a more effective legislative framework for accessing telecommunications information for law enforcement and national security purposes. By centralising, modernising and simplifying several important provisions, it will introduce greater clarity of responsibilities, rights and obligations for all those who use the provisions. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Ms Plibersek) adjourned.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: National Towers Program stage 1 for Airservices Australia at Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Rockhampton airports.
Airservices Australia proposes to undertake a continuous improvement program to replace or refurbish the Airservices Australia air traffic control tower inventory, at an estimated out-turn cost for stage 1 of the National Towers Program of $94.5 million plus GST.
Airservices Australia operates 26 air traffic control towers throughout Australia. As the age of towers increases, the ability to cost-effectively maintain the facilities and to maintain and upgrade equipment certainly diminishes. The control towers range in age from 10 years to around 50 years, with an average age in excess of 30 years. The objective of stage 1 of the National Towers Program is to replace the existing control towers at Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Rockhampton airports.
In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that the proposed work proceed, subject to the recommendations of the committee. Airservices Australia accepts and will implement these recommendations.
Subject to parliamentary approval, it is anticipated that a design and construct contractor will be appointed by the end of this year, with construction completed some 20 months later. This will, of course, be subject to the responses received when the market is approached.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend this motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Lavarack Barracks redevelopment stage 4, Townsville, Queensland.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a great day for Townsville, for two reasons.
Isn’t every day a great day for Townsville?
Every day is a great day for Townsville. It is a great day because Johnathan Thurston was an outstanding player in the State of Origin last night, representing the North Queensland Cowboys, and it is also a great day because Lavarack Barracks is receiving—
Mr Nairn interjecting
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am having trouble with these cockroaches in Parliament House at the moment!
The parliamentary secretary should be very careful regarding the way he refers to members. He is fortunate that I did not really understand his preamble to the motion, but I ask him to get back to the matter at hand.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was saying it is a great day for Townsville, with Lavarack Barracks being progressively updated over the three redevelopment stages. These works that are being referred to the parliament for consideration today represent stage 4 of that redevelopment, at an estimated out-turn cost of $207.2 million.
The principal objective of this proposal is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the infrastructure in support of defence capability, reduce facilities maintenance expenditure on buildings and infrastructure, and address functional and occupational health and safety deficiencies within the existing facilities. What that group of official words actually mean is that the equipment and infrastructure of 4 Field Regiment, 3CER and 3rd/4th CR really need attention, and that will be addressed under this redevelopment.
These facilities which are being refurbished or replaced were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s to support the training for deployment to Vietnam. These facilities are certainly now substandard and no longer provide the functionality for a modern army.
In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works do proceed, subject to recommendations of the committee. I am pleased to say that the Department of Defence accepts and will implement those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction could commence later this year, with completion in mid-2011. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its support and I commend this motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed Defence Force School of Signals redevelopment at Simpson Barracks, Watsonia, Victoria.
Being the even-handed person that I am, this is one for the Victorians. This is a $101.3 million proposal for the redevelopment of the Defence Force School of Signals at Simpson Barracks. The object of the proposal is to address current facility shortfalls required to deliver communications and information systems training to defence personnel. The proposed facilities and infrastructure works involve a mixture of new facilities and adaptation and refurbishment of existing facilities.
In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee. I am pleased to say that the Department of Defence accepts and will implement all of those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction could commence in early 2008 with completion by late 2009. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its support. I commend this motion to the House.
While the chair is always neutral on these matters, I make the observation that this is two kilometres outside the electorate of Scullin.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion for the House to consider the Committee of Privileges report presented on 31 May 2007 about allegations of documents fraudulently and inaccurately written and issued in a member’s name, and to move a motion to give effect to the recommendation of the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the House agrees with the recommendation of the report of the Committee of Privileges presented on 31 May 2007 about allegations of documents fraudulently and inaccurately written and issued in a member’s name, and:
On 31 May 2007 I presented to the House a report from the committee on whether two incidents where allegedly fraudulent and inaccurate documents purportedly from the member for Eden-Monaro, the Hon. Gary Nairn MP, were distributed to media outlets and to a recipient of government funding in his electorate constituted contempts. The committee found that Ms Harriett Swift on five occasions in 2005 and 2006 deliberately misrepresented the Hon. Gary Nairn MP by producing and distributing documents that fabricated Mr Nairn’s letterhead and signature to make it appear that the documents were prepared and sent by Mr Nairn.
The committee found Ms Swift guilty of a contempt of the House in that she had undertaken conduct which amounted to an improper interference in the free performance by Mr Nairn of his duties as a member. The committee recommended that the House endorse its finding that Ms Swift had committed a contempt of the House and reprimand her for her conduct. This motion gives effect to the committee’s recommendation and I commend it to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. We understand that some of our constituents are passionate about certain issues, and old-growth forests and logging is one such issue. However, although they have the right and the responsibility to protest about these things, they must do so appropriately. Sadly, Ms Swift did not appropriately protest about these issues. She had numerous legal options open to her to raise her genuine concerns and to let the area know that these were issues which meant a great deal to her and about which she was passionate.
Taking someone’s letterhead and, more importantly, their signature—that letterhead and signature belonging to a member of parliament—was not an appropriate form of protest. For all Ms Swift’s contention that it was an April Fools’ Day joke, we as the Committee of Privileges did not find that that was a decent enough excuse to allow someone to use a member of parliament’s letterhead and, as I said, more importantly, that member’s signature to protest. Ms Swift stands rightly reprimanded by this parliament for breaching our privilege.
If we had let this matter pass, we would have been saying to the electorate at large that any member of parliament is fair game; any member of parliament’s letterhead and signature can be abused in this manner. In this day and age of modern technology it is fairly easy to reproduce someone’s letterhead and a very good-looking signature. That could lead to open slather. As Ms Swift said, these things can be amusing, but they can also be hurtful and damaging, and sometimes harmful and scurrilous accusations can be circulated in the community. Ms Swift stands reprimanded by this parliament for her contempt. I support the motion before the House.
I too wish to support the motion. As a member of the Privileges Committee, I was very pleased to be involved in this inquiry which the Speaker referred to the committee. At the outset can I say that I was very pleased with the conduct of the committee; it operated in a totally bipartisan way, as the member for Chisholm has just outlined. I believe the ultimate result and the recommendation of the committee justify the investigation. The fact that Ms Harriett Swift deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented the member for Eden-Monaro is something that this House could not take lightly. It is not just that it attacked the member for Eden-Monaro; it attacked the integrity of this House and all the members. It also attacked the integrity and security of members in their ability to represent their electorates in a proper and meaningful way. As has already been said, to pass this off as an April Fools’ Day joke twice and to see it as funny could not be tolerated. Quite properly, the Privileges Committee dealt with this in a serious manner and came to the findings that it did.
For somebody to deliberately compile a member’s letterhead and then reproduce their signature is quite fraudulent. In the corporate world it would be dealt with in a civil way, I would imagine, far more seriously than we have dealt with it through the Privileges Committee. We know that, as an ancient institution under the Westminster system, this House has through its committee system, and particularly through the Privileges Committee, more severe options. I am not suggesting in any way that they could or should have been taken. But Ms Swift might be lucky that she is operating in this century and not in another one in terms of the way the House has dealt with contempt proceedings over the years.
The evidence pointed to the fact that Ms Swift did not act alone. However, it was obvious that in this case she was the main perpetrator. The Federal Police had gathered sufficient evidence. They said they had located this evidence in Ms Swift’s computer but, because others had used the computer, they were unable to directly attribute it to her. This is where the committee system worked, because Ms Swift came before the committee and admitted to the committee that she was the guilty party. It demonstrated that the Privileges Committee process worked, and the committee carried out its duties.
In conclusion, it has to be said that this sort of malicious attack on members will not be tolerated now or in the future. This sends a strong message to anybody else who has a history, as Ms Swift does, of deliberate and malicious misrepresentations that this will not be tolerated by this House. I would like to congratulate all those involved for their conduct, particularly the secretary, David Elder, and parliamentary staff of the committee. I believe that as a result of this inquiry the integrity of the House has been upheld and justice has been delivered to the member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Gary Nairn.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges is a very important committee of this House. It is important that at all times it operates in a constructive and bipartisan fashion, and I think that is what has happened in this case. One of the reasons it is important to do that is that if one goes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act one finds that the penalties under section 7 can be a term of imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual. They are pretty serious penalties. It is important that the committee operates according to procedural fairness, which it has done on all occasions, and affords an opportunity for individuals. I think we have done that in this process. The important thing to say is that the report and recommendation before the House is unanimous. I do not do that lightly because, as people who know me are aware, my whole background as a solicitor and barrister was as a defence lawyer—as a legal aid solicitor and as a public defender. But with my hat on as a member of parliament it is important to operate according to the guidelines of this particular committee and deal with issues on their merits. I can report to the House that, in my view, the committee dealt with this in a very sensitive and appropriate fashion.
True it was that we had to summons Ms Swift to appear before us. But she obeyed that summons; she came and she cooperated and answered questions. If one goes to the report one can see that the material before us was that the Australian Federal Police had received advice from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions on 10 August and that on the basis of that advice no prosecution was initiated. That is because the criminal standard applied in terms of what the Director of Public Prosecutions was looking at. But when it came to the civil standard, the evidence before the committee was that there was a clear and manifest connection of Ms Harriett Swift to the activities of preparing and sending the press release and the letters purportedly from Mr Nairn. That was the evidence of the AFP representative. But, to her credit, Ms Swift, when the committee chair asked her: ‘Were you responsible in any way for the preparation and distribution of that correspondence or those press releases?’ her answer was, ‘Yes.’ She basically fessed up. I think that is something that we as a committee have taken into consideration in what we are recommending to the parliament today in relation to her: that she be reprimanded for her conduct. That is not a light recommendation; it is of itself pretty serious. But recommendations to this parliament could be more serious, and they have been in the past.
There was the celebrated case of Fitzpatrick and Browne. In the mid-fifties, the then Prime Minister moved for three months imprisonment; the opposition leader had moved another motion, which was lost. But, for more serious allegations, those two served three months imprisonment.
I think it is important to send a message to Ms Swift and any others who might care to engage in similar conduct that that sort of conduct will not be tolerated by this parliament because it undermines us as representatives. I do not have a problem with political action, political dissent, but I have a real problem with breaching the law or, in effect, committing a contempt of the parliament or a breach of a privilege of the parliament. I take this institution seriously. Ms Swift is someone who has knowledge of this institution. She has worked for a member of parliament. That should not be held against her. I raise it in the context of the fact that she understands the nature and course of her conduct. That is why I support this particular motion. I think it is a balanced motion. I think it is an appropriate recommendation. I think it sends the right message. We also say that we do not want to see a repeat of this conduct, because if there is a repeat of this conduct we will consider that conduct into the future. A repetition of this sort of conduct will not go down well, I think, with any future Privileges Committee.
I do recommend the motion to the parliament. I think it does strike the right balance. It is a unanimous recommendation and enjoys the unanimous support of all members of the committee. A number of members of the committee were not able to participate in the deliberation of the committee and did not want to speak in the parliament because they have personal knowledge of Ms Swift. That is appropriate. That is another indication of what we are attempting to do here to the best of our ability—that is, to conduct this in an appropriate manner. Where there might be potential for bias one way or the other, people remove themselves from deliberations, and they need to be respected for that. The truth is: there but for the grace of God go I, in terms of my determination of this particular complaint. The fact that it was Gary Nairn had nothing to do with it one way or the other. It could be any member of the House. My deliberation was not moved one way or the other in respect of the particular individual concerned, for whom I have a high regard—not for his politics, but that is another matter. They need to be looked at by members of this House in a proper way, especially where there is a potential for a penal provision or a recommendation by this parliament for a period of imprisonment. That is no mean thing.
I do have reservations about parliaments imposing periods of imprisonment, but that is a matter that we will look at down the track. We are not recommending that here or anywhere near that. Ms Swift does deserve to be reprimanded for her conduct, but we also took into account the fact that she did cooperate with the Privileges Committee, in her way, and did make an admission that in effect filled in the gap. It is all right for a police officer to make an assertion about what he felt. That of itself, in my view, did not quite get us there. But when Ms Swift readily admitted to the question from the chair, it was all over red rover in relation to her guilt. I recommend the motion to the House.
As the main target of Ms Swift’s illegal campaign, I speak today in support of the Privileges Committee report. I want to put on the record my thanks to all those on the committee for defending me, which is what the committee effectively did and something that I would expect the committee would do for any member of parliament in a similar circumstance. I would like to say a little about the history of this because I think the actions need to be put into some context. People associated with Ms Swift, and I use those words carefully, have for quite a number of years engaged in this type of activity. South East Fibre Exports, a company that operates the chip-mill in Eden, formerly known as Harris-Daishowa, had this type of activity happen to them on numerous occasions over the years, with press releases being issued supposedly on the letterhead of Harris-Daishowa and on the letterhead of their Japanese parent company, and other associated entities, as if they were coming from those particular companies. But, each time, they were really coming from a group of people who have never accepted the results of things like the regional forest agreement, which has ensured that the very old growth forests in our region have been put into national parks and wilderness, in certain circumstances, but that substantial forested areas still remain available for sustainable forestry.
They have never accepted the umpire’s decision. They are insatiable. No matter how much you give, they only want more. I can put up with arriving at functions, which I have with the Prime Minister, where Ms Swift has thrown woodchips at us, and other related activities. I was not real impressed with one of her supporters who spat on my late wife as we went to a function in Eden once. You put up with those sorts of things. I was even prepared to put up with the press release that was issued in April 2005 that was purportedly from me which related to forestry activities. It made out that all of a sudden I was a born-again greenie and was not going to support good, sustainable forestry anymore. News outlets rang me to say: ‘We’re a bit confused about the press release. Is it fair dinkum?’ We had them sent through and I realised what was going on in that instance. I was even prepared to put up with that.
I was going to put out a press release once again highlighting these sorts of activities, but I looked at the letterhead—it was a pretty good copy—and I thought, ‘They really are going to town now with this sort of activity.’ But I was still prepared to let it go, until I got a phone call from Phil Mathie, who runs a logging company, Bruce Mathie and Co., at Narooma. A week or two earlier I had announced a grant of $165,000 to that company under the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package, a joint package between the Commonwealth and the states to assist companies moving to better sustainable forestry activities. They were able to access a grant of $165,000. It had been going on for some time. There is always a bit of argy-bargy between the Commonwealth and the states before the funding actually happens, but he knew it was potentially going to happen. Knowing that they might be getting this sort of assistance, any small business person would probably be setting up their affairs in such a way as to ensure that when the $165,000, which is not a small amount of money, arrived, it would substantially help the company. He would have been expecting it.
What he was not expecting was to get a letter from me a couple of weeks later—or supposedly from me—saying, ‘Sorry; the government has re-looked at this whole issue; it doesn’t believe that the private sector should benefit from taxpayers’ money and the grant is being rescinded.’ He rang my office in some distress when he got the letter. He said, ‘What the hell is going on?’ You can imagine the situation if, two weeks earlier, you had a grant of $165,000. People in that situation do not look at the date and think, ‘Oh, it is 1 April; that’s funny—ha, ha, it’s a prank.’ That does not happen. That was the point at which I said, ‘Enough is enough; I’m not going to put up with this.’ That is why I initially referred it. It was a difficult period, and it is relevant to something else I will say before I finish today. I think I said at the time I raised it in the parliament that I should have done it a touch earlier. But that April-May was a difficult time as far as my life is concerned, because it was the last two months of my wife’s life so I had to put a couple of things off, and a few other things were happening at the time as well. I was not prepared to continue with it and I referred it to the police. It went on for some time. The police do not act on these things very quickly, but, ultimately, after consultation with the Clerk of the House, I raised it in the parliament and it was the Speaker who correctly referred it to the Privileges Committee.
During the period of all these investigations, further letters appeared. In fact, the Privileges Committee supposedly received a letter from me on my letterhead, with my blue signature—which I always use—basically saying, ‘Why are you guys taking so long to deal with this matter?’ It did not come from me; it was another letter from Ms Swift. In my view she was effectively putting her finger up to the parliamentary processes, which is appalling. Even since this report was brought down two weeks ago she has been in the press basically saying, ‘I’m not going to take any notice of that.’ That is the way she operates. Also, last year, letters were sent to John Sparkes, who was the General Manager of South East Fibre Exports, supposedly from me, saying that I wanted to recommend him for an Order of Australia award because he had been so good in fighting the greenies. One was also sent to Phil Mathie but with riders. So the activities continued. Fortunately, John Sparkes never received the letter because, unfortunately, he died tragically in Canada two weeks earlier. So that is the sort of process that has brought it here today, with a reprimand from the parliament.
I have mentioned the activities of Ms Swift’s people over a number of years. She has got real form on this. In 1981 she was hauled before the Senate Privileges Committee for harassing Senator Brian Harradine with abusive phone calls. I understand it was at the time that Senator Harradine’s wife was dying, as someone said to me. I do not know the exact timing of that but that is as I understand the case. When her phone was traced as the source of the phone calls, and when she appeared before the committee, she said in defence:
I had a party at my house last night. I was not in the house all night—it is a flat, actually—but I was there probably for most of it. There were a lot of drunks at the party, not the least of which was me. Anyone could have used the telephone, including me. I must honestly say that I do not remember who made the call, whether it was me or someone else. That was the night of the Business Review magazine launching and there were a lot of drunks around. This is about all the light I can shed on it.
Since 1981 there has been this sort of activity. That is the attitude the person has towards the parliamentary processes: harassment and abuse of a senator, in that particular case.
The member for Canning said that he believed Ms Swift did not act alone, and I think he is right on that. I think that, in this case, Ms Swift has taken the rap, and probably for a good reason, because her live-in partner, Keith Hughes, a councillor on the Bega Valley Shire Council, I would suspect, was part of this as well, but the police could not necessarily make the connection. I guess he would want to keep away from these sorts of inquiries, because there would quite probably have been some substantial pressure put on him to resign as a councillor of the Bega Valley Shire Council. Also, several days ago, Mr Hughes was endorsed as the Green candidate for the seat of Eden-Monaro. I hope that all the people of Eden-Monaro understand the quality of the people who might put themselves forward for election at the federal election later this year. Given this whole sorry saga and how long it has gone on for—literally dating back to the early eighties—if the Greens have any moral fortitude, they would disendorse this person as their candidate.
In conclusion, once again I thank the committee for their diligent work on this. I think they have sent a very strong message. They could have fined this person or jailed them, but they decided to issue a severe reprimand. She has been found guilty of contempt of this parliament on five separate occasions. Nobody should take that as not being serious; it is very serious. This person does not seem to want to take it seriously, but she should. Given we are in the final year of this parliamentary term and some of these people get even more active politically, I would hope that a similar occurrence would lead to serious consideration of a fine or jail sentence.
Question agreed to.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Pearce:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007 and associated bills represent minor but welcome regulatory reforms that reduce in a small way the red-tape burden facing Australian business and Australian consumers. On that basis, the Labor Party will support these bills without amendment. The package introduces changes to corporate regulation in the areas of financial services, company reporting obligations, auditor independence, corporate governance, fund raising, takeovers and compliance as well as other initiatives. This bill will reduce some of the regulatory burden on providers of financial services, it will increase access to financial advice and it will make improvements to other aspects of the financial services regulatory framework. The changes include removing the need for the provision of a statement of advice: firstly, where there is no recommendation in relation to a particular financial product and no remuneration; and, secondly, where the amount to which the advice relates is under the prescribed threshold, proposed to be $15,000.
In relation to superannuation, this will be limited to: consolidation into or supplementation of an existing account; refining the circumstances where a financial services guide is not required to be provided, particularly at seminars; and some other measures. In respect of the disclosure documentation issued under the Financial Services Reform Act, generally providers have been issuing advice documents of up to 100 pages. These are costly, complex and unreadable for consumers. I would argue that these documents are counterproductive. They are so thick and so substantial that consumers are not reading them; therefore, while they are intended to improve transparency and assist consumers, they are counterproductive because consumers simply cannot and will not read them.
The measures in this bill represent the second attempt at so-called refinements to reduce red tape and lengthy documents in some areas of disclosure. They do represent a partial reduction on the expansion of lengthy documentation under this government and, accordingly, Labor support them as far as they go. We do say, however, that they should go much further. What is concerning about these reforms is that the government appears to regard them as the be-all and end-all of regulatory reform. The government appears to regard them as a major achievement and it appears to regard them as a substantial reduction in red tape. I say that because I have read the press releases of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer—and I am glad that he has been able to join us in the chamber—and those press releases present this bill as a substantial achievement.
I must say that I really enjoy the parliamentary secretary’s press releases, and I compliment him on them. You would be particularly unsurprised, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, that I subscribe to the press releases of the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and the parliamentary secretary, and I get a particular giggle when I read the parliamentary secretary’s. They are particularly good. I really like the headings: ‘Pearce delivers consumer benefits and drives reductions in red tape’ and ‘Pearce continues delivering reductions in the red tape burden’. My personal favourite, Mr Deputy Speaker, which is not particularly germane to this bill but I am sure you will not mind, is this one: ‘Pearce delivers major insolvency law reform’. The headings would have you assume that these are major deliverances by the parliamentary secretary, very modest soul that he is: ‘Pearce continues to deliver’, ‘Pearce’s major achievements’. I was drawn to his release a few months ago:
The following item has been released by the Hon. Chris Pearce, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. Achievements: the parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer has released a new achievements page on his website outlining some of his key portfolio achievements.
I tried to look them up, thinking they would be mentioned under ‘achievements’ on his website but unfortunately it has been removed. Apparently in hindsight there have been no achievements by the parliamentary secretary. I am sure he will have a look at that. I thought it may be under ‘publications’. I looked that up but, unfortunately, there were no publications on the parliamentary secretary’s website. He has not been very busy writing publications, and the ‘achievements’ section has been removed. Apparently in hindsight there have been no achievements.
My other concern relates to the press release ‘Rudd fumbles on policy again’, which he issued after the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply, where we announced our policy of major regulatory reform, of substantial regulatory reform—not tinkering around the edges. The parliamentary secretary said in his press release:
Mr Rudd has failed to get across the Government’s policy that has been on show for months. I have already announced significant changes to the Financial Services Regime, which are designed to make it easier for Mum and Dad investors to make informed investment decisions ...
So he thinks his reforms are the same as the ones Labor announced. He thinks they go as far as the reforms that Labor has announced. They go less than one-tenth as far as those that Labor has announced but he says, ‘Now we can put up our feet on the table and relax because we have delivered’—as his press release would say—‘major reform.’ They have done nothing of the sort: this is tinkering at the edges. What we need is major reform, like that the Leader of the Opposition announced in his reply to the budget on 10 May: Labor will introduce simple, standard disclosure forms for financial services products.
The government’s new financial services disclosure regime has resulted in consumers being physically issued with long and complex documents of up to 100 pages long. It has created an administrative nightmare for businesses and consumers. Labor’s standard disclosure form will be no more than three or four pages in length, containing core information. Financial services providers will be required to have any further disclosure information on their websites, another practical initiative for business. That is a long way from what this parliamentary secretary, as he would describe it in his press release, has ‘delivered’. It is a long way from that; it goes much further than what the government is proposing in this bill—which is welcome but which is tinkering at the edges.
I have spoken to a lot of financial services providers over the last few weeks as I consulted on this bill and other matters, and I do not think any financial services provider in this country would regard this as a really serious and major reform, despite the rhetoric in the parliamentary secretary’s regular press releases—but I do encourage him to keep them up; they always provide me with amusement. When I get the email saying that the Hon. Chris Pearce has released a press release, I always have a good chuckle at the heading because I look to see what Pearce has delivered today. What Pearce has delivered today is minor, technical tinkering at the edges. What he should be doing is delivering major and substantial reform to the red-tape burden in this country. That is not what he is doing. I call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer to adopt Labor’s package, to adopt the reforms—because, if you do not, we may just have to later in the year. Should we form a government later in the year, we will have to do it, because the parliamentary secretary, who has been in office now three years, has singularly failed to do it.
This is very important: I have had financial services providers in my electorate close down their businesses because the red-tape burden is just too high. The burden of the FSR is just too much. I hazard a guess that if I went to them today and said, ‘Have a look at these reforms; would these reforms have stopped you from closing your business down, because the red-tape burden is too high?’ they would giggle too. They would laugh too, and they would say, ‘This delivers nothing for us. We would have had to close down our business anyway.’ This is a very important matter: there are businesses closing in the financial services area because of the red-tape burden on them. Labor has a plan to reduce that burden, to assist those businesses and, just as importantly, to assist consumers—to give consumers readable information encompassed not in 100-page documents but in much shorter documents which give them the key information that they need, and if they wish to read more information then they can refer to a website.
In the area of corporate governance there are a number of changes, including reporting requirements for executive remuneration and a change in the definition of ‘a large proprietary company’, which has implications on the threshold for reporting. Executive remuneration reporting requirements for individual directors and executives in listed companies will, under the accounting standards in the Coporations Act, now be streamlined so that these obligations are contained in one act. This is sensible, and we support that. Companies must also disclose their policy on executives hedging their incentive remuneration and how this will be enforced. The Australian Council of Super Investors and the Australian Stock Exchange have already called for these steps to be taken to prevent hedging of unvested share options, and this is supported by the opposition.
There will also be changes to the definition of ‘a large proprietary company’, which will have an impact on the company disclosure thresholds. The proprietary company will be defined as ‘large’ if its consolidated operating revenue for the financial year of the company and the entities it controls is $25 million or more; the value of the consolidated gross assets for the financial year of the company and the entities it controls is $12.5 million or more; and the company or the entities it controls have 50 or more employees at the end of the financial year.
The threshold for proprietary companies has not been changed since 1995, the year that the threshold was first introduced. In order to ensure that the threshold remains relevant, this legislation allows that future changes to the threshold can be prescribed by legislation—again, a sensible minor measure which we have no objection to. Labor recognise the need for flexibility in the regulatory regime and therefore we support this reform.
As a result of other changes to company reporting, companies will no longer have to provide hard copies of reports to their members on request if a copy is provided on a website which is publicly accessible. However, the current methods of distributing annual reports will still be available.
Consistent with the Banks review, the restriction on employment relationships between an auditor and an audit client will no longer apply to a former partner or former audit company director who has left the firm or the audit company for five years. Currently, employment relationships between an auditor and an audit client should include a prohibition on more than one former partner of an audit firm at any time being a director of or taking a senior management position with the client. Again, we support that: it is a recommendation of the Banks review and it is very sensible.
The Labor Party expresses some concern over the changes which will allow the removal of the requirement for a member approval of related party transactions at or below a prescribed level. We believe that there is a case to be made as to why directors should be permitted to give shareholder funds to related parties without seeking shareholder approval. Labor notes that the government’s amendments reduce disclosure requirements in relation to small sums—the amount is flagged by the government as being $5,000—and further that the prescribed amount for which approval will no longer be required will be in the regulation. Labor will be closely examining those regulations in regard to the prescribed amounts when they are tabled. While we express some concern we do not intend to press the point today, but we put on the record that we will be watching developments in that field particularly closely.
Several changes will also be made to fundraising. A prospectus or product disclosure statement will no longer be required for rights issued for quoted securities and other financial products. However, a cleansing notice to the market is required which would include information relating to the potential effect of the rights issue on the control of the entity. For small-scale offerings, chapter 6D and chapter 7 definitions of professional and sophisticated investors will now be aligned. Currently, chapter 7 definitions are much broader than those in chapter 6D. The total amount of money that can be raised under an offer information statement will be $10 million instead of $5 million. Disclosure relief for controllers of listed entities will be available for secondary sales of securities and other financial products, subject to cleansing requirements of both the controller and the entity that issued the shares. Secondary sales without disclosure will be possible for securities and other financial products quoted for a minimum of three months rather than the current 12 months. The reduced disclosure requirements applying to the continuously quoted securities and other financial products will be available after they have been quoted for a minimum of three months.
Importantly, employee share schemes and contribution plans will be relieved from a specific range of licensing and hawking requirements of the Corporations Act. That is something that we support. We think that there is a place for employee share ownership schemes in this country. I note that the government had a target to increase subscriptions to employee share ownership schemes and that the Prime Minister said many years ago that he would like to see Australia as one of the great share-owning democracies, and that target has not been met. Frankly, we have not come close to meeting it. Employee share ownership schemes can play an important role in boosting productivity, and we need all the help we can get there. Our productivity growth has declined, the gap between us and the United States has expanded and employee share ownership schemes can play a role. Again, these minor reforms are welcome. Personally, I believe much more needs to be done on employee share ownership schemes. Prospectus advertising requirements will be aligned with those for product disclosure statements except for advertising prior to the lodgement of a prospectus. Labor supports the reform of business regulation to ensure lower costs for business and a more effective regulatory regime. The objective here is to have regulatory reform without letting important standards slip, and this is achieved by eliminating overlap, duplication and outdated business regulation. Labor supports these initiatives contained in the bill.
But this bill goes nowhere near far enough. The parliamentary secretary might put this on his achievements page when it gets put back up—when he decides to say, ‘In hindsight maybe I do have some achievements’—but it is a very hollow achievement indeed. If he had achieved real financial services regulatory reform maybe the government would let him put his achievements page back on his website. Maybe then he could issue a press release entitled ‘Pearce delivers major reform’ without being greeted with guffaws of laughter from the financial services industry, let alone the opposition. Maybe then, when he puts out those regular press releases entitled ‘Pearce delivers again’ and ‘Pearce’s great day of achievement again’, people would actually take it seriously. Until that happens these great protestations of achievement will not be taken seriously, because they are laughable. These are minor reforms which are welcome, but for anyone to call them a major achievement is a joke. Until we have real financial services reform in this country, small business, big business and consumers will continue to bear the burden.
I am glad that the member opposite has wound up. He spent a lot of time reviewing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer’s website and he has been following his press releases very closely, so I am surprised that he was not able to fill the whole time allocated to him. I would have thought he would have made a bigger effort to properly review this legislation, because it is significant legislation. For the member opposite to say that some motherhood statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech amount to a policy is an absolute farce. It is a joke. I can sit here and say that I am going to reduce red tape, in much the same way as the Leader of the Opposition did. There has never been a government in the existence of time that has not proclaimed that it wanted to reduce red tape. That is about as innovative as us all turning up here today. There is nothing to it. It is a motherhood statement. He trumpets that and says that that is the way to be going ahead while we have these real, legitimate improvements which were won as a result of careful consultation and consideration by the parliamentary secretary and the government. I think that it is important that we consider them and take them seriously and that we do not just spend our time sniggering behind our hands because we do not like the way the parliamentary secretary writes his press releases.
There are a lot of very good things to be considered in the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007 and related bills and one of the major things that I thought was remarkably—and not surprisingly—glossed over by the member opposite was the issue of employee share ownership schemes. I noticed he said:
Personally, I believe much more needs to be done on employee share ownership schemes.
I do not know whether that is going to be Labor Party policy. I do not know whether Dean Mighell and those sorts of people would endorse the idea of employee share ownership schemes. Do you think they would? The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in 2006 the number of employees that received shares as part of an employee entitlement had increased from 404,300 in 1999 to 501,100. It is something that is popular among employees, and there are an increasing number of AWAs that facilitate this kind of sharing in a firm’s profitability for employees and encouraging that kind of outcome. That is part of the flexibility that you get through the new industrial relations system that the government has introduced. The opposition just cannot get their heads around that.
I can hear the member for Prospect saying, ‘Yes, personally I support an increase in employee share ownership schemes,’ but do honourable members really think we would ever get that from the puppet representative of the ACTU, as Prime Minister of Australia? I doubt it. That would go to the very bottom of the bottom drawer and would not be seen again, despite the innovative and motivational impact that employee share ownership has on people. It makes them want to increase their productivity and the profitability of the companies in which they work. Companies which increase their competitiveness enhance the outcomes not only for them but also for their employees and the people of Australia. The member for Prospect would have us believe that reducing red tape is simple. Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition just does a press release and—voila!—he has fixed red tape. Isn’t that amazing? He can fix it. He does a press release and—bing!—it has happened. What a sad reflection on the member for Prospect’s understanding of just how difficult it is to get sensible, focused reform.
We are engaging here in a careful balancing act. On the one hand, there is the need to effectively protect shareholders and others in the community who rely on this industry. The managed funds investment industry has $1.1 trillion in consolidated assets. We want to provide people with protection, so they can trust the industry in that what they are getting is a very carefully managed and controlled investment. On the other hand, we want to facilitate that investment, to make it as easy as possible. This is a balancing act. If you make it too easy, standards can slip. If you make it too regulated, there is the red tape that the Leader of the Opposition promised to wipe out overnight. This is a balancing act which obviously the member for Prospect just does not understand.
These reforms are not just part of the balancing act that must be engaged in between the government and the industry; the process also draws in all the states. It is part of the COAG reform agenda. Not only are the minister and the government negotiating this with the industry; they are also negotiating it with the states. They have done that very effectively. The other governments of Australia are following the government’s lead and participating in the process. As a result of this consultative process with the business and investor community, we have 32 measures to simplify and streamline Australia’s corporate and financial services law. They follow in the wake of a paper which was distributed by the parliamentary secretary last November, called ‘Corporate and Financial Services Regulation Review—Proposals Paper’. After its distribution, 100 submissions were received. The paper indicated the kinds of measures we are now seeing implemented here by the parliamentary secretary. I congratulate the parliamentary secretary. I think these measures are major achievements, and he is right to trumpet them as he does in his press releases. Australians need to know that the government is forging ahead with these achievements. We do not need the kind of carping criticism that came so glibly from the member for Prospect. He thinks that tomorrow he can issue a press release, written in invisible ink on the back of a stamp, and everyone will then be so much happier. As a result of the efforts of this government, in 2006 the World Competitiveness Year Book ranked Australia third out of 61 countries for the protection of shareholders’ rights and share market financing. At the same time we are providing further protections for shareholders.
I want to talk about some of the areas in which this legislation will be making reforms. In particular, there is the proposal to remove the need for what is called a ‘statement of advice’ when providing financial advice with a simpler document called a ‘record of advice’. The threshold for that change would be $15,000 or less. So the government is saying that small shareholders or investors seeking advice can get it in a more simplified form without having to pay the added cost and without the difficulty of seeking the more complicated statement of advice. That is one area in which changes are being made. There is also the issue of fundraising. We know that often the need to raise funds for investment can come up very quickly, so it is important that we facilitate businesses having the flexibility, and the investment markets having the opportunity, to quickly raise funds in a flexible manner. That is where we come to the issue of encouraging employee share ownership. The government is reducing the cost of raising funds by, for example, removing various disclosure requirements. We are also taking steps to encourage employee share ownership. Unlike the opposition, a stated goal of the government is employee share ownership. The coalition parties want to see it proceed, to the great benefit of all Australians.
There are also changes to a company’s reporting obligations. In that process, for example, we have looked at what is the definition of a ‘large proprietary company’, which requires a high level of company reporting. We have looked at that taking into account where the economy is today and the changes in the way companies operate. When we seek to identify a large proprietary company, we are seeking to identify companies that are economically significant. That is what it is supposed to identify. A lot of the thresholds that apply in identifying those companies have been redefined. There are changes to the current operating revenue and assets thresholds to the tune of 150 per cent. This measure is expected to result in cost savings for about 33 per cent of companies currently required to report.
The bill facilitates companies doing their reporting on the internet but at the same time requires them to make hard copies available to shareholders who prefer to get them in that manner. This is, of course, merely moving with the times and making sure our requirements fit. In making the change to identifying what a large proprietary company is, we have adjusted things so that future changes to those thresholds can be made more easily by regulation. I think that is an important step because inevitably there will be changes, and the definition of what constitutes an economically significant company will continue to evolve.
Members might want to talk about the interesting issue of the impact of telephone monitoring during takeover bids. There has been some discussion of that in a recent very high profile case—that is, the Qantas takeover bid. During takeovers, all advice from all parties, both the target and the takeover proposer, is currently required to be recorded. This bill will repeal those requirements. Quite a deal of consultation with industries and other parties involved in those processes has quite clearly determined that the benefits gained from monitoring are very small, given the onerous burdens that it places on the companies participating, whether they be targets or proposers of a takeover.
I said earlier that this process has required consultation not only with the industry but also with COAG. I note that the elements of the bill which needed to be considered by the Ministerial Council for Corporations have been so considered, and the council has given its approval. Not only has the parliamentary secretary achieved a great step forward in providing improvements in regulations covering company reporting, fund raising, takeovers and compliance; he has been able to bring with him the other Australian governments involved in the COAG process. So the government has made good progress in this regard, and I look forward to many more meaningful changes of this sort coming forth from the government.
As I indicated at the outset, the process of eliminating red tape continues. We cannot drop the ball on this and governments need to continue the process. We can all stand up and say, ‘Oh, yes, we will get rid of red tape,’ as the Leader of the Opposition has done, but to specify how you will do it is where it comes down to the devil being in the detail. The glib statement, ‘Yes, I will wipe out red tape,’ might impress the member for Prospect but it does not impress the industry, which relies not only on the government’s regulations for its credibility but also, in effect, on the government’s good management for its profits. If you want to have a competitive industry it has to be accessed easily. In this regard the government has the balance right. I commend the parliamentary secretary and thank him for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
Today I wish to deal with the simpler regulatory components, especially the disclosure aspect of the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007. The bill will amend the Corporations Act 2001 and related acts and regulations in order to simplify Australia’s corporate and financial services law. The proposals for the bill were outlined in the ‘Corporate and Financial Services Regulation Review—Proposals Paper’, released in 2006. Today’s legislation is part of the government’s response to some of the recommendations made by the Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business in its report Rethinking Regulation, the Banks report. Most of the proposals are in line with Labor’s approach to reducing the red-tape burden on business.
In respect of disclosure documentation issued under the Financial Services Reform Act, providers have generally been issuing advice documents of up to 100 pages. They are complex, costly and essentially unreadable to most consumers. The proposed bill represents a partial reduction in the expansion of lengthy documentation under the Howard government. To this end, Labor supports the bill.
Since being appointed to the shadow consumer affairs portfolio, it has become clear to me that dealing with the information asymmetry between consumers and product suppliers is a key aspect of empowering Australian consumers. Time and again I am confronted with stories from consumers who feel they have been duped into taking out an insurance policy, getting into a get-quick-rich scheme, entering into a financial plan that does not suit their circumstances, or even subscribing to floats that they do not understand.
I am not surprised, nor are the numerous consumer advocates I have met with. Open any product disclosure statement for a simple product such as motor vehicle insurance and you will be confronted with an extremely complex and confusing set of terms describing what should in reality be quite simple. Indeed, the average disclosure document for motor vehicle insurance now runs to at least 50 pages—almost a book. It is not at all surprising that consumers are constantly reporting that they are confused and unable to comprehend what is before them. Bridging the information asymmetry between consumers and sellers requires significant simplification. A starting point is making communication documents more efficient and easy to read and, hence, better understood by the consumer. This surely was a key objective of the Financial Services Reform Act.
Since its deregulation in the early 1980s, the Australian financial services sector has been characterised by a cascading and often interweaving set of guidelines, laws and principles designed to uphold the integrity of a marketplace which is often chaotic, unpredictable and open to abuse. Given the enormous impact that a decline in the integrity of this market may cause the economy, Australian governments have given special attention to constantly reviewing and reassessing the various laws which govern the sector. At the disposal of government is the principal instrument for governing the financial sector—that is, the Corporations Act 2001. Whilst the Corporations Act stands as the key regulatory instrument, it does so as a result of a very wide and diverse set of regulations which make up the pluralist tapestry that is financial services regulation. The financial sector is governed by Commonwealth laws and state laws, by federal regulation and state regulation, and by agencies such as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the federal Treasury and numerous industry sponsored self-regulatory guidelines and regulator issued practice guide notes.
In trawling the vast sea of financial services regulation, there appears to be no shortage of highly confusing prescriptions such as ‘clear, concise and effective’, ‘fair and reasonable’, ‘practicable’, ‘adequate’. To an extent this is what the great English legal philosopher Herbert Hart referred to as the laws’ ‘core of uncertainty’. As well as setting in place rules of practice and operation, much of the body of financial services regulation is concerned with resolving uncertainties by making definitions tighter.
The Wallis financial systems inquiry sought to create ‘a flexible regulatory structure which is to be more responsive to the forces for change operating in the financial system’. This enterprise was promulgated through the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program process, CLERP, which more or less overhauled most aspects of the financial system in Australia. CLERP 6, which went on to become the Financial Services Reform Act, was the most important reform as it initiated a system of co-regulation the success of which remains questionable.
The nature of the FSRA licensing system is such that it relies very heavily on the provision of privately sponsored codes of conduct and dispute resolution structures. In affect, ASIC have little inclination to act as enforcers. This is demonstrated by the looming catastrophe in property investments which seem to have occurred right under the nose of ASIC. As a result of evidence coming from the recently conducted Senate estimates, my colleague Senator Sherry has gone as far as saying in a recent media statement:
The Howard Government’s central protection for consumers of financial services—the disclosure regime—is next to useless.
Complex and lengthy documents, often between 50 and 100 pages are unreadable to most people.
They failed to protect investors in Westpoint, Fincorp and Australian Capital Reserve.
… … …
After two so-called ‘refinements’ of the disclosure regime, the Howard Government still does not get it.
A total overhaul of disclosure documentation is urgently required.
Simple, readable, standardised, no longer than 3-4 pages on a product by product basis, focusing on fees, return and risk level must be key elements of reform.
Kevin Rudd, the Labor Leader, highlighted Labor policy to overhaul the regime in his recent budget reply speech.
ASIC relies very heavily on industry systemic reporting in order to investigate malpractice. ASIC also relies very heavily on external disputes resolution reporting to assess where key problems lie. Given the hundreds of billions invested by Australian consumers, it surely follows that government should not merely rely on industry systemic reporting and an equally weak surveillance system. Instead it must act more vigorously by taking enforcement action whenever necessary. The debacle around Fincorp may have been avoided had ASIC acted earlier or been more decisive. In his second reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, who is in charge of this legislation, stated:
Today I introduce a package of measures that will further deliver on the government’s commitment to reducing red tape. This bill will make the corporate and financial services regulatory system simpler.
The most troubling aspect of this statement is the fact that the parliamentary secretary views disclosure standards to consumers as an extension of red tape. This is not so. When properly conceived, disclosure has the potential to redress the information asymmetry I mention above. Nevertheless, I certainly concur that statements of advice running into the hundreds of pages are clearly inefficient and have the potential to confuse and mislead. I note that poorly written SOAs and poor advice have been the basis for hundreds of complaints that have been before the Financial Industry Complaints Service. In their submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into business red tape, the Australian Consumers Association, Choice, stated:
We want as little regulation as possible—but as much as is needed. The idea that the size of the problem can be measured by the amount of regulation in the statute books—the ‘quantity theory of regulation’—is dangerously simplistic. Much of the regulation introduced in the past 20 years has been required by new developments in technology, markets, demography, societal expectations or government policy.
The public interest should be the fundamental motivation of regulatory decision-making in the market sphere. In particular, will consumers benefit from regulation? A test for successful regulation should therefore hinge on a broad test of consumer interest. Ultimately consumers endure the burden of both failed regulation either as victims of market failure or increased prices resulting from compliance costs.
Whilst it is important for government to consider the cost of regulation on all business, nevertheless, the guiding motivation underpinning any regulation or government reform should always be the public benefit. Again, in their submission to the task force, Choice argued:
The public interest should be the fundamental motivation of regulatory decision-making in the market sphere. In particular, will consumers benefit from regulation? A test for successful regulation should therefore hinge on a broad test of consumer interest. Ultimately consumers endure the burden of both failed regulation either as victims of market failure or increased prices resulting from compliance costs.
This bill seeks to simplify the provision of SOAs. This is welcome. However, it is not enough. The current system is not working well. Consumers are bombarded with enormously complex disclosure documents that seem to cause confusion as opposed to clarity. Again I defer to Choice. They argue:
Much regulation in financial services is founded on the basis of an assumption that consumers and businesses will use information optimally. As a result, there is a strong tendency towards ‘disclosure’ as the regulatory answer to market problems in financial services. If a market problem emerges, it can simply be addressed by providing more information to consumers, who will use that information optimally in decision making. If the problem persists, then it must be because the quantity or type of disclosure was inadequate, so the regulatory response is to require more disclosure or to engage in endless tinkering with the disclosure requirements. New market failures can also be addressed by more disclosure. In effect a huge burden has been placed on disclosure to solve a wide range of complex market problems.
Ironically, having vigorously supported disclosure as the main tool in addressing information asymmetry, industry and government now recognise that there is such a thing as over-disclosure. A Rudd Labor government will be committed to an efficient and responsive disclosure regime. We also recognise that mere tinkering with disclosure standards is not enough to empower consumers. Consumer empowerment requires strong disclosure standards. It also requires strong laws that deal with unfair contracts, unconscionable conduct, misleading and deceptive behaviour, quick and easy access to compensation and refunds where industry is found to be in breach of the law, as well as access to dispute resolution. Labor supports this bill’s intention for the provision of simplified statements of advice.
in reply—I would like to thank very much those honourable members who have taken part in this debate on the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007 and the supporting bills. This government is serious about ensuring that unnecessary regulatory requirements do not hold Australia’s businesses back. The creation of the Office of Best Practice Regulation and the changes to the processes for making new regulations such as regulatory impact assessment are helping to refine future regulatory proposals and better inform regulatory decision making.
In the field of corporate and financial services regulation, maintaining market confidence and integrity is a critical priority. In cutting red tape in this area, the interests of investors remain a central focus. The simpler regulatory system bills bring together in one package a number of diverse initiatives in the corporate and financial services fields that will reduce red tape for business, while retaining—and I stress this—important protections for investors.
The bill is the result of a process that involved engaging stakeholders at an early stage. In April 2006 a consultation paper was prepared, raising a number of issues, which led to a proposals paper in November 2006. Over 100 submissions on the proposals paper helped in refining the detailed proposals to the point of converting them into this legislative package. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission also made a significant contribution to finetuning a number of the proposals.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all stakeholders for their contributions and for helping to ensure that the initiatives in the bill achieve the important balance—that ever-important balance—between, on the one hand, maintaining investor protection and, on the other hand, enhancing business productivity. The current inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the package presents an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the details of the bill. I look forward to the committee presenting its report in a timely manner.
We have heard from the member for Reid and the member for Prospect. Whilst I did find the member for Prospect’s contribution to be very disappointing, cynical, supercilious and negative—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am an optimist and I am a positive person, so I would like to respond in a positive sense—I would like to mention some of the key areas that he touched on. He talked about the financial services industry apparently not thinking that this bill was very serious or very important. I find that surprising, because since I introduced this package into the parliament I have received overwhelming positive feedback from stakeholders. For example, the Business Council of Australia welcomed the introduction of the bills and the review process, which involved extensive consultation. Let me quote just a little of what the BCA said. They said:
This is a good example of a review of existing legislation to determine whether it remains effective and efficient, with amendments to ensure that unnecessary costs are not imposed on business ...
I was also surprised that the member for Prospect was so ferocious in his comments, because the Investment and Financial Services Association has issued a press release welcoming the reforms, the Financial Planning Association of Australia has issued a media release welcoming the reforms, the Australian Bankers Association has issued a media release welcoming the reforms, and the Securities and Derivatives Industry Association of Australia has issued a release welcoming the reforms. Unfortunately, I think what the member for Prospect has demonstrated through his diatribe is actually his lack of understanding about the industry. I am not sure who it is he has been chatting with, but he is clearly out of touch.
The member for Prospect also talked about the Leader of the Opposition’s plan for reducing red tape. With the greatest of respect and, again, without wanting to be negative, all we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition is a bunch of words—empty words—no detail whatsoever: no detail as to how, when, where or who would be involved in these so-called wonderful reforms that they put forward. Fundamentally, the difference between the Liberal-National coalition government and the ALP is that we are actually doing something. We are actually getting on with the business of protecting Australian consumers and ensuring that Australian businesses can continue to grow and prosper.
This package offers a combination of measures that simplify and streamline processes. They will produce reduced compliance costs and, therefore, greater business efficiency. It is important to stress again that they will do this while at the same time improving access to financial advice and enhancing investor participation. The key initiatives involved in reducing costs are associated with distributing annual reports—they do this by better enabling companies to distribute them through the internet—and reducing the costs associated with providing financial advice, particularly for relatively small-scale investments. Other measures target removing unnecessary burdens in the areas of fund raising, takeovers, financial reporting and overall corporate governance.
Again I want to thank all of the stakeholders who have helped form this particular bill. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the departmental officials, many of whom are in the chamber today. I thank them very much for all of their hard and dedicated work, as I thank my own personal staff in my office. They have all worked well together to come up with this package of reforms that are major and substantial. In conclusion, the initiatives in this package will allow Australia’s companies to spend more time on productive activities that contribute to our nation’s economic growth and prosperity. The government would like the package to pass the parliament swiftly. We want this to happen so that the benefits of the streamlined, simpler framework can be realised as soon as possible. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Pearce:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Pearce:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Mr Brough:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 relates to a number of the government’s recent budget measures, including those relating to child care, the one-off increase in the childcare benefit and the change of the childcare rebate from a tax offset to a direct payment. Labor supports these initiatives insofar as they go to helping families with the spiralling costs of child care, and we support this bill. However, we do believe that for 11 very long years the government has ignored the concerns of many Australian families, especially when it comes to their difficulties in finding affordable, high-quality and accessible child care. We believe the government has certainly not done enough to support families with the cost of child care, nor to help the early learning and development of those children. Accordingly, I move the following second reading amendment:
That all 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:
This bill implements two of the government’s budget measures on child care. The first is a one-off increase in the childcare benefit; the second will convert the childcare tax rebate from a tax offset into a direct payment administered by Centrelink.
We certainly welcome this extra support for Australian families, and we also welcome the fact that the government have finally acknowledged that there is a crisis in the affordability of child care in Australia—something that they have consistently denied. You would have to say that this is more of a pre-election fix than any real understanding of the many difficulties families face when it comes to the costs of child care.
Australian families are very right to be sceptical of the government’s genuine understanding of the cost pressures that they face, because for too long the government has insisted that there was no problem with childcare affordability in this country. I will illustrate this point by giving a couple of recent examples. Earlier this year, the Commonwealth Treasury said of the Australian childcare system:
... contrary to popular perceptions, there is not an emerging crisis in the sector; supply is generally keeping pace with demand and—
and I emphasise this point—
child care has remained affordable.
That was said by the Commonwealth Treasury earlier this year. The Treasury paper went on to say:
... unmet consumer preferences represent more of a problem for parents than access itself.
In other words, the Commonwealth Treasury is saying: ‘There’s nothing wrong with child care; no problems with access, no problems with cost. It’s really just that parents are too choosy.’ I have to say that this is the most outrageous and arrogant dismissal of parents—a dismissal that we have seen repeated by many government ministers, who really do not understand how critical this issue is for parents. I will come back to this question of parental choice a little later in my remarks.
The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mr Brough, claimed recently that paying high fees was not too much for families because, he claimed, few people have more than one child in formal care. Yet figures from his own department show that one-third of families receiving the childcare benefit have two or more children in child care. Plainly, the minister for families does not understand the cost pressures on Australian families who are juggling caring for their children, meeting the costs of child care and returning to work or study.
Of course, we cannot forget the Prime Minister’s remarks just a few months ago, when he said, ‘Working families in Australia have never been better off.’ Plainly, he does not know those working families who are paying very substantial amounts for the cost of child care. The Prime Minister is normally pretty careful with his words. We know this is the case; he is a very, very clever politician. But this was yet another indication that he is slipping. One of the reasons for that is that he has been Prime Minister now for 11 years. I think these comments represent a further example of just how arrogant the government have become. They think that things are just so good for families; that families should not complain. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, they have never had it so good.
It does seem to be the case—and I am sure many families struggling with the cost of child care would say—that after 11 years in power, this government is more and more out of touch with the realities faced by thousands of working families, who are facing not only the increasing costs of child care but also are struggling to keep up with their mortgage repayments and the increasing cost of petrol to keep their car running. All of these things are putting increasing pressure on so many families.
After all of these statements, after months—in fact, years—of families being told by the Prime Minister and his ministers that there is no problem with childcare affordability, that they have never been better off, families are right to be sceptical when, just moments before an election, we see the government scrambling to do something about spiralling childcare costs. I want to take a moment to recall just how much families have been paying for child care in Australia over the last four years. Let us look at how much their childcare costs have risen, so that we can put this pre-election childcare benefit increase into perspective.
The average cost of child care in Australia is $240 a week. However, we know that in some cases fees are as high as $350 per child per week. Childcare costs have been rising five times faster than the average cost of all other goods and services. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, out-of-pocket childcare costs for families in the past four years have increased by 12.7 per cent, then 12 per cent, then another 12 per cent and almost 13 per cent last year. Independent analysis by Saul Eslake from the ANZ Bank undertaken for the Taskforce on Care Costs shows that childcare affordability has declined by 50 per cent in the last five years. We have had year-on-year increases in childcare costs of more than 12 per cent and then moments before an election, when the government is under some political heat, a pre-election 10 per cent bonus appears. Parents understandably will be very sceptical about it. Juliet Burke, the chair of the Taskforce on Care Costs, whose own research indicates that costs are rising on average by 13 per cent per annum, said after the budget:
Increasing the child care benefit by 10 per cent takes parents back to the position they were in a year ago.
Of course the opposition supports this increase in childcare benefit, belated as it may be. Any help that the government provides for families is welcome, even if it is long overdue. Like parents, however, we are sceptical about the government’s sincerity and doubt, given its many statements on in these issues, that it has any real understanding of the pressures on families when it comes to the cost of child care, largely because it keeps denying that there is any problem.
The opposition’s other concern is that this one-off increase will not make a real difference to affordability for families if it is swallowed up by increased childcare fees. An article in today’s Queensland Courier Mail quotes the Tigger’s Place Preschool and Kindergarten at Logan announcing to parents that it is already increasing its fees by 10 per cent. The legislation has not even been passed by this parliament and a childcare centre is increasing its fees by 10 per cent—the same amount as the government’s childcare benefit bonus. The centre wrote to parents recently to explain the increase and stated:
The government has increased the CCB rate from $2.96 to $3.37 an hour. This will make our fee increase a lot more affordable to families.
As the headline in the Courier Mail states, ‘Fee rise to slice childcare rebate’. This is even before the legislation has been passed. Already the benefit of the increase this bill is seeking to implement will be eaten up by higher fees for families using this childcare centre. The newspaper article went on to say:
The nation’s largest child care provider, ABC Learning, is also set to increase fees.
The newspaper does not report what the increases will be, but we on this side of the House are concerned that families across the country will miss out on the benefits of the childcare benefit increase because childcare operators will use this one-off bonus to net a windfall gain and parents will be left with the bill.
I raised this issue with the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs during consideration in detail of the appropriations bill in the Main Committee last night. He said last weekend that he would not be a ‘casual bystander’ if centres increase their fees in this way. The minister is now saying that he will publicise the fee increases in an attempt, I suppose, to name and shame operators. I would certainly like to ensure that all parents are informed of these increases. I call on the minister to honour the commitment that he gave last night and release all details of childcare fee increases that he or his office is aware of. As he becomes more aware of these fee increases I ask that he make it publicly known. Parents have a right to know if their childcare fees are increasing and by how much. Of course they also want to know what the government is going to do about it.
Another report in a newspaper today also puts paid to yet another claim by this minister and the government. The minister has been very quick to claim that there is no problem—he is absolutely definite about this—in finding a childcare place in Australia. Parents know the reality and they do not believe for one minute these denials by the minister. The minister said in the parliament two days ago:
There is no shortage of child care for the zero to two age group, preschool age or any other age.
That was a very categorical statement from the minister. However, his claims have been shown to be completely false in an article in today’s Daily Telegraph with a headline that speaks for itself: ‘Yes, there really is a crisis—waiting lists refute government’s childcare claim’. The article describes the situation faced by residents in Sydney, particularly in the electorate of the member for Wentworth. The article describes the situation best, so I will quote directly from it:
ALMOST 900 children trying to squeeze into fewer than 70 places, an average waiting time of more than two years and parents on the phone in tears but the Federal Government says there is no childcare crisis here.
This is the Waverley Child Care Centre, the face of Sydney’s childcare crisis and possibly the most in-demand daycare centre in the country.
A total of 895 children are currently waiting for just 68 places. Most will have to wait at least two years, many will simply never get a place at all.
And it is not alone. The other two centres operated by Waverley Council have about 50 places and waiting lists of about 700 children each.
“You actually have people on the phone crying,” children’s services coordinator ... told The Daily Telegraph.
The children’s services coordinator also said:
... the situation for places for newborns to two year olds was desperate.
So we have direct evidence that contradicts Minister Brough’s statements in this House just two days ago when he said that there was no shortage of child care and, in particular, emphasised—demonstrating just how out of touch he is—that there was no shortage in the nought to two age group. I hope for his own sake that the member for Wentworth does not share Minister Brough’s arrogant view that there is no childcare shortage, certainly in the Wentworth electorate.
The minister makes these claims at his own peril. Firstly, he admitted in the Main Committee yesterday that his information collection does not break down vacancies by age group, so he does not actually know whether there are vacancies in the nought to two age group, nor is he able to make the claim that there are no shortages at all. He is misleading parents in many places who are desperate for high-quality care. The second problem for the minister is that he makes these claims that there are no shortages based on his own decision that parents should take whatever child care is available even if it is not what they want for their child. The minister admitted in the Main Committee yesterday that when he says there are childcare vacancies in a particular area he refers to availability in both family day care and long day care. So when he says that there are vacancies in any particular part of Australia and insists that there really is care available, he is ignoring the preferences for family day care or long day care or for a particular type of care that parents might want. Minister Brough’s claims about vacancies are premised on ignoring parental choice. In contrast, Labor supports parents’ choices as to the type of child care they want for their children.
We believe there should be a range of care settings available and that all should meet the highest quality standards. Unlike the government we are not in the business of telling parents that they should take one option for their child if they prefer another or if they think that a different form or place of care is better for their child. We are certainly not in the business of denying the reality for many parents that they cannot find the child care they need. Labor, in contrast to the government, have committed to addressing the shortage of child care in Australia. We have committed to a $200 million investment to build up to 260 new high-quality childcare centres, on either primary school sites or other community land, because we want child care to be affordable, accessible and of the highest quality.
The other childcare measure from the budget that is in this bill is to change the childcare tax rebate from a tax offset into a direct payment administered by Centrelink. These amendments to the childcare rebate are simply the government finally delivering on a promise made at the last election. The coalition’s 2004 election childcare policy document said:
Legislation will need to be passed to enable families to receive payment of the 30 per cent child-care rebate from 1 July 2005.
But after the election, as parents in particular know, the Treasurer reneged on this promise. He made families wait until 1 July 2006 to receive their childcare rebate for the 2004-05 financial year. Parents have had to wait up to two years to get some relief for their childcare costs through this childcare rebate. These amendments we are debating today are only delivering on the coalition’s original 2004 promise rather than leaving families in limbo for up to two years. The government should also be more honest with families who are accessing the rebate about the number who are likely to receive the payment of $8,000—some people might remember that banner headline screaming at everyone one Sunday morning just before the recent budget. In the recent Senate estimates hearing, officials from the families department admitted that the average rebate would be $813, not $8,000. Minister Brough admitted a few days ago that many families would only receive between $300 and $500 from the rebate. Very few families are likely to receive payments of the order that the government claimed before the budget. Not $8,000 a child; $800 a family—that is the reality, stripped of the spin. I have tried a few times to get the government to own up to how many families will get the $8,000 and, not surprisingly, the government has not been able to tell us how many families will get that extraordinary figure. The reality is that the average is around $800, and I think families will be sorely disappointed when they see that at the end of the financial year.
Labor supports the decision to pay the rebate through Centrelink to make sure that low-income families will be able to get this assistance in accessing childcare benefit. Nevertheless, it will still be the case that families will have to wait until the end of the financial year to get the new childcare rebate. We know that since the budget the minister has said that he hopes that by 2009—a couple of years away yet—the new childcare rebate will be paid fortnightly. Of course, what Labor wants to know is whether or not the childcare management system that is being put in place will in fact enable this to occur. Parents certainly would welcome this rebate being paid fortnightly rather than having to wait until the end of the financial year. Given the government’s history on the childcare tax rebate, parents are understandably just a little sceptical of any promises that the government makes in this area.
What is blatantly clear in both of these areas is that we have a government that really only bothers to do something about childcare costs in an election year. And, true to form, in this election year the government is planning yet another round of taxpayer funded advertising, on child care. During recent Senate estimates hearings, officials from the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs admitted that a print and electronic media advertising campaign is planned to sell the government’s childcare changes and that this campaign would be up and running by the end of July. The officers also admitted that whilst they:
... have not had a program approved yet—
they also admitted that—
... letters to families are already starting to be mailed out ...
So the advertising program was not approved but they were in the process of mailing letters out to families. We have heard this before, no doubt we will hear it again from this government. There will be more taxpayer funded advertising, coming on top of the near $2 billion this government has spent on ads promoting itself since coming to office.
I ask the minister to actually come into the House during his summing up and provide the full details of the planned advertising campaign that is now, as we understand it, underway to sell these childcare measures to the public, including the full costs and the expected duration. If the government holds true to form, it will be more taxpayers’ money going on a political advertising campaign. That is sadly what we have all come to expect from this out-of-touch and increasingly arrogant government.
In addition to the two childcare measures I have previously mentioned, the bill also amends the Social Security Act to allow all students who received the carer allowance child healthcare card at the time they turned 16 years of age to continue to have access to a healthcare card while they are full-time students until they reach the age of 25. At present only those students who qualify for a low-income healthcare card or an alternative income support payment, such as the disability support pension, have access to a concession card after they turn 16 years of age. This measure will help about 25,000 full-time students who are ex-recipients of carer allowance child, and we certainly support this extension. We believe fundamentally that all Australians should be able to get an education, and this measure will help more young people with a disability to remain in education beyond the age of 16. We do think that it is a very good measure.
One area where the government failed to move in this recent budget was to provide a comprehensive agenda for early childhood education. Labor want a future for Australian children where their care and development are matters of national importance. I have spoken many times on the value of early childhood education, and I will not repeat here today the volumes of very well documented research that support Labor’s arguments in this area. But I will remind the House that, under this government, Australia spends the least in the OECD on preprimary education. We get the wooden spoon. We only spend 0.1 per cent of GDP, compared to the OECD average of 0.5 per cent. And according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 100,000 four-year-olds in Australia do not attend preschool. There is no coherent policy agenda from the government, no clear direction, no desire by this minister to actually make sure that these Australian children attend preschool.
By way of contrast, the Labor opposition are providing the fresh policy ideas needed in this area. We do believe that early childhood programs are an opportunity for foundational growth that all Australian children should have, and we intend to provide it to them. We have committed to providing all four-year-olds with 15 hours of early learning a week for up to 40 weeks per year. We will provide $450 million each year in new Commonwealth spending to make sure that this occurs, and also to make sure this service expansion does not increase fees for parents.
We do want a fresh agenda for our young children. We want to make sure that child care is accessible and affordable for parents and is maintained to the highest quality standards. We also want to see early learning and development integrated with high-quality care to make sure that our children are set on a path to future health and prosperity.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
It is a pleasure to be part of this debate today and to welcome the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, which gives effect to some important measures from the budget this year. It is welcome news for families across Australia, not least for those in my electorate of Blair. I note that the opposition’s spokesperson spent some time reading from the newspaper in her speech and I would like to retaliate with some articles that I read this morning. The Australian has a large article talking about how Australian families are better off as a result of the tax reforms and other changes that the government has made. This goes directly to the debate that we are having today, because the fundamental proposition being put forward in the article on the front page of the Australian today is that:
... only 40 per cent of households actually pay any net tax, after the value of all government benefits is counted.
The average household pays total taxes of $360 a week, but gets back $375 in both cash benefits and government services, such as health and education. Tax raised from the corporate sector covers the difference.
After taking account of inflation, real incomes rose by 8.9 per cent over five years, while the value of government services rose by an additional 7.2 per cent, with big increases in government spending on pharmaceuticals, community health services and other health benefits.
We are discussing the issues that confront families in Australia every day about child care, raising children, and affording the necessities of life. It is what has been called the ‘barbecue stopper’—the work-family balance. I heard from the opposition spokesman a lot of words about policies but, to be honest, particularly when it comes to the question of education, the opposition has been pushed to the periphery of the debate and are playing catch-up on points on which the government has a well-established track record. On several of these points, the opposition has in the past pooh-poohed government initiatives and discounted them as being unnecessary or in some way frivolous and are now being forced to come back and confront the inadequacy of their own position in the past. It is a welcome position when they come back and start looking again at education and at these kinds of issues. But it does them no credit to criticise the government when, really, they are coming back and following along in the government’s wake.
Another point that was made in this morning’s Australian newspaper, under the heading ‘Tax take helping Howard battlers’, was that savings from the reduced cost of maintaining unemployment benefits have been redirected into an increase in family benefits, which have risen from $20 per household a week to $28, and in the age pension. The study also shows there is a massive recycling of tax and cash benefits from the rich to the poor. It says:
The poorest segment of the population by contrast—
with the best paid segment of the population—
pays just $22 in tax and gets $300 a week in cash benefits.
That brings a smile to your face, I can see, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop. This is a very effective policy that assists young families, and in this legislation that we are reviewing here today we are talking about child care and we are talking about families and how they cope under the improved tax regimes introduced by the Commonwealth and the increased support for child care provided by the Howard government.
I found a very interesting fact in doing research for this debate. The opposition are very keen, on occasion, to quote activities happening in the OECD or in other situations, but they have become less willing to do that in recent times, because quite obviously Australia is performing so well by comparison with the rest of the OECD that those sorts of comparisons are no longer popular among members of the ALP. However, I would like to discuss something about the OECD. What I have discovered is that the OECD has found that Australia has higher levels of subsidy support for parents’ childcare choices than comparable nations. The OECD estimated that, in Australia, the government contributed, on average, around 60 per cent of parents’ childcare costs, where other comparable nations were more likely to contribute about one-third. That is the first thing. Also, a non-government Taskforce on Care Costs before this year’s budget—before these measures were taken into account—showed that many families earning under $80,000 a year were receiving more than 47 per cent of their costs from the taxpayer. The government has a very proud record in relation to child care, and I compliment the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs on his efforts to take it further ahead, particularly the measures that are contained in this budget.
Some post-budget modelling has been conducted by the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs which found a range of very interesting things about these new measures. For example, for some low-income families returning to work and receiving JET childcare fee assistance, the government contributes more than 98 per cent to the total fee. Also, the subsidy for common working family types using approved long day care will be between 55 per cent and 93 per cent of the fee as a result of the increased childcare benefit and the improved childcare tax rebate, which we have heard is now going to be paid by way of a direct payment. So a common example of a working family on a combined family income of $60,000, using part-time care for one or two children, showed they had between 55 and 79 per cent of their fee subsidised, depending on the centre they used. As we have heard referred to on occasion in this House recently, this modelling has been conducted using what is a relatively high fee figure of $350. So it shows that the government is making a very solid impact, and the very real measures of assistance that I referred to in relation to the tax environment provided by the government are also important.
But I would like to just speak generally about how families are benefiting from the strong economic conditions that have been provided as a result of fundamental reforms pursued by this government with direct opposition from the Labor Party over the past 11 years. These achievements have happened because of the efforts of the government and despite the efforts of the opposition, not with any assistance from them.
There are now more Australians in work than at any other time in history, with seasonally adjusted employment surging by 39,400 in May to stand at a record high of 10,453,800. Full-time employment increased by 66,800 in May to a record of 7,530,000. A while ago it was popular among the members of the Labor Party to talk about how all the jobs that were being created in our country were part-time jobs. Since the advent of Work Choices—since the industrial relations reforms implemented by the government—that has been turned on its ear, and you do not hear that argument from Labor any more. Why? Because people are getting full-time jobs. In the context of this debate about families, there is easier access to family-friendly hours. There are more people taking up jobs where they work 25 or 30 hours a week. Although that is a part-time job—and there are more people taking up full-time jobs—people are being taken into these family-friendly jobs. That means that women who might have had children are being lured back into the workforce not only by more jobs with higher pay but by the opportunities to make use of hours that suit them and their families. It is what they want to do.
This is the environment that the government has delivered by providing for workplace flexibility. The government’s family-friendly measures have delivered a scenario within which families can be more confident when they pursue child care and they can do it in a less stressed environment because of those flexible measures that the government has introduced. The female participation rate is at the highest level on record, 57.5 per cent. When people look back and say, ‘Unemployment was at two per cent after the war; if only we could get back to that,’ it is worth nothing that we did not have then the kind of workplace we have now. In 1966, when I was a young whipper-snapper, my mother was one of the first teachers allowed to go back to work after having been married—an incredible occurrence in those days. Prior to that time, when women married they said goodbye to their jobs and they did not go back. It was only in 1966 that that started to change. It was way before then that a two per cent unemployment figure was achieved.
The female participation rate, at 57.5 per cent, is the highest on record. Of the 309,600 jobs created since the introduction of Work Choices, 134,300 have been filled by women. This is a very fast-moving process which has seen many more women enter the workforce, and many more women are making these choices. Against that environment the government is making very real advances in the provision of child care. We on this side of the House deserve special credit not only for providing the environment that encourages the work but also for facilitating the work by providing support for child care and incentives for people, and women in particular, to take a greater part in the workforce.
I do not want to continue for too much longer on the conditions that apply to the employment of women but, interestingly, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has shown that there has been a narrowing of the wage gap between men and women. That is significant. Once again, the government’s measures have supported the movement of women into the workforce. That is a good thing, and long may it be so. The Melbourne Institute’s wages report of May 2007 showed that employees on individual contracts experienced an average increase of 6.8 per cent compared with an average of 3.4 per cent for those on enterprise agreements and 2.6 per cent for employees on the safety net or the award. I throw that in because this is the fundamental point about workplace flexibility. Workplace flexibility is advantageous not just for the traditional blue-collar workers—it is not something that happens only in mines; it is happening all over our economy—but for women as well as men. From these flexible conditions they are getting more money, not less, and they are finding family-friendly opportunities to support them as well.
There will be an increase of 10 per cent in the childcare benefit from 1 July. Child care was an important focus of the 2007-08 budget, and the expenditure included a $2.1 billion investment to help families with their childcare costs. The government is investing $11 billion in child care over the next four years, with a 10 per cent increase in the rate of childcare benefit from 1 July—730,000 families will benefit from that change, and that is just the first part. This is of significance to people in my electorate as well as across Australia. In my electorate, 7.3 per cent of the population are aged under five and 16.5 per cent of the population are aged between five and 14. There is a demand for child care in the electorate of Blair, but I do not agree with the opposition when it says that places are not available. There are different types of child care that people can access. If you want a particular type of care, you might encounter difficulties—I have experienced that myself locally—but there are places available and in this area the government has demonstrated continual improvement.
If only the government is empowered to continue with its program, to continue with the good, sound economic management that it has delivered, the availability of those places will continue to improve, the availability of support for child care will strengthen and the opportunities will improve. But, if it goes the other way, if the Labor Party and the unions are given power over our country, then we are heading for an economic disaster zone. Support for child care cannot be retained if the government is plunging into debt and if the economy gets into difficulty. One of the things that I think is most significant is the way in which the Labor Party continually say to people, ‘Imagine if there is a downturn,’ and then they threaten people about their jobs and their security if there is a downturn. I know one way of guaranteeing a downturn, and that is to put the Labor Party in power. You would have a self-fulfilling prophecy courtesy of the Labor Party.
Dependent on the incomes that people have, the investment that the government has made in their childcare costs will mean up to an additional $20 a week for families to help them cope with childcare costs. The childcare benefit gives parents a choice about working—it provides the resources to allow them to do so and alleviates the expense.
The member opposite spoke about the change in the way the rebate is paid. The fact is that there is a bonus for families who paid for child care in 2005-06 and 2006-07. They will receive two payments after 1 July: one through the tax rebate system and one through the family assistance system that this bill implements. That is $8,000 worth of assistance. There is just one point that was not covered by the member opposite, and I am disappointed that it was not. I would like to flip to that now. The bill helps young people with disabilities and severe medical conditions by giving them access to the healthcare card from 1 October 2007. Twenty-five thousand full-time students aged 16 to 25 who used to be carer allowance child receivers may be eligible for the card in their own right. Previously, unless they qualified for a low-income healthcare card or had access to income support related concession cards, they were not eligible until after they were 16. So this will help them through their education, reducing their costs and giving them more long-term opportunities. I am disappointed that was not covered by the member opposite, but I think it is very important that we focus on that matter and give support to all members in the community, particularly in relation to child care and disability support.
There is a political saying that the government obviously knows only too well. It goes along the lines of: ‘You can fool some people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.’ Members may recall that just before the last election, in 2004, this government made the promise that it would allow a tax rebate for 30 per cent of the cost of all child care. That was a big issue then, as it is today. So I am sure many working families across Australia took that promise at face value and worked out how much they would get back on the cost of child care. Many would have supported the government as a result of that promise. But guess what happened after the 2004 election? The Treasurer told us that we should look at the fine print. For a start, he said that it would not be the full cost of child care but only that part not already covered by childcare benefit, and it would be capped at $4,000 per child per year. It is very funny that we did not hear that before the last election. What sounded like a $4,000-a-year tax deduction worked out at something a lot less. To make matters worse, the Treasurer said that you could not get the rebate straightaway. You would have to wait well over a year before you actually got the money. There is another saying that is well worth noting. It goes like this: ‘Fool me once and it’s shame on you, but fool me twice and it’s shame on me.’
Working families might be excused for being a bit suspicious about anything that the Prime Minister might promise in the lead-up to this year’s election. ‘Once bitten, twice shy,’ you might say. So the Treasurer needed to sound a lot more convincing this time around. You would not have believed this government promising anything about child care after they had ripped everyone off last time. You would not trust them again, would you? So I am sure that when the Treasurer sat down to frame this year’s pre-election budget he might have started by thinking about what he needed to fix before he could make any more promises for this election. One thing that would have been staring him in the face would have been the childcare tax rebate rip-off. The fact is that the Prime Minister could not look the Australian people straight in the eye with any sort of promise on child care after the way he handled this mess three very long years ago. So somewhere close to the top of this government’s agenda for the budget was this measure to fix part of the childcare tax rebate. We can only wonder what promises this desperate government will come up with for the election due later this year. But we should all be wary of the fine print, because we can be sure that, once again, what we finish up with will be a long way short of what the government promised.
I want to get down to the measures in the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 in detail. I took the opportunity of the budget debate to mention some parts of the changes which this bill covers, and I will now go over some of the detail of the measures and how they fit into the overall scheme of childcare assistance as it operates at the present.
The issue of assistance to working families with children is indeed—as the Prime Minister described it—a barbecue stopper. For thousands of working families across Australia the cost of child care is definitely the third biggest item on the household budget. After rent or mortgage payments and the family grocery bill, childcare costs come in at third place. In much of the Sydney area child care for two days a week can cost a family $100 a week or more, even after the childcare benefit is claimed. The effect of the childcare tax rebate, as it currently applies, reduces this amount by less than a third. That is just the start. Getting the right child care when you need it is an even bigger concern.
For the sake of this bill I will concentrate on the cost of child care to working families. We know that the average payment to families under the childcare tax rebate was $813. That would suggest that the full cost to the average family was over $2,400 a year or close to $50 a week. But I stress that $50 a week is the average, and for many working families the cost would be much higher. We should not forget that the rebate was capped at $4,000 per child per year. That is a very big sum to be out of pocket for when it takes more than a year before it is paid back under the existing legislation. Just to put that into the picture, from next month when working families start putting together their tax returns for the 2006-07 financial year they will be able to claim the cost of their childcare expenditure for the 2005-06 financial year. It will be well over 18 months from the time they paid for their child care to the time that they get their childcare tax rebate.
It really never made sense why working families were expected to wait that long before getting the childcare assistance that they so desperately needed. I cannot imagine the bank that holds their mortgage saying, ‘It is okay to not pay us any interest for 18 months.’ I cannot imagine their credit card issuer saying, ‘It is okay, you do not have to make any repayments for 18 months.’ But that is what this government has asked working families to do when it broke its 2004 election promise. To meet the cost of child care for 18 months before the government pays for any assistance is a very big ask for struggling working families. We know that the main reason for women going back to work when they have a young family is the pressure of making ends meet. High mortgage repayments mean that for many families it is necessary for both parents to return to work. Knowing this, the government has been happy to reap the economic benefits of the increased participation of women in the workforce but it has definitely failed to meet its end of the bargain. A report in the Economist looked at the economic benefits of increased participation of women in the workforce. It said:
Arguably, women are the most powerful engine of economic growth ... Over the past decade or so, the increased employment of women in developed countries has contributed much more to global growth than China has.
That is just one measure of the importance of women rejoining the workforce. As Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are chair, we inquired into the issue of balancing work and family. We looked closely at participation rates for women in the workforce in Australia and other countries. On the 2003 figures the committee found that the participation rate for women in Australia with two or more children was 56.2 per cent, compared to 61.8 per cent in the United Kingdom, 64.7 per cent in the United States, 68.2 per cent in Canada and 77.2 per cent in Denmark. In a survey of OECD participation data, Ian Campbell Sarah Charlesworth commented:
Motherhood appears to have a bigger impact in impeding employment in Australia than it does in comparable countries.
And in particular:
The absolute drop in employment rates associated with the presence of two or more dependent children in Australia is dramatic ... These data suggest that there is something distinctive about the labour market transitions in relation to Australia.
I do not want to suggest that the flawed and deceitful childcare rebate scheme is the only cause of this. For that matter, I do not think that there is a silver bullet solution. But I do know from listening to mothers, especially in my electorate, who are either in the workforce part time or considering re-entering the workforce and making decisions about how much work they do, that they place a great deal of emphasis on the cost of child care—it is a factor in their decisions. And it is not a simple calculation. As well as the cost of child care, there is the loss of family tax benefit part B and in many cases the loss of family tax benefit part A as well. The delay in payment of the childcare tax rebate is a big factor in all of this.
What the government has failed to realise in the disgraceful way that it has handled this issue is that working families know that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The promise of assistance in two years time does not put food on the table today, and that was always the fatal flaw in the childcare tax rebate. Businesses can account for deferred payments—they do not keep their accounts on a cash basis. But working families depend on their weekly cash flow, and that makes all the difference when families make decisions about a parent re-entering the workforce or increasing the number of hours worked. Those decisions will not always be based on economic factors alone.
Increasingly, I hear working families taking a longer term view. When a mother is deciding to return to work, she will weigh up the cost of child care and, if the outcome is a very small return for the effort, she will often decide that it is just not worth it. The choice is to go out to work for very little return or to stay at home and reap the benefits of family tax benefit part B and then return to work when the children are of school age. More working families are making that decision, especially in my electorate—enjoy your children in the early years and make up for the lost income when they go to school and there are no expensive childcare fees to worry about. That is one way to account for the low participation rate for women in Australia compared to other developed countries. But this comes at a great loss to the economy. We are not just talking about low-skilled women staying away from the workforce. In 1951 women made up only 20 per cent of tertiary enrolments. By 2004 women made up 54 per cent of tertiary enrolments. By failing to address the twin issues of childcare costs and balancing work and family policies, the government is throwing away the economic growth potential that can flow from increasing the participation rates of women in the workforce. The importance of this was highlighted in research presented to the family and human services committee. Access Economics made the impact of improvements to participation crystal clear when it commented on the results of its modelling, which revealed that increasing the full-time participation of women could increase per capita output by 4.4 per cent. Access Economics added the comment:
Past analysis has suggested that the tax reforms of 2000 may have added somewhere in the region of 2.5 per cent to the national income of Australians ... while promoting national competition policy may have added 5.5 per cent. Therefore, the results are revealing. They suggest that the benefits to the national income of boosting full-time female participation rank somewhere above those of tax reform and below those of promoting competition policy. Such estimates are imprecise, but they are a timely reminder of the importance of an issue that will grow with the passing of time. The potential bang for the buck in policies which help to unlock the participation and productivity of women workers is large, not merely in the longer term, but—given the current capacity constraints which the Reserve bank has highlighted—in the short-term as well.
Child care is not just a policy area suited to election gimmicks. It is not something to be played with when the government needs something to save it at the polls. It is an element of the economic policy of this country. If we get it right—and we have to get it right—according to Access Economics it can give our economy one of its greatest boosts. If we get it wrong, and that is the record of this government so far, it will cost us dearly, both in the short term and the long term.
To come back to the detail of the measures proposed in this bill, we see a one-off increase of 10 per cent for the childcare benefit but, as any parent with a child in child care would know, the cost of care has been rising faster than most other costs. The 10 per cent increase will ease the burden slightly, but will not take the family outlay on child care back to what it was five years ago, even allowing for inflation. The 10 per cent increase in childcare benefit is welcome, but it is nothing to get excited about. As I have said, unless there is some real relief from the high cost of child care, we will not see an increase in the participation rate of women in the workforce. The changes to the childcare tax rebate are also welcome and long overdue. Labor proposed the earlier payment when the original legislation was debated in this parliament two years ago. But as we have seen, it is only the prospect of annihilation at the polls that has forced the government to see the light and make the necessary changes. The proposal to change the payment from a tax rebate to a payment through Centrelink will not only avoid the earlier excuse for delays in payment but will call the payment what it really is. I have always thought it was a bit of a con calling such payments ‘tax rebates’. Maybe it goes over well at Liberal Party branch meetings, where I am told—and I have one or two friends who are members of the Liberal Party—there are calls for tax rebates for just about everything. But in reality it is a transfer payment made to families to offset the cost of child care, and we really should call it by its proper name. The other amendment deals with the extension of the healthcare card to all former carer allowance child recipients while they remain full-time students until age 25. This is a common sense measure and is supported.
As we approach another election, I am sure that childcare policies will again be centre stage. Voters were taken in last time by the government’s announcements on the childcare tax rebate and I have a feeling that they will not be so gullible this time. In any case, I would suggest that voters take the government’s announcements on child care with a grain of salt. They have seen in this sad experience that you cannot trust the government when it comes to child care. Voters will have every reason to be once bitten, twice shy.
I rise to speak on the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. I support the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga—namely, that this House notes that:
This amendment really sums up the difficulties that so many parents face in both the accessing and the affordability of child care. The bill contains some changes that the opposition and the community have been calling for over many years. The sad fact is that the Howard government has not taken child care seriously over the past 11 years; it has not been seen as a priority. Indeed it seems very convenient, some would say cynical, that a few months before an election we are seeing the Howard government finally willing to take some action and act on the concerns of thousands and thousands of families who are struggling with the rising cost of, and decreased accessibility to, child care. Every parent who has had experience of placing their children in child care can talk about the difficulties of navigating the current system of rebates and subsidies. The system is very confusing and, for the most part, very time consuming. As this situation is the case for many parents, Labor supports the bill. Any bill that gives even a fraction of help to working Australian families will always be supported by us. Even if it is only bandaid assistance provisions motivated by an election cycle, no matter how small the improvement may be, the fact that it will benefit families is indeed a good thing.
Essentially, the bill gives effect to three childcare measures. Firstly, there is to be a one-off increase of 10 per cent in the childcare benefit, without any other further indexation in 2007. This is indicative of this government’s preferred way of governing, which is one of payment rather than sustained relief from the rapidly rising costs of child care. This 10 per cent, one-off payment is supported by us. But it is worth noting, and perhaps it is worth the government paying attention, that out-of-pocket childcare costs have been rising at the rate of over 12 per cent for the past four years. This is a staggering four times the rate of inflation and it is rising five times faster than the average cost of all other goods and services. It is indeed a rapid increase.
It is obvious that Australian families need sustained support to help with out-of-pocket childcare costs, and that is exactly what federal Labor is committed to providing. From this side of the chamber the message we are sending to the government is very clear: what Australian families need is an ongoing commitment to help them deal with accessing more affordable child care. Certainly in my electorate of Richmond many families raise the issue of affordability of child care. For so many families it is just not feasible to use child care at all. This places great stress upon their families. Also, it often places great stress upon grandparents whom I speak to. They tell me that of course they love their grandchildren and want to spend time with them, but a lot of childcare needs have to be borne by them because the parents have to work and simply cannot afford child care. So affordability does place great stress upon families. As I say, it is an issue that many locals, particularly many retired people and grandparents, do raise with me. We need the government to look at the genuine concerns of Australian families with regard to child care rather than simply looking at the next election. The government needs to be properly analysing the needs of Australian families.
The second aspect of this legislation deals with the childcare tax rebate. Despite its name suggesting that it would be a good thing for families, any financial advantages are instead wiped away by the sheer complexity and delay experienced by families attempting to access it. This truly has been a nightmare for families who are struggling from week to week. Accessing the rebate has been a total debacle, as we have heard many speakers say this morning, particularly for families who are struggling from week to week and who are waiting such a long time to access that rebate when they need the money a lot sooner. Currently, the childcare tax rebate is delivered as a tax offset. This legislation will change that arrangement and convert the rebate to a direct payment to families, eliminating the costly delays in the current system.
The legislation deals with families’ long documented frustration with the current system, but it is legislation that is long overdue. Many families have suffered in the previous years while waiting to access that rebate. Again, it is motivated by the government looking at the calendar, realising an election is imminent and then remembering that it is has yet to deliver on its 2004 election promise in this area. Let us just touch on what that promise was. In 2004, the government stated clearly in its childcare policy document that ‘legislation will need to be passed to enable families to receive payment of the 30 per cent childcare rebate from 7 July 2005’. Unsurprisingly, this legislation was never passed at that stage and Australian families were forced to wait until July 2006 to receive rebates for the 2004-05 year. That was certainly a very long time to wait for money that they desperately needed.
We in the Labor Party have been talking about child care for 11 years, a very important issue of vital concern to Australian families, while the government has simply been paying lip service. In fact, processing rebates faster is a common theme from the Labor Party, with the Leader of the Opposition Leader saying in December last year that ‘working families would be able to claim childcare rebates faster under a federal Labor government’. He said that Labor would work with the childcare industry to find ways to give families the rebate much faster. I am pleased to see that the government has finally listened to the opposition and has finally acted on this. This legislation should have been brought in years ago and this problem rectified. But, unfortunately, what happened is what we have come to expect: this government had to be dragged and kicked into making sure that changes which really are vital to Australian families are made.
The final aspect of this bill deals with the healthcare card for full-time students aged between 16 and 25 who are ex-carer allowance recipients. It will extend the healthcare card availability to this group, while they remain full-time students, until the age of 25. It will provide extra support for students with a disability or medical condition and will help reduce the associated costs. At present, access to a healthcare card is limited to those who are eligible through low-income provisions or who receive some other Centrelink payment—such as the disability pension. This change will affect 25,000 full-time students between the ages of 16 and 25 and Labor welcomes and supports it. Continuing with further education, or in some cases even finishing years 11 and 12 at high school, can place a large financial burden on students. This is especially the case when one considers the increases in HECS fees, with a large proportion of students now looking at full fee paying courses, and a general underinvestment in education by this government over the past 11 years.
This is a belated bill—belated by 11 years of government inaction and belated by a government that believes that child care has nothing to do with them. Just as we often hear from this government that dental health and education have nothing to do with them, they often wipe their hands of these very important issues, and working families feel growing frustration in this area. In contrast, we in the Labor Party look to investment in our nation’s infrastructure and investment in our people. We believe in providing support for families from when their children are in child care and early education, right through to tertiary education or skills training. We believe it is good for families, good for the community and good for our country’s sustained economic growth. The Labor Party is listening to Australian families, hearing their concerns and acting on them.
This legislation contains some rather serious holes. The reality is, of course, this one-off payment will quickly be absorbed by increased costs, which, as I stated earlier, are rising more quickly than the cost of any other goods or services. The changes in accessing the tax rebate are a step in the right direction, but two years too late.
The healthcare card changes will benefit thousands of Australians who have been waiting a long time for attention from this government. In my electorate of Richmond, families have been struggling with the increased costs of child care, which is hardly surprising when we look at the fact that the average fee for child care in New South Wales is $247 per week—a staggering amount. The simple fact is that because of these exorbitant costs, families are having their options limited, especially with the rising cost of living.
For many families right across the country, particularly in Richmond, child care is not a viable option. It is something they are not able to access. This is the situation whether parents need child care to continue working on a full- or part-time basis or to retrain or attend further education. The cost of child care is becoming a major determining factor in how Australian parents bring up their families and in how they survive from day to day. We can and must do better in this vital area.
Another key concern regarding this legislation is that it fails in its entirety to address the accessibility and quality of child care—an area about which the federal government has continually been in denial, despite Australian families crying out for recognition of the problems they face. It is simply staggering that the federal Treasury stated:
... contrary to popular perceptions, there is not an emerging crisis in the sector; supply is generally keeping pace with demand and child care has remained affordable.
I implore the government to speak to thousands of Australian families and hear firsthand about their experiences of childcare accessibility and affordability. I implore the government to ask Australian families how many would agree with that analysis provided by the Treasury. I am sure Australian families, certainly those from Richmond, would give a very different opinion. I think the government would be surprised at how widespread and ingrained problems are in the current childcare system. We on this side of the chamber, however, are not surprised because we hear about those concerns every day.
As I have said, the Labor Party takes a different approach to child care and early childhood education. We see it as an investment in the future. The policies we have already announced in this area reflect this commitment. The Labor Party has announced a $200 million commitment for 260 new childcare centres on school sites in areas identified as those with real need. It is a commitment to deal practically with the problems Australian families face. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the government has failed to match this commitment—one that would make a real difference in the day-to-day lives of our children and families. It is also disappointing that the government continues to regard child care and early childhood education as two entirely separate issues. There is no doubt that these areas are linked and should go hand in hand when developing policy. It is a view backed up by not only research but also parents throughout the nation.
Labor is looking to our children’s future. Around 100,000 four-year-olds totally miss out on early childhood education—a huge number. Australia is ranked last in the OECD on investment in early childhood education, spending just 0.1 per cent of GDP on preschool education. This is simply not good enough. It is as simple and straightforward as this: if you invest in early childhood education when children are young, the investment is repaid many times over once they move through the education system.
As we know, this country is currently experiencing a massive skills shortage, which did not just suddenly occur or occur in a vacuum. It is attributable to this government’s underinvestment in education, which starts with their underinvestment in early childhood education and continues right through all levels of education. Under a Rudd Labor government, funding will be available for all four-year-olds to receive 15 hours a week of play based learning, taught by a qualified teacher, for a minimum of 40 weeks per year. This right to early education will be enshrined in new Commonwealth legislation. It will be a $450 million commitment per year to help our kids get a head start on pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills which are crucial to their development. The size of Labor’s commitment means that there will be no additional costs to parents who already struggle with the increased living costs such as high petrol prices and increased health costs. Of course, they are experiencing lower real wages due to the Howard government’s unfair and extreme industrial relations changes.
In contrast to all this, federal Labor is committed to an education revolution—some of which I have already outlined. We will also expand the number of university places to train early childhood teachers and waive all fees for TAFE courses for eligible childcare courses. These initiatives will attract many more people into what is a growing industry, and therefore benefit the entire community.
In concluding my remarks about this legislation, I emphasise that the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga highlights the areas that must be addressed now by this government. This is overdue legislation, finally delivering on a 2004 election promise. I am glad the government has finally done something.
That being said, the simple truth of the matter is that this bill does not go far enough. It is a stop-gap measure, like so many aspects of this year’s budget. Nonetheless, it is a start and, for that reason, will be supported. The government, however, do need to get serious about this issue. They need to understand the connection between child care and early childhood education and the rewards in seeing them as part of the same investment. They need to understand the day-to-day difficulties facing Australian families in terms of both accessibility and affordability and respond accordingly to those concerns. They need much greater financial commitment in this area, simply because it is a good investment in our nation rather than simply because there happens to be an election in the near future. Rather than addressing it for that reason, it needs to be done because it is a good investment in our nation’s future.
In contrast to all that, as I have said, federal Labor is committed to ensuring that our kids get the education they need and deserve. It is federal Labor that is listening to the concerns of the community, hearing about those concerns and releasing policies such as those in Labor’s Education Revolution that will address those concerns, particularly when it comes to issues in relation to child care. Making sure that our kids get the best start from that early age is so vitally important.
in reply—I thank the members that have participated in this debate. I will take issue with a few of the silly comments that those opposite have made yet again and put the facts before the public. The government’s two key childcare measures from the 2007 budget are the primary focus of the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. In turn, these childcare measures are key components of the government’s extra $2.1 billion investment to help Australian families with the cost of child care. I say that again: that is 21 thousand million dollars. That will take the total government expenditure on child care to some $11,000 million the next four years. This gives parents more choice about participating in the workforce and their children more opportunities for the quality of child care. This is not something that the coalition government have come new to. Since 1996 we have progressively increased childcare assistance to Australian families to the point now where it is more than double what it was in 1996. The number of places have doubled.
Through the first measure in this bill, the rate of childcare benefit will rise by an additional 10 per cent from 1 July 2007. This increase will be on top of the normal CPI indexation applying from that date, which means that families will have a 13 per cent increase on the current rate. In practical terms, what it means to a family using full-time child care is that they will receive up to an extra $20.50 per child per week subsidy for their childcare fees. More than 730,000 families who will benefit from the increase need to do absolutely nothing at all in order to receive this assistance. The Family Assistance Office will adjust their entitlements automatically. For families who are paid childcare benefit as a fee discount, their childcare service will pass the increase on through reduced fees. Families on lump sum payments instead will get a larger payment when they lodge their 2007-08 tax return.
The second childcare measure in this bill will convert the childcare tax rebate currently delivered through the tax system as a reduction in the family taxes liability into a direct payment by the Family Assistance Office. The current rebate allows families to claim up to 30 per cent of their out-of-pocket childcare expenses. That is up to $4,000 per child per year, indexed annually. However, delivering accurate payments through this tax based system has meant families have had to wait up to two years to claim their rebate. A further concern has been that families with low or no tax liability may not have been able to claim their full childcare tax rebate entitlement. Simply put, what that means is that families with such a low taxable income that they have no tax to offset this rebate against were missing out. By now putting it through Centrelink, whilst a family may have no tax liability, they will still receive this money, so it is going to be of direct assistance to very low-income earners. We expect that in addition to their childcare benefit they will receive in the order of $300, $400 or $500 per year per child. That is another $10 per week on top of the $20.50 that they may be expecting to receive for a child in full-time care. That is $30 a week less for their child care than they are currently paying. We will come to what they are actually paying in a moment, which puts a huge lie in what the Labor Party has been leading people to believe. An improved and more responsive rebate will apply from 1 July 2007. So parents and carers, once they have put in their tax return for the current year, will receive their rebate for the 2005-06 year, and then from September this year they will be receiving their rebate for the 2006-07 financial year through Centrelink.
I would like to go to some of the points made by the member for Fowler, the member for Jagajaga and the member for Richmond. They talk, as they do incessantly, about the cost. I go particularly to the member for Richmond, who rightly pointed out that the average fee for full-time child care in New South Wales is $246. We have no issue with that—that is about correct. Let us have a look at the average families in Richmond, the average families in Australia, and what they will be paying. If they have one child in care, will they actually be paying $246, as the Labor Party would have you believe? The answer is no. In fact, a couple family earning $60,000 per annum income with one child in care for 24 hours per week will have 65 per cent of those fees covered. So, on average, the fees are just under $50 a day, and 65 per cent of that will be Commonwealth funded. So $17 a day is roughly what that person would be paying: $17 for a 10-hour day—less than $2 per hour to have your child looked after with quality child care.
If a couple family is on $63,000 per annum, and perhaps they have two children in care two days a week—20 hours of care per child each week—then the actual money paid by the Commonwealth is not 65 per cent; it is in fact 70 per cent of this total. So, again, the person could be expecting to pay about $15 per day for each of those children. A single-parent family on maximum childcare benefit—a low-income earner—with one child in care for 28 hours per week would in fact have 79 per cent of that total fee picked up by the Commonwealth. And it goes right up to 81 per cent for a single-parent family with two children on maximum childcare benefit.
This demonstrates that those people who need the care the most are paying nothing like the $250 a week or $50 per day for care that the Labor Party would have us believe, and which scares parents away from going out and seeking a childcare place. They think: ‘My God! There’s no way I could afford $250 a week; that’s beyond our means.’ That is not the case. So we encourage people to talk to their family day care coordinators, their long day care providers and their before and after school care providers, because all of those services are now uncapped; there is no limitation; there is no upper ceiling; and those places are available. People need to know how much the Commonwealth government, through its $11,000 million investment in child care, picks up in order to allow parents to have the flexibility to return to the workforce.
Why did I use as examples those particular groups? It is not because they were the best; it is because they are the average. They are the groups that are most represented in child care. Only about seven per cent of the population actually has a child in child care five days a week. The average is in fact two days a week. It is important that people know these things when they hear the spurious arguments put forward by those opposite.
I will make a couple of other points about this bill. With respect to the childcare tax rebate, we have rightly pointed out that families are entitled to receive up to $4,000 per child per year. Labor have said that the reality is that families are only receiving, on average, $813. That is correct, because they only get back 30 per cent of their out-of-pocket expenses. As the member for Fowler said, if you extrapolate from that, it means that their out-of-pocket expenses turn out to be $1 per hour per child of quality child care. That is what she said. And the Labor Party want the public to believe that this is somehow too expensive. I ask: what value do you put on a quality childcare place for your child? That is what a large percentage of families are being asked to pay. The Commonwealth is picking up a huge percentage of the cost. In fact, in some cases the Commonwealth is picking up in excess of 90 per cent—up to 93 per cent—of the total cost of child care.
When the Labor Party talk about the affordability of child care, they really do mislead many in the Australian populace. In doing so, firstly, they do those people a disservice by frightening them away; and, secondly, they do the childcare industry a disservice because there are over 100,000 vacancies in child care today. These vacancies could be used by people who could then be back in the labour market. These quality childcare places are affordable because of the federal government’s childcare benefit and childcare tax rebate.
On the issue of availability, the member for Jagajaga said, as did an article in one of the Sydney papers today, that this whole claim that there are not shortages was a mockery. A particular childcare centre at Waverley was referred to. I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a waiting list for a quality childcare place at Waverley. The reality is that, if you have been in business for a long time, in any industry at all, and you have a good reputation and you have established yourself as reputable, reliable, affordable and of quality, you would expect whatever business you are in to be a strong business and that people will want your services. This particular Waverley childcare centre is no exception to that rule.
However, the facts are that within a three-kilometre radius of that childcare centre there are multiple vacancies at a number of other childcare centres. Is there a separate set of rules that applies to these other centres? No. They have to abide by the same New South Wales laws which apply to staff ratios, space available for the children, the same stipulations regarding a vibrant environment and hygiene standards. Maybe they have not been in business for as long; maybe they do not have the same reputation that comes from decades of quality service. But they have to abide by and have the same level of standards—and those centres have vacancies. Nothing whatsoever on the part of the federal government is precluding the quality childcare centre from expanding or duplicating itself. There are no artificial barriers. We have not set some sort of target and said, ‘That’s it.’ If this centre has such a long waiting list, the option is open to it to expand its services.
There are a couple of other measures in this bill which are very important and which very few people have spoken about. I refer to extending the benefit of the healthcare card to young people with disabilities and severe medical conditions. Under this very important measure, around 25,000 full-time students aged between 16 and 25 who are ex carer allowance (child) care receivers, may now apply for a healthcare card in their own right. The carer allowance (child) already applies a healthcare card in the name of the young care receiver. However, when the young person turns 16, that healthcare card is no longer available. Therefore, they will no longer have a concession card unless they qualify for a low-income healthcare card or they have access to a concession card through their qualification for an income support payment such as a disability support pension.
The new healthcare card will be valid for 12 months and will be renewable annually when young people confirm their full-time student status. This measure will make a huge difference to students with a disability or medical condition and to their families in managing their ongoing medical costs. A very practical result of this measure will be to help them continue their education in order to improve their own prospects and those of the Australian economy in general. It is the sort of thing that good economic management allows you to do—to be able to put $11,000 million into child care, to be able to provide things such as the healthcare card to people who we all know genuinely need it and who will benefit from it. These are very proud achievements of the Commonwealth government under the stewardship of Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello.
I will make one last comment before I conclude. I refer again to the erroneous reporting and quoting of figures by those sitting opposite from an OECD report into Australian early childhood. The report does say that Australia underinvests in pre-primary education. That is because it ignores the participation of a large number of children in early childhood experiences gained through the quality-assured childcare system. In other words, it looks at only one layer of young children receiving this early childhood education. It does not take into account the full picture in Australia, and if it did it would have a totally different story to tell.
However, if it were to relate only to New South Wales where, interestingly enough, two of the speakers in this debate—the member for Richmond and the member for Fowler—come from, it would have to point out that that state’s Labor government spends less on preschool education than any other state of the Commonwealth. That is an appalling situation. The New South Wales government has an opportunity to remedy that next week when its budget is handed down. I will not hold my breath in the hope that a Labor government will contribute additional money to this needy area in New South Wales. Instead, it will palm off the responsibility; it will pass the buck to the Commonwealth government and the community sector and deny young children in New South Wales the right to have a preschool education like nearly 100 per cent of children in Queensland do. That is a crying shame on the part of the Labor Party. We had two members speaking on behalf of the Labor Party, crowing about the government’s underexpenditure in this area when they are condemned by the actions of their own party in their own state.
The federal government is now rolling out the childcare management system. It is improving the childcare accreditation system to ensure that directors have more face-to-face time with children and with the staff under their control. This is being done because the government wants to ensure that the children of our nation have an affordable, quality childcare place, parents have choice, the cost can be offset by the Commonwealth government’s childcare rebate and there is the assurance of a quality system of accreditation. By putting those things together, the Commonwealth shows its total and ongoing commitment to the program it established in 1996. Since then, it has more than doubled expenditure and has doubled the number of places available. It has opened up the market so there are no more restrictive regulations around where places can be and what sorts of targets can be met, which has allowed the market to flourish. That is the Howard government’s record. It is a proud record and one that we continue to build upon. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Mr Andrews:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This is yet another bill which is unlikely to grip the nation and which, probably appropriately, is greeted here today by public galleries that are completely empty. There is nothing particularly exciting in the Migration (Sponsorship Fees) Bill 2007; it is fairly straightforward. We are dealing with a mistake made inadvertently in 1997. To his credit, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has been completely up-front and has explained where the mistake was made, and this bill rectifies that drafting error.
The bill rectifies a relatively minor oversight in the drafting of migration regulations in 1997. The error resulted in fees being collected for applications to sponsor temporary entry visas without there being a technical legal basis for the collection of those fees. This arose because of a difference between the legislation and the regulations—one used the term ‘charge’ and the other used the term ‘fees’. Although it was corrected and brought into line in all of the other regulations, it did not happen with this regulation. The migration regulations have only very recently been amended to fix the problem so that the future collection of fees is valid. However, this bill is needed to clarify that those fees paid and collected from the time that the mistake was inadvertently made until the regulations were brought into line are taken to have been lawfully collected.
This is a very short bill. It contains one clause, which provides that, if a fee was paid for the sponsorship of an applicant for a temporary visa and the application was made between 1 May 1997 and 24 May 2007, and the fee was purportedly made under regulation No. 5.38 of the migration regulations, that fee is taken to have been payable at the time the fee was paid. The background for that clause goes to the payment of different fees, one for a visa application and the other for a sponsor’s application. The problem can arise where the visa application is lodged first instead of the sponsor’s application. If the sponsorship was then unsuccessful, the visa fee would have been paid but ultimately no visa would have been issued.
There are two circumstances in which fees were invalidly collected under regulation 5.38. The first was due to a failure to clarify that no sponsorship fee would be charged where the visa application itself is not subject to fees or charges. The words ‘or charges’ had to be included for the reason I referred to earlier. When the Migration Visa (Application Charge) Act came into effect on 1 May 2007, the visa application charge was introduced. Prior to this, the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 had referred to ‘visa application fees’. When amendments were made to change the terminology from ‘fees’ to ‘charges’, regulation 5.38 was overlooked.
The minister has been completely up-front about this having been an oversight. This is very minor legislation, but, because of the complaints made previously about the development of a culture of cover-up, to be completely up-front when a mistake is made is the way things ought to be done. Hopefully the behaviour of the minister on this bill can be reflected in other examples of a culture of cover-up which can be found anywhere—from what has happened around the cabinet table over the years in the administration of immigration right through to functions that may be held in a taxpayer funded home.
The second circumstance where fees were technically unlawfully collected between 1 May 1997 and 24 May 2007 was where a gap opened up between what the usual course of practice was and when technically fees were payable under the migration regulations. According to the minister’s second reading speech for this bill, the standard practice is that a potential sponsor will apply to the department to be approved. The visa applicant will then lodge the visa application. So long as it is done in this order, the problem I referred to cannot arise. Regulation 5.38 stipulated certain conditions under which the sponsorship fee would be payable. It stated that the fee was payable when ‘the sponsor is a person or organisation in Australia who, or which, lodges the application on behalf of the applicant’. The regulation also referred to the relevant visa application already being lodged. Hence, the sponsorship fee was payable only where the visa application had already been lodged and also only when the sponsor had lodged the visa application on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, there has been a discrepancy between what was presumed to be allowed under the regulations and what the regulations technically allowed. Sponsorship fees have therefore been collected without any specific legal basis for the collection of those fees. The regulation was recently amended to rectify that problem. This bill says that, between the date of the oversight occurring and the date of the correction taking place, when fees were collected, they were collected in a valid manner.
Labor supports this bill. It is a technical amendment in the face of an oversight which took some time for the government to pick up, but, once they did pick it up, they were up-front about it. I expect that, even after a few minutes of explaining the fascinating detail of the technical amendments, the public galleries are still empty. The bill is not particularly controversial in any way, shape or form, and the opposition is happy to support it.
I rise to support the Migration (Sponsorship Fees) Bill 2007. This bill will ensure the validation of the collection of sponsorship fees for certain temporary visas which were collected between 1 May 1997 and 23 May 2007. The temporary visas include: subclass 415, foreign government agency; subclass 418, educational; subclass 420, entertainment; subclass 421, sport; subclass 422, medical practitioner; subclass 423, media and film staff; subclass 427, domestic worker; and subclass 428, religious worker. All these temporary visas require sponsorship.
In May 1997 changes were made to the Migration Act and regulations where the visa application charge was introduced. However, an amendment to regulation 5.38 was overlooked. I wish to acknowledge the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s attention to detail and his willingness to acknowledge and correct this oversight. There were certain visas where an application charge was not required until the visa applicant’s sponsor was approved. However, a fee for sponsorship is still required when seeking approval from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. This bill will ensure a single measure to validate a collection of sponsorship fees under regulation 5.38 in relation to visa applications made on or after 1 May 1997 and before 24 May this year. With more than 440,000 passengers and crew crossing Australia’s borders every week, it is imperative that the immigration system maintains its integrity. From 23 May, the Migration (Sponsorship Fees) Bill 2007 will enable the lawful collection of the sponsorship fees. The bill will also ensure that fees paid up to that time are validated and will ensure that regulation 5.38 will operate in the way it was originally intended to.
The coalition government, with strong support from the community, has a very successful migration program. The Howard government recognises that a successful economy requires balance, and this includes a balanced migration program. Under Labor between 1993 and 1995, skilled primary migrants had an unemployment rate of 25 per cent after 18 months, compared with today’s figure of only three per cent. From an economic point of view, not just for Australia but also for those who have migrated here as skilled migrants, this did not provide benefits. A balanced migration program includes a well-planned mix of migration entries, including refugee and humanitarian, temporary skilled, working holiday, tourists and permanent residents. The Australian government recognises that we have an ageing population as well as a growing economy. This is why it is important that we encourage new migrants with skills to come to Australia and contribute to our workforce, our community and our economy.
In the late 1960s, new residents from Malta, Italy and Greece came to Australia and laid the foundations for the Australia we know today. I have many Maltese immigrants living in my electorate of Greenway, and some of them helped to build Warragamba Dam and the Snowy Mountains scheme and provided Australia with trade skills we needed. During recent decades, other migrants who have settled in Western Sydney from the Philippines, India, Asia and greater Europe have already made significant contributions to our economy and in setting up businesses and employing fellow Australians. People come to Australia because they seek what Australia stands for: our freedoms and our opportunities. This is why we need a well-planned, well-managed migration program that ensures that Australia will remain economically prosperous and secure at our borders. I welcome the opposition’s support of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 13 June, on motion by Mr Robb:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Stephen Smith moved by way of amendment:
That all 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 welcomes additional financial support for first and second year apprentices but condemns the Government’s complacency and neglect of vocational education and training over the past 11 long years seen through:
I am very pleased to participate in this debate on the Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007, not simply as the former minister responsible for many of the initiatives that this piece of legislation is meant to deal with but also as the son of a tradesman, a metal machinist by trade. My father remarked for probably 25 or 30 years on how sad it was to see a general decline in the psyche of presentations from government and from those with apparent influence on the importance of the nation-building skills—the trade skills. I see the member for Macarthur is at the table. I know he is proud to be a motor mechanic. On this side, we have a lot of people with trade skills who have come to this parliament. As the bishop in Port Pirie said last year, there is something absolutely noble about doing something with your hands and involving yourself in productive enterprise as a result of doing something constructive with your hands.
This government, in all of its breath, in all of its statements and all of its policy settings since 1996, has been about restoring the sense of importance associated with people with trade skills. It has always been gratifying to me to hear direct feedback from people who felt pretty well underdone in the Labor years, where they talked down careers in the trades. I always saw the great irony in that: a party that was built out of the loins of the working class and was set here—and still is set here—to do the bidding of the union movement spent so much time in government talking down the importance of trade skills. When we came to office in 1996, there was an enormously sad and bad set of circumstances that we had to deal with, despite what the member for Perth was trying to suggest in his contribution yesterday. The current situation in Australia makes the measures contained within this legislation so necessary. People around this country are seeking to take on apprentices, and we need to make sure that, if people in the early years of an apprenticeship are not able to sustain themselves as they might do in the latter years of their apprenticeship, they are given access to government assistance. Never before in the history of this country have things like youth allowance been extended to people in trade training. Never before have we seen this sort of wage top-up extended to Australian apprentices.
This bill, which reflects the changes made and the additions introduced in the most recent federal budget, makes sure that there is not an impost through the social security system or the taxation system on those who are on a sufficiently low wage structure that they qualify for the additional benefits that the government is now offering them. We are saying to people who are taking on an apprenticeship in trade occupations included on the migration occupations in demand list—trades listed as experiencing skills shortages—that they will be eligible to receive $1,000 for each of the first two years of their apprenticeship. Payments of $500 will be made biannually to full-time apprentices at the six-month, 12-month, 18-month and 24-month points of their training.
I think it would be wrong and inconsistent of me if I did not note that it is important that the parliament understands that we are not as a government endorsing the old industrial revolution approach of time based training. In Queensland and, increasingly, in Victoria—but not in the state of New South Wales, which has the worst apprenticeship system in country—we are seeing people having prior experience recognised under the recognition of prior learning. These people are able to start their apprenticeship with part of the requirements of that apprenticeship being acknowledged as already completed due to their own prior work experience and are able to complete their apprenticeships a lot faster than the traditional three-year or four-year period. To my mind and the government’s mind, the competency of the apprentice is far more important than the amount of time that they are actually in training.
This measure is about their first and second years of apprentice training—for school based apprentices, a concept new to New South Wales this year. For years the Australian Education Union and the New South Wales Teachers Federation railed against the idea of school based apprentices, certificate III and above in the trade. How dare kids in New South Wales have the opportunities that Queenslanders have had for a decade! The day after the state of origin series has been sealed—I will tempt the wrath of Deputy Speaker Hatton, as he is a New South Welshman—I make the point that finally New South Wales will allow kids to start trade training while they are at school at a real trade training level. This legislation covers that contingency as well. It allows them to gain access to it as part-time school based apprentices.
What does this mean? It means they can get to the end of year 12 with their year 12 leaving certificate, the New South Wales standard ticket, like they do in Queensland. These students will also have earned money because their part-time job has been the practical side of their trade training. They will also have advanced their trade apprenticeships so that when they start, if they choose to, a full-time apprenticeship they will be in a position to complete it after they have finished school, will accelerate through the whole trade training process, will have some of the competencies squared away, signed off and agreed to and will be in a position to be in their trade faster and, of course, will have earned money along the way.
Starting the process at school makes a huge amount of sense. It was a very good suggestion when the government put it forward in 1997. The first state to grab hold of it was Queensland, and 10 years down the track they have over half the numbers of students who are involved in school based apprenticeships in the whole of the country. Last year, while Queensland had about 8,000 out of 15,000 apprentices, New South Wales had none. I make the point again to be very consistent. This measure backs the students and the employers that invest in their businesses in the best way they possibly can—by taking on people as apprentices, and particularly as school based apprentices. It backs the parents by also making sure that this payment is amortised over a part-time scheme. In other words, they can gain it over several years, not just in the first and second years of training.
I greatly welcome this initiative. It allows the flexibility that is desperately needed in the system. It also acknowledges that in the first couple of years—despite my conversation about competency being the basis for advancement, not time in training—people in apprenticeships tend to be more poorly paid than in their latter couple of years. In saying that, it is important to know that something like 60 per cent of people in Australian businesses today are paying their apprentices way above the set rate because there is a very competitive market out there now for quality people taking on apprenticeships. Good apprentices are able to say to their bosses, ‘Pay me more, or I am going to continue my apprenticeship down the road’—and well might they because, as it currently stands, there are too many jobs and not enough people for them in Australia today.
Australian Apprenticeships Centres already service Australian apprentices right across Australia. They will be explaining this initiative and providing claim forms to eligible Australian apprentices to claim access to it. Once the form has been completed and returned, the payment will be made directly into the Australian apprentice’s nominated bank account. It is as direct government assistance as you can possibly have, and it is important, as this legislation spells out, that it does not then impact on their social security system or taxation requirements. Some people are saying: ‘The initiative seems to be only available to younger apprenticeships. Why is this the case?’ We already announced in the Skills for the Future package last October a series of assistance to Australian apprentices aged 30 and above which will take effect from 1 July. They are a series of measures to back the lost generation who started, or maybe aspired to, an apprenticeship at a time when the government in power did all that it could to dissuade businesses from taking on apprentices. It talked down the concept of the trades, talked up, ‘If you do not have a university degree you are a dud’—that was the kind of language that we were hearing—and said to businesses, ‘If you hire mistakes you can’t get rid of them.’ The unfair dismissal laws under the industrial relations regime had a huge impact on businesses’ decisions to invest in themselves by taking on apprentices: if they hired a problem, how could they get rid of them, and so forth. Under the contract of training, apprentices have to meet the requirements to progress, and business also has a requirement to look after apprentices. Nevertheless, the psychology in Australian businesses was: ‘We do not want to take on people. Apprentices cost us more than we gain.’
Equally, the trade training system was geared around—and in most places it still is, as a result of the domination of the TAFE sector—businesses having to work in with when TAFE wants to operate. TAFE does not want to operate 24/7 and does not want to operate 52 weeks a year. Too many TAFEs are still operating 36 weeks a year from nine to four on Monday to Friday with only 20 hours of average student contact time per week. Those sorts of things drive businesses away from taking on apprentices, but the government is working with the states to bring about a change to that approach. There is a lot more proactivity coming out of the state owned TAFE system now than ever before.
The Skills for the Future package announced on 12 October last year handed older apprentices support for mid-career apprentice initiatives. In other words, it backed businesses and individual apprentices of an older age to make the decision to go and do what they wanted to do years ago when the Labor Party talked them out of their apprenticeships. Of the order of 30,000 people missed out on an opportunity to take on trade training when the Labor government was last in power. So much for the party that supposedly—in their rhetoric, anyway—represents the workers of Australia. As a result of the Skills for the Future package, eligible Australian apprentices aged 30 years or over will receive $150 per week—$7,800 per annum—in the first year of their apprenticeship training and $100 per week—$5,200 per annum—in their second year of training. Again, competency based advances could mean that some of these mature age apprentices will complete their formal training, once there has been a proper recognition of prior learning factored in, far faster than the traditional three- or four-year trade training approach.
As I said, this legislation very much encourages the take-up of part-time and Australian school based apprenticeships. Twenty years ago I started a part-time university degree, but 20 years ago you could not start a part-time apprenticeship. We are now starting to see more and more people being able to transition from one career to another. Any one of us in this place might want to be a plumber. Previously, we would have had to cease what we were doing here to start the training for a plumbing apprenticeship, but not anymore. More and more businesses are understanding the value of giving people an opportunity, in an arrangement that would vary from workplace to workplace, to start their work experience and their training—the competency-building exercise—and become an apprentice on a part-time basis. We are putting in place the measures available under this legislation on a pro rata basis. That means that the first $500 payment, rather than being paid after six months, will be available after 12 months. The second $500 will be available after the first 24 months, the third after 36 months and the fourth after 48 months. If you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or I decided that we wanted to gear ourselves towards the lucrative trade of plumbing—and the plumbing industry hates being made the butt of jokes about the fact that plumbers are paid more than lawyers; all I know is that whenever I have a problem with the plumbing I am awfully glad that they have the abilities that they have—then we could do thast over a period of years. Perhaps we would not qualify for this payment, but others might if they were doing it on a part-time basis.
This is yet another measure from a government that have shown themselves to be strongly supportive of the workers and the doers of Australia. We strongly stand in the corner of those who aspire to be a part of the workers and the doers in this country. We are not the party that represents the non-productive culture and class in Australia—we leave that to the opposition. The Liberal Party and the National Party represent those who work hard and aspire to do better. We want to say to the parents of young people—in the sit-down chats that I hope they will be able to have, in the discussions about career paths to come—that working with your hands and feeling a great sense of personal satisfaction in working with your hands is a noble path to follow. It is the people who work with their hands who are more likely than others to own the fancy beach houses at Noosa. It is important that we back them in every possible way.
I want to take a couple of moments to reflect on some comments that the member for Perth made—and I am sure that the minister will do this in his summing-up speech. It is extraordinary that the member for Perth showed himself to be a puppet of the Australian Education Union. We have had a series of education spokespeople from the opposition who have done this time and again, and in his contribution yesterday the member for Perth did it also. He was talking about completion bonuses, an opposition plan to make a payment at the end of people’s training. He fails to understand that the statistics from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research show very plainly that something like 90 per cent of people who move from an apprenticeship that they start, either by dropping out or moving to another one—the so-called non-completers, and this is where the non-completion rate is drawn from—do so in the first or second year of their apprenticeship. The fact that the government’s initiatives have been very much tied to the first and second year of training, when the wage pressures are greater, focuses the money better. Under Labor, you get $1,000 at the end of 24 months; under the government, you get $2,000, plus the $800 tool kit, something that those opposite never dreamed of. I make this point very clearly: this side, by its actions, not simply by its words, has backed those who decide to take on trade training in every possible way.
If you listened to what the member for Perth had to say yesterday, the other difference is that the ambition of the Labor Party—again using the Australian Education Union’s view of the world—is to have something like 2,500 trade training centres, one in every high school around Australia. That creates an impossible situation. Teachers in my electorate are laughing about this proposal. How are we going to find 2,500 additional carpentry teachers, 2,500 additional mechanics teachers and 2,500 additional plumbing teachers? It can only ever be a holding pattern with a very low-level type of training, rather than the certificate III and above training which the government is providing through things such as the Australian technical college initiative and, indeed, the school based apprenticeships initiative which is being used in Queensland and Victoria. Labor is trying to slow down kids’ progress and trying to entrench the fact that they cannot start a real apprenticeship until they finish year 12. That kind of slowing down of progress is further deteriorating the attraction of apprenticeships.
Apprenticeship wages are geared around someone starting an apprenticeship at 15 or 16, in the main. But Labor seems to always want them to start at 17 and 18. This is straight out of the Australian Education Union’s mouths. They want to keep kids in the school until year 12 because it justifies the money that they want the school system rather than the vocational education system to have. I also believe that, under Labor’s enterprise approach on this, one of the first lessons would be to show them how to join a union, because under a Labor government it will be ‘no ticket, no start’, and everybody in Australia understands that.
This government is instead saying, ‘We’ll back personal initiative and personal ambition.’ We want to give a hand up to those who are unable, perhaps through the restrictions in wages that they face in their first couple of years of training, to justify taking on that training to start with. We will give them the extra assistance—assistance that was never on the books and never available under the previous Labor government. In every possible way, the Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007 furthers the ambition of this government to have a work-ready, capable and well-skilled Australian workforce for the decades ahead. The challenges are enormous in an environment in which there are so many jobs and not enough people. The competitive opportunities that kids have the power to choose from are immense. The earlier we get the kids involved in trade training the better, and the more encouragement they hear from people such as us, regardless of our political complexion, the better. I would simply ask Labor members to speak about things in that kind of positive way. They need to talk up the ambitions of the trades. I see that the member for Batman is next, and I am sure that he will. But there are others on the other side who frankly do not get it and do not understand the value of doing things with your hands.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I regard as being an exceptionally important issue. It is the challenge of all political parties and governments to try to make some progress on one of the biggest problems confronting Australia at the moment, and that is the shortage of trade labour. Our problem is that the shortage of trade labour is now adding to cost pressures that exist in delivering projects on time and on budget in Australia. It is also at the point where it is essentially going to hold back investment in Australia and reduce export earnings. For example, in the resource and tourism sectors we do not have the available labour to fulfil our potential international commitments in the export sector. I simply say that this is a very important debate.
The training system in Australia can never be allowed to stand still. Labor found that in its period of government from 1983 to 1996, and the Howard government is now experiencing the same challenge. That is because the world of work in Australia has changed dramatically over the last 20 years. Some industries have grown in importance, obviously because of decisions—which were correct—that were made by the Hawke and Keating governments to further open up Australia to global competitive pressures. That effectively has meant that in my area, the constituency of Batman, industries that were historically important to Australia, such as the saddlery, leather and canvas industry, the textile, clothing and footwear industry and the automotive industry, have declined in importance. On the other hand, the service sector has grown in importance in my electorate. Education now is the biggest employer in my electorate, through La Trobe University and the Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE. There has been an associated growth in the provision of financial services. Aged care is also where there are new jobs.
We as a nation always have to try to make sure that we adjust our training system to meet the needs of emerging industries. As the member for Perth outlined in the debate on this bill yesterday, the record shows that the Howard government has been all too slow to adjust to the changing world of work over the last 11½ years. Having said that, I must say that the opposition understands the importance of the Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007. It is about the government finally taking up the suggestion by the Labor Party that something had to be done to encourage our young people who commence an apprenticeship to see it through. We need to create a completion bonus or an additional incentive to encourage people to put their head down and to complete the training. Labor understands that, for young people, the first- and second-year apprentice wages are not all that good. Apprentices see their mates, when they meet from time to time, on Friday night or on Saturday at the football, who have a few more dollars in their pockets because they have chosen not to undertake an apprenticeship but to work as labourers or factory hands and earn more in the first couple of years of employment. That grates on those apprentices because they are doing the training and going to TAFE, and in their minds a few more dollars would help.
That is what the trade completion bonus proposed by Labor would do. It is now emerging in the form of an incentive of $2,000 over two years, as proposed by the Howard government. That will apply to people under 30 who undertake an Australian apprenticeship in a trade occupation area. So, one way or another, both sides of politics are trying to work out how we do the right thing by young people who are prepared to take up an apprenticeship—to give them some additional financial reward. We need to encourage them to do the right thing by themselves, their families and their communities and to complete their trade, which will guarantee an active working life.
That is what is so dear to the hearts of the Labor Party—the world of work. We all appreciate that we still define ourselves by our capacity to hold down a job and to put food on the table. We want to make sure that if your children get sick you can afford to take them to the doctor, that you can educate your kids and that, from time to time, you can take them on an outing or have a holiday. But, without the opportunity of holding down a gainful job, that is not possible. Those who undertake some form of training at the completion of schooling, be it an apprenticeship or university education, have the best capacity to hold down a job for the whole of their working life. That is what this debate is about.
I say to the government that I understand that they are also committed to the world of work. But for members of the government and, in this instance, the former Minister for Vocational Education and Training, the member for Moreton, to suggest that Labor Party members do not care about work and apprenticeships is just plain wrong. It is a reflection on him and the fact that he has passed his use-by date. I think he is still suffering from relevance deprivation after having been sacked by the Prime Minister for nonperformance in the vocational education portfolio earlier this year. It is also well known around Brisbane at the moment that he is in the job market. If an attractive offer were to be made he would be out the door at the next election. But, unfortunately, it seems that the private sector is not interested in him because he failed to deliver on the vocational education front during his period as a minister in what I regard as being one of the most important portfolios of government.
It is for the reasons I have outlined that the opposition welcomed the announcement on budget night of apprenticeship incentives from the government. We are prepared to give credit where credit is due. One way or another, we have all made mistakes on the apprenticeship training front. We seriously question now whether or not it was appropriate to abolish—and governments of both political persuasions were responsible for this—the tech colleges of the past. We are all now trying to reinvent the wheel on that front. I think it is fairly well accepted in the Australian community now that, for whatever reason, both major political parties got it wrong. That undermined trade training in Australia.
I must say that I am delighted to have a cluster operation in my electorate, at Northland Secondary College, which has the support of employers, the Australian government and the Victorian government. It will create an opportunity for young people across all the schools in my electorate to come in and undertake a day’s training per week as part of their apprenticeship. That is the way forward. I hope that the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition in his budget response this year are actually taken up on that basis. Schools should not be going their individual ways but should be working collectively in a region to create a cluster opportunity so that each week those kids who desire an apprenticeship can leave their normal high school, go to a semi-work situation and undertake their trade training on a regular basis as part of the start of an apprenticeship whilst at school.
We have a responsibility as a nation to equip ourselves for the future via some form of training for as many young Australians as we can achieve, be it through a trade training opportunity or a university opportunity. It is about building our future prosperity. It is also about overcoming some of the foreign debt problems that currently confront Australia. These are boom times, but we could do better. We are now losing export earnings and the capacity to build a better future because we do not have the tradespeople to actually do the jobs, to tackle the infrastructure bottlenecks, to overcome the challenges of climate change, to assist people in improving their health, to do something about energy security in Australia and also—in that context—to do something about the national security of Australia.
Setting aside the issue of politics, it is also appropriate that we accept that we have a national crisis on the trade training front at the moment that threatens the economic health of Australia. We are talking about a skills crisis that sees a shortage of around 83,000 workers in Australia at this point in time. In youth we learn and in age we understand, and I have been around in politics long enough to understand the serious implications that such a shortage of skilled workers could have on the nation’s future, our economy and Australia’s investment and growth opportunities. I also appreciate that there is a human face to this issue. While there is no silver bullet, the government has the ability to create the right climate for fixing this crisis. If we do not, it will directly impact on the quality of life and social welfare of so many Australians, particularly young people. I am talking about not just Australia’s current youth but our future generations, who are currently working through their school years and who will enter the workforce in the next five to 10 years. So we have to get the foundations of this system right now.
It came as no surprise to many of us who move around the community that two of the top four occupational job vacancy groups on the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations website last month were labourers, factory and machine workers, and positions in the food, hospitality and tourism sectors. In those two areas alone, there were nearly 21,000 vacancies advertised in May. It is a trend that becomes all the more disturbing when you look at the skilled vacancies index and realise that the demand for workers is not abating. Last month saw increases in demand of 1.9 per cent not only for building and engineering professionals but also for those in construction trades. While the increased demand for engineering professionals is obviously of concern, when you compare the indexes of professional positions versus trade vacancies, there is a huge gap. It is clear that on the ground everyone—from small business to large multinationals—is seeking out trade workers. They are in direct competition with one another.
The truth is that those trade workers have become a rare commodity in Australia, a resource-rich nation that is letting itself down on the training front. Business and industry have therefore quickly come to the realisation, as they place ads for positions that no-one replies to, that traditional trades may not have been fashionable as an education pathway a decade ago. That needs to change and to change quickly. That is clearly the position of the opposition, as reflected in the Leader of the Opposition’s address in reply to the budget this year. It is a change in mindset that the opposition do not need to embrace, as we have never shied away from acknowledging the importance of encouraging more people into traditional apprenticeships. It was bread and butter for the Hawke and Keating governments, which, I might remind the House, created the Australian National Training Authority to force all state and territory governments—in association with the Commonwealth, trade unions and employers—to get more serious about trade training in Australia. We saw the challenge coming, we grasped the nettle and we tried to do something about it. It is only since 1996 that we have had a manipulation of the numbers to suggest that what were best regarded as traineeships in the non-traditional areas were counted as apprenticeships to hide the failure of the government in traditional trades training. That is where we have gone backwards and that is where Australia is now suffering.
Apprenticeships in the traditional trade areas of construction, electronics, automotive, catering and metalwork have always, and will always, go to the core, the bricks and mortar, of our nation and our society. They are the engine room of what is required at the moment, be it in the resources, the transport, the building and construction or the tourism sectors—just to name a few sectors crying out for skilled labour at the moment. They will fill our requirements for future mechanics, construction workers, chefs, drivers and mining workers—jobs that our society just cannot do without. I am pleased to say that apprenticeships have started to make a slight comeback in Australia, thanks to widespread anecdotes about wealthy tradespeople. Yet the complete failure of the government to recognise the importance of apprenticeships and create a culture that encourages young people into traditional trades has led the nation to face a crisis at this point. We cannot afford to let that crisis go on, because it is squeezing our economic capacity. The number of apprentices and trainees in training last year was virtually unchanged from one year earlier. And, while there were increases in the resources boom states of Queensland and Western Australia, there were declines in the remaining states and territories.
There is also a responsibility on state and territory Labor governments in some instances to be more serious about trades training. The House should recall that it was Labor in government that started the school pre-apprenticeships. We saw the benefits of those who did not want to go to university starting their apprenticeship training at school, which enabled them to complete their post-school apprenticeship earlier. That effectively meant that they were more job ready and attractive to employers. We understood the important needs of employers and the requirement of government, through the education system, to do something about assisting small and large employers who are prepared to take on the responsibility.
Training young people in Australia is a huge responsibility, so I want to say to the private sector, especially those employers doing the right thing: thank you. But I also want to say to a range of other employers in Australia that it is not acceptable to go on the job market and try to body-snatch off an employer who is doing the right thing, by offering a few more dollars to their trained labour. It is the responsibility of all employers in Australia—and I know it is a huge responsibility; it adds stress to one’s business—to accept the need to train Australians. So, to those who are doing a good job: thanks very much. But, to those who are not pulling their weight, I think I can say on behalf of everybody in the House that we all have a responsibility, including in our own electorate offices, to take on young people and train them. Training is the key to their future, and it is the key to our nation’s future.
In the portfolios I cover as a shadow minister, training is the key issue raised with me in discussions over the last couple of years about the resources sector, the energy sector, the forestry sector and, in more recent times, the transport sector and the hospitality and tourism sector. Finally employers accept that they are also part of the problem and they are looking for government assistance to try and be part of the solution. That is what the bill before the House today is about. The government accepts, as does the opposition, that the government has to take part in offering incentives to assist in encouraging young people not only to start apprenticeships but also to complete them. The measure in this bill is about a higher financial reward for doing the right thing by themselves and by their employer.
However, more has to be done. Across the states we have now started to review the length of apprenticeships. That means that in some apprenticeship training areas we can reduce the period of an apprenticeship without undermining the quality of the outcome. By starting more apprenticeships at school we can also shorten the length of those apprenticeships more than we have done in the past. I am pleased to say that in some apprenticeship areas now, such as in the vehicle repair industry in Victoria, kids who start their apprenticeship at school can have the post-school period of that apprenticeship reduced to three years. And, once they commence the apprenticeship post school, the rates are the second-, third- and fourth-year rates rather than the lower rate traditionally applied in the first year of an apprenticeship after school. That is tremendously important to young people so that they can meet their own financial commitments. Industry by industry, in association with the unions, who are the apprentices’ representatives in many instances, and with the employer organisations we have to do the hard work of looking at how we can streamline apprenticeship training in Australia but without undermining the quality of the training outcome. We do not want shoddy tradespeople in Australia. We have prided ourselves internationally as a nation that produced quality workers, and that is why, historically, we were prepared to invest in training opportunities in Australia.
There is a willingness by young people to undertake apprenticeships, but they require employers to take them on, and the employers require government assistance, through a partnership of federal, state and territory governments, to be able to carry the load of apprenticeship training in Australia. The Labor Party firmly believe the federal government has to do more in this area, and this budget measure is part of that debate. It is akin to the trade completion bonus that Labor put out for policy debate and consideration some 18 months to two years ago. We are pleased that the government has finally reacted on this front. By whatever measure, something had to be done to increase the financial payments for young apprentices of Australia. This bonus provides $2,000 in two instalments for traditional apprentices who complete their training, while Labor’s proposed skills account would pay the up-front fees of all Australian apprentices in traditional areas. People should not underestimate the cost impact of that on some young people and their families. It is not inconsiderable. We focus on the issue of HECS and higher education payments from time to time, but a lot of low-income families find these apprenticeship training fees in TAFEs are a serious financial impost on them and their families.
I commend the government for taking this initiative. As I said, it is akin to Labor’s trade completion bonus. So, by whatever measure, we are finally starting to make some progress as a nation on a fundamental challenge— that is, how we can get more apprentices, especially in our traditional trade areas but, more importantly, having attracted them, how we encourage them to complete their apprenticeship and go on to a very worthwhile work opportunity in life. I commend to the House the second reading amendment to the bill moved by Mr Stephen Smith, the shadow minister for education and training and member for Perth. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak to the Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 in order to provide an exemption for the apprenticeship wage top-up payments introduced in this budget so that the recipients obtain the full benefit and, in turn, the full incentive that is designed to come from these measures. In this year’s budget the government, in its Realising Our Potential measures, introduced this wage top-up for apprentices who are under 30 years of age and who are undertaking Australian Apprenticeships in areas of skills shortages as currently defined by the migration occupations in demand list. These payments will total $2,000—$1,000 for each of the first two years of trading. This recognises that the wages apprentices receive in the first couple of years of their apprenticeships are low by current standards and that there are many incentives for them to move beyond their apprenticeship into other work where even their partial skills are recognised and paid well. In the first couple of years of training the wages can be from as low as $15,000 up to close to $20,000 in the second year, which is not a lot in today’s terms, so you can understand why many of these young people choose to move into other areas that pay better.
These payments will be tax free and they will not count as income towards determining eligibility for income support, for things such as youth allowance or Austudy. This builds on some of the other incentives and initiatives that the government has taken to encourage people to take up careers in trades, such as the mid-career apprenticeships for those over 30 years of age where substantially more is provided—close to $8,000 in the first year and just over $5,000 in the second year—to mature age apprentices. This recognises that it is a huge ask for people to make that transition when they have responsibilities for their home and family, and also for an employer, who does not yet see the productivity coming out of them, to give a wage that can sustain them. So this is an iterative step, building on those earlier announcements, to try and encourage people to move into the area of trades. There have been a range of other measures that have targeted the apprentices themselves—things like the extension of youth allowance and Austudy for over-25-year-olds as well as the Commonwealth trade learning scholarships and the tool kits which have been provided under the Tools for Your Trade initiatives.
I think that it is important in the context of addressing this bill to look at the broader perspective on trade training in Australia. Over the last 11 years the Howard government has increased annual spending on vocational and further education by some 99 per cent, which is a significant investment. Despite this, there is still a really strong case for ongoing change. What we are seeing at the moment, portrayed often as a skills crisis, is really a workforce shortage. Whether you are talking about an unskilled workforce or semiskilled or graduates or technically qualified people or the ageing of the population, the growth in the economy is seeing a huge demand for workers. There is no one approach that is going to suddenly be a magic pill that will fix all of those problems. It takes steady iterative work to introduce a range of measures to bring this about.
In terms of addressing the workforce shortage, the Howard government are taking a number of measures including making sure that we can get everyone who can work into the workforce and encouraging those who are there to stay there. There are things like the pension bonus scheme and the Welfare to Work program. Last week in the electorate of Wakefield, which I have the privilege of representing in this place, we had a forum with the Minister for Workforce Participation and we issued some 1,700 invitations to people who had indicated a concern around welfare to come and discuss any concerns they had about this program. We found that most people who turned up were very favourable towards the support that was being given to make it possible for people to gain work. Whether in receipt of parenting payments or on a disability payment, when people recognise the significant investment that is being made to encourage them to make use of the abilities they have to move into the workforce they see there is a genuine attempt to give them a helping hand, and it was very positively received.
Secondly, we need to get back to the days of having trade training as a valued career path for young people rather than it being seen as a second option if you could not make it to university. The reality is that only some 30 per cent of our young people leave secondary education and go on to universities. It is to the shame, I think, of this nation that over the last couple of decades there has been a move away from valuing trade training and it is for that reason that I have strongly supported the creation of the Australian technical college in Wakefield as well as the others around Australia. We have seen very strong support from industry, small businesses and from parents and students and they participate in the technical college. The boards that run the college are actually controlled by industry so that they have a direct say in the make-up of the curriculum, the kinds of work placements and the outcomes that are achieved by the young people who are doing the apprenticeships through the school based new apprenticeship system.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that those who start an apprenticeship actually finish it. That is part of the measures that this bill today addresses to make it easier for people to do that. Finally, we need to encourage a culture both in the workforce itself and particularly among the employers that says that it is worth investing in the ongoing upskilling of our workforce so that people, whether at a point where they never finish school or whether at a point where they can further their qualifications, either tertiary or trade, can continue and employers can see that the community sees a benefit in that investment.
One of the programs that this government has put in place which I strongly support is skilling Australia’s defence industry. In representing an area where there is a growing defence presence in uniform people, defence science and technology, and defence industry, I welcome the fact that we are now seeing a partnership between the Australian government and industry to invest money into training opportunities, whether that be at the first-tier provider level—and they are particularly looking there at graduates and project managers, systems integrators et cetera—or whether it is flowing some of those funds down to the second- and third-tier small to medium enterprises. Many of these small to medium enterprises employ the apprentices that undertake the trade training. I welcome these sorts of initiatives from the government which see partnerships develop that create that culture of investment in our young people and in our more mature workforce so that we have the skills we need to move forward and to be competitive into the future.
The drop-out rate is an issue. Forty-two per cent of those who start apprenticeships drop out, some 38 per cent of those in the first couple of years. It is a huge attrition rate. This is part of the reason that the government has taken the step to provide additional incentives for young people in their first couple of years. Not only are we providing the wage top-up; there is also the $500 fee voucher to help offset the cost of fees so that the young people receive a total of $3,000. On top of that we provide a $4,000 employer incentive, the $13,000 wage subsidy for mature age apprentices, a $1,000 trade scholarship, the $800 tool kit, and the $1,000 regional incentives to support those who are aiming to undertake trade training and live in a regional area.
There are other programs that the government has put in place to help people reach the threshold where they can even start to look at taking on formal trade training. A large number of Australians have not actually finished secondary school and last year the government committed $837 million to a program to provide vouchers that allow individuals to access up to $3,000 of training to bring them to the point where they can take on additional training. In less than five months there have been some 14,000 vouchers with some 640 training providers providing over 6,200 courses. These have been uncapped so that more people can take advantage of this. This demonstrates that there is an unmet need here which the government has recognised and it is helping people to move to that point where they can take up further trade training.
Some of the other choke points in the trade training system do not just relate to the salaries received by apprentices and their ability to stay in the system to complete their training; we also need to look at who can provide the trade training. We have talked about the Australian technical colleges, and I welcome the support of the state governments around Australia that are now looking to replicate the model—I particularly notice that South Australia are looking to replicate the model—that has been put forward by the Australian government of trade training at schools coming back to the dedicated trade schools that were got rid of, particularly in the 1970s in South Australia.
The TAFE colleges around Australia—there are 74 of them—have nearly three-quarters of all of the vocational and technical students in Australia. But, just as the technical colleges have been well received because they are very responsive to the needs of local employers and industry, we need to see an increase in the ability of TAFE colleges to respond to the needs of the employers and the communities they are located in. This is not just us saying this; there have been reports completed on it. The NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s report to their state government said that VET is a key part of the whole-of-government strategy to improve their supply of skilled labour. But it said that they needed to remove the constraints on TAFEs regarding commercial revenue retention, they needed to negotiate future industrial agreements so that any change in pay and conditions is linked to productivity agreements and they needed to provide the directors of the TAFE institutes with far more discretion and flexibility to attract and retain staff. They also needed to have a more commercial focus and to be able to engage with third parties so that they can have partnerships that benefit the students and the industry.
South Australia have undergone a number of reforms in their TAFE systems and have reduced their TAFE institutes to three broader structures. Whilst there have been efficiencies in doing this—which I welcome—they have been at the expense of training delivery, with no commensurate reductions in the level of administrative costs. There is still a large amount of authority going back into the department rather than being delegated down to the TAFE directors. I would certainly encourage the South Australian government to move down this path so that the TAFEs can play a more active role—because they are fine institutions with many good teachers—and respond to industry needs and we can see more young people moving into that area.
There has been an amount of misinformation peddled around as to whether there are enough places at TAFEs. In particular, the opposition have talked at times, and the Education Union have talked at times, about unmet demand. They talk about the fact that unmet demand is high and therefore it are this government that is preventing people going through TAFE. It is important to note that the figures for unmet demand include not only traditional trades, which are the focus of today’s discussion, but also non-qualification and leisure courses. They also include people who are unsuccessful in their application to enter a course because their scores were too low, they applied too late or TAFE cancelled courses because of insufficient numbers. So the statistics that have been brought forward do not bear any direct correlation to the areas of skills shortage Australia so desperately needs to address.
Even taking these figures into account, though, compared with 1995, using the same analysis, the unmet demand has decreased by half, which is a significant achievement. That is because of the 99 per cent increase by this government that we talked about at the start of this address. The number of publicly funded vocational and technical education students has increased by 26 per cent and, over the period 2005-08, the Australian government has provided 167,000 additional places. These have taken place through the Commonwealth-State Agreement for Skilling Australia’s Workforce, the Australian technical colleges, the Australian New Apprenticeships Access Program, which alone has provided 20,000 places, and the Group Training in the Trades program, which delivered 11½ thousand places. So there has been a significant investment by this government in trade training, and I welcome any future cooperation on behalf of the states to see that uptake continue.
There is one last area that I would like to touch on briefly, and that is the potential for industry to be involved in encouraging young people to consider trades as well as the technical and engineering and maths and science fields. I spoke yesterday in the House to a bill about higher education and the fact that the government is increasing incentives for universities to offer places in disciplines such as engineering, and maths and science, as well as this investment in trade training, but unless we have the young people who want to move into those places then those places will remain unfilled.
One of the things the government funded through the Sustainable Regions Program in South Australia was the Northern Adelaide Advanced Manufacturing Industry Group, which encourages companies such as BAE Systems, Tenix, General Motors Holden and a number of other component suppliers to become involved in a partnership with high schools in the area so that they can go into the high schools and work with the science teachers to help them see how the subjects they are teaching in either trade or technology areas are used in the workplace. They can help the teachers in practical experiments and projects that are run in the school, and they can bring the children and the teachers into the workplace to see how those skills can translate to a career in a wide range of industries, whether it be in auto, in defence, in the aerospace sector or in advanced manufacturing. This means that young people at that critical year 9 or 10 point, where they are making decisions about where their future will lie, have the knowledge and information to make decisions to go down the path that will see them take up trade training, engineering or maths or go in any of the directions this country needs to continue to move forward.
The last point I would like to make is that the reason we have been able to make this investment, and the reason this investment is required, is because of the good economic management of the government. Vision without dollars is hallucination. This government has had the vision for the education sector and the wherewithal to make the investment in it so that we are seeing a future for education in Australia. It is a future not only for education but also for demand for jobs. The fact that there is a workforce shortage and a skills shortage is because the jobs are out there waiting for people to take them. That is because the government has set in place a framework whereby industry and individuals have the encouragement and the incentive to invest in this country in creating jobs. That means that, when young people finish their training, whether it be through school, through a trade or through university, they have a job they can go to.
I welcome that economic management. I encourage the Australian community, as we approach the election at the end of this year, to consider their options and the fact that on one side you have a government that has the vision and economic credibility to bring that about and on the other side you have an opposition that, through the Education Union and through some of the statements it has made in this place, has opposed many of the measures that have brought about that economic framework and the initiatives and developments in education. In this particular case I welcome their support for this bill. I commend this bill to the House.
I wish to speak in support of the second reading amendment to the Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007. It states:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House welcomes additional financial support for first and second year apprentices but condemns the Government’s complacency and neglect of vocational education and training over the past 11 long years seen through:
This last point is a matter of great concern. A number of speakers in this debate have reflected on apprenticeship completion rates. In my own electorate I have been made aware of an example of a first-year apprentice carpenter who started off on a wage of $140 per week. Even at the end of that first year, that apprentice carpenter was receiving only $190 per week in his hand. That apprentice carpenter dropped out in order to pursue more lucrative arrangements for unskilled labourers. Indeed, there are jobs around where people can earn $500 or $600 a week and even up to $1,000 a week as unskilled labourers.
We in this House know that it is better for the individual to complete their apprenticeship or traineeship. We know that it is in this nation’s interests that we develop the skills. We say things like, ‘It’s hard to put an old head on young shoulders,’ but frankly it is up to us to ensure that young people are better rewarded for sticking at their apprenticeships.
In my area there is an organisation known as Apprenticeships Plus. They and their hardy band of host employers do a terrific job in relation to apprenticeships. The employers agree to take on the responsibility of having an apprentice or trainee in their workplace. They support that person through on-the-job and off-the-job training across the entire course of their placement. Our local community recognises that one of the biggest financial commitments and the most important investment that any business can make is in its staff. I certainly want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the time, the initiative and the diligent efforts that the host employers and their staff have provided for their apprentices.
Whilst outcomes from taking on apprentices and trainees vary widely, host employers continue to show a commitment to community participation and a willingness to invest in school leavers, job seekers and secondary school students from within their local areas. I offer my appreciation to those host employers who create opportunities to provide a base for lifelong commitment to a vocation and give apprentices and trainees life skills and choices.
Apprenticeships Plus, like others that operate in this field, have advised me that there is a very high rate of attrition in the first 12 months. Indeed, each year they have to set a budget for the number of apprentices who commence, the number of apprentices who complete and the number of apprentices who drop out. Of those who do not complete successfully, most leave for two reasons. One is a change of career path and the other is that they are simply not earning enough.
For the coming year, Apprenticeships Plus has framed its budget in terms of the prospect that some 40 per cent of apprentices and trainees will drop out. That is simply not good enough. They have given me the example of an apprentice in the horticulture field working in parks and gardens who left school at year 11. This apprentice was earning between $8 and $8.50 per hour. Then he moved out of home and the consequence of his moving out of home and having to pay rent was that he threw in the apprenticeship for a $10-an-hour job sorting recyclable plastics for a well-known recycling company. This is the kind of problem that Australia faces and that this government needs to address.
The bill before the House is aimed at keeping people in apprenticeships. It comes some two years after Labor began calling for additional payments to apprentices in the traditional trades in the form of a $2,000 trade completion bonus for apprentices. It has all the hallmarks of a government dragged kicking and screaming, in the shadows of an election, to do something. The latest annual figures show that in 2005 over 128,000 apprentices and trainees cancelled or withdrew from their courses. That is a staggering 49 per cent of all those who commenced apprenticeships or traineeships that year.
While the government seeks to talk about 400,000 apprentices in training, it fails to mention that only 140,000 of these apprentices are completing their training and it fails to mention the fact that less than a quarter of those in training are undertaking traditional trade apprenticeships. After 11 long years of this government being in office, the average number of traditional trade apprenticeships has been around 120,000 a year. The average achieved by the previous Labor government was 13 per cent higher, at 137,000.
When you look at completion rates for these traditional trade apprenticeships, an area where Australia faces the most dire shortages, the government’s record is even worse, with only 24,700 traditional apprentices completing their training in 2005. Over the term of the Howard government, completion rates for traditional trade apprenticeships have fallen from 64 per cent in 1998 to 57 per cent in 2005. This is significantly less than in Labor’s last year in office.
Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the questions I asked in the parliament yesterday concerning the use of Kirribilli as a fundraising venue for the Liberal Party. Can the Prime Minister confirm that on 24 June 2005 he used his official Canberra residence, the Lodge, for a similar function for business observers for the 2005 Liberal Party Federal Council meeting, each of whom had paid $7,500 to the Liberal Party?
Yes, I can confirm that, and the circumstances in which that took place, including the Liberal Party picking up the full additional costs, were actually the same—exactly the same.
My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of criticisms being made in relation to wealth distribution in Australia? Are these criticisms justified?
I am aware of criticisms that have been made, especially by the Leader of the Opposition since he assumed that position, to the effect that this government has not ensured that the prosperity that this nation has undeniably enjoyed over the last decade has been fairly spread throughout the community. He has even employed that strange word ‘brutopia’ to describe the policy approach that this government has taken. In Labor’s Family Watch Task Force report, which was released on 7 May 2007, this is what the Labor Party had to say, and this is what should be examined against the reality:
... the interaction between welfare and the family payments systems is punishing—
punishing, would you believe —
middle and low income earners ...
It went on to say:
The Howard Government has delivered ad-hoc tax and family payment adjustments without addressing crippling effective tax rates for low and middle income families.
Mr Swan interjecting
Order! The member for Lilley is reminded of standing order 62.
It goes on:
Far from being “relaxed and comfortable” after a decade of the Howard Government, Australian families are increasingly anxious about their household finances.
The whole basis of the Leader of the Opposition’s attack on this government is that Australia has become a rich man’s paradise and that the poor men and women of this country have suffered adversely over the last 10 years.
The figures released by the ABS yesterday are a stunning repudiation of everything that the Leader of the Opposition has said on this subject. The figures released yesterday provide conclusive proof that the government changes to the tax and income support arrangements are highly progressive, and they are targeted to low-income earners. The figures show that only the top 40 per cent of households pay net tax after cash and in-kind benefits have been taken into account. That is the direct opposite of brutopia. That is a direct repudiation of everything that the Leader of the Opposition and those around him have said. The ABS reports the following conclusions in relation to household incomes in 2003-04: low-income households receive more social benefits in cash and social transfers in kind and pay less taxes than high-income households. It goes on to say that the lowest income household received 44.5 per cent of social benefits in cash, whereas the top 20 per cent of income earners received only 1.7 per cent of social assistance benefits. The payment of taxes—it goes on—on income, and to a lesser extent taxes on production, increases with income. Households in the lowest income groups paid 1.3 per cent of total taxes on income, while households in the highest income groups pay 58.2 per cent.
These are not my figures; they are not the Liberal Party’s figures; they are the figures of the independent Bureau of Statistics. These figures are a comprehensive vindication of the fairness of the tax and welfare policies of the government over the last 11 years. They demonstrate that this has been a fair government, that this is a government that has looked after the battlers of this country, that this is a government that has seen to it that the great wealth of Australia over the last decade has been evenly distributed—indeed, it has been more than evenly distributed; it has been disproportionately distributed to assist those in the lower income brackets. When you add these figures to the facts that we now have a 33-year low in unemployment, we now have real wages rising at more than 20 per cent over the last 13 years, we have the lowest level of industrial disputes ever, we have paid off a $96 billion debt, we have an economy that is the envy of most of the industrialised world, it represents a picture which is a total repudiation of everything that the Leader of the Opposition has stood for since he assumed that position.
My question is again to the Prime Minister and relates to my earlier questions on the use of Kirribilli and the Lodge as fundraising venues for the Liberal Party. Prime Minister, how much money did the Liberal Party pay to the Commonwealth for the use of the Lodge on 24 June 2005? When was that payment made and how much of that payment was for the use of the Lodge as a venue?
The Liberal Party did not use the Lodge or Kirribilli House. None of these events were fundraising events. In no way was either of the premises made available to the Liberal Party. The people attending these events were attending as my guests, and I believe it was appropriate that there be a reimbursement for the additional costs over and above the normal costs associated with the operation of the premises.
My question is directed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer detail to the House information released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the effects of the government’s tax and family assistance policies? Treasurer, are you aware of any alternative proposals?
I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his question. I can inform him that yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its five-yearly report entitled Government benefits, taxes and household income. Here it is. It is a very interesting snapshot of what the position of households was in 1998-99 compared to what it was in 2003-04. When you read this report you find that after households receive their benefits, principally family tax benefits, only 40 per cent of households pay net tax—that is, they get more back in family tax benefits than they actually pay in tax. When you look across all of the households in Australia, the average total government benefits allocated exceed the taxes they pay by about $15 a week—that is, on average an Australian household does not pay net tax. This is because corporate taxes are allocated to some degree back to family benefits. These findings show that the benefits are greatest to the lowest income earners, who are measured in this case by quintiles—that is, by 20 per cent levels. The interesting thing about this study, which was done between 1998 and 2003, is that it still does not include additional benefits which this government introduced as part of the 2004-05 budget. This is before the increased benefits for families in the 2004-05 budget, including the $600 annual payment per child, which really does exist and which is real money.
The other thing that I would like to draw the House’s attention to is that because this independent study by the Australian Bureau of Statistics goes from 1998 to 2003, a five-year snapshot, it really does measure Australia—and here is the point—before the ‘day of fundamental injustice’ and after the ‘day of fundamental injustice’, because ‘fundamental injustice day’ was 30 June 1999. Members of this House will remember one of the great speeches that have ever been made in this chamber—on ‘fundamental injustice day’, 30 June 1999—when one of the members of this House predicted:
It will be recorded as the day when the social compact that has governed this nation for the last 100 years was torn up.
Let me record what happened in the five years after ‘fundamental injustice day’. Get a load of this! What this shows is that the bottom quintile—that is, the 20 per cent who are on the lowest incomes in Australia—increased their share of final income from 12.7 per cent to 13.2 per cent, that the next quintile increased their share of income from 15 per cent to 15.1 per cent and that the next quintile increased their share of income from 17.8 per cent to 18.1 per cent. Bear in mind that this was a growing pie. When you look at the distribution of that growing pie, the three bottom quintiles—that is, the bottom 60 per cent by income—actually increased their share. That is, as a proportion of growing national income, the 60 per cent of lowest income earners in Australia actually increased their share. That was between 1998 and 2003, and the report still does not take into account the changes which this government put in place in 2004.
One would have to remark that the ‘fundamental day of injustice’ did not turn out too bad after all! The day which was going to be recorded as the ‘day when the social compact was broken’ actually turned out to be the day when the poor in this country got a much better stake in the country as a result of a government that was determined to undertake reform. I have not heard the author of the ‘fundamental day of injustice’ speech give an explanation. Has he given an explanation? Is the explanation that he was wrong? Is the explanation that despite his projections things worked out much better and he would like to congratulate the government on doing so, or is his explanation that he just did not understand, that he did not know about economic policy and that he had not done the work to find out? That is my suspicion. My suspicion is that he does not understand the economy, that he has not done the work and that he cannot be trusted with economic policy in this country.
I draw members’ attention to the presence in the gallery this afternoon of the Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council, His Excellency Mr Abdulrahman Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah. On behalf of all members, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitor.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how much money did the Liberal Party pay to the Commonwealth for the use of the Lodge on 24 June 2005, and when was that payment made?
I will seek advice on that and I will give it to you.
Opposition members interjecting—
I am asked about a claim that was made in 2005. I do not recall the precise amount. All I can inform the Leader of the Opposition of is that the arrangement that I described obtained then. The same advice was tendered to the government in relation to that matter.
How much?
The member for Jagajaga is warned!
I will find out and I will tell the House. Okay?
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that real wages are continuing to grow? How much have they grown since 1996? Is the Prime Minister aware of any threats to continued real wage growth in Australia?
In reply to the member for Macquarie, I can inform the House that, because of the successful economic policies of this government, real wages for Australians have continued to rise. I am very pleased to confirm to the House that real wages have risen by 20.8 per cent since 1996; whereas they fell by 1.8 per cent in the 13 years that preceded the election of this government. In other words, for 13 years under Labor prime ministers and Labor treasurers, real wages were suppressed in this country. Not only were they suppressed but those prime ministers and treasurers actually boasted to the Australian parliament and to the Australian people about how successful they had been in suppressing real wages. If you think that I am in some way exaggerating the figure of 20.8 per cent, let me remind you that it comes from the Statistician. It does not come from me or the Liberal Party; it comes from the independent Commonwealth Statistician.
I noticed in the media this morning that I have an unlikely ally in the case for higher real wages under the Howard government. That unlikely ally is somebody who hopes to become a member of this parliament after the next election, and there is a fair prospect that he will, because he has secured Labor preselection in a very safe Labor seat in the Hunter Valley area. I am talking about Greg Combet. Greg Combet, addressing a union to mark his pending retirement as Secretary of the ACTU, listed his achievements. One of the achievements he listed was a very big increase in real wages over the last 10 years. I thought to myself: ‘Why would Greg Combet be wanting to support John Howard and Peter Costello? Why would Greg Combet be saying to the world that real wages had gone up?’ I was thinking to myself, ‘Has he had a latter-day burst of charity towards some good economic managers, or was he having a swipe at some of his predecessors?’ I think maybe it was a bit of a go at the member for Batman, because he presided over the ACTU during periods of low wages growth; maybe it was a go at Bill Kelty. I seem to remember that Bill Kelty and Greg Combet had slightly different reactions to that ABC program about the 1998 waterfront dispute.
Who was the hero?
The hero of that was, of course, Greg Combet. And there was the person who thought he had been made to look a bit of a village idiot in that program. He did not like his appearance. We all have problems when our appearances are depicted, and we should not be too sensitive about that. But I thought it was a very interesting revelation: here was Greg Combet, right on song, saying, ‘Yes, real wages have risen over the last 10 years.’ In fact, if you look at the last 10 years, they have been very good years for the Australian people. They have been good years for the battlers, they have been good years for low-income earners, but they have been increasingly bad years for union bosses because most of the predictions of union bosses have not come to fruition, and that of course is why the union bosses are so keen to reverse the drift of power away from them and to return the government of this country to those whom they believe it should belong—that is, themselves.
When I am asked this question about real wages growth, I am reminded about the importance of productivity. I listened to an interview on AM this morning where the Leader of the Opposition struggled rather pitifully to get on top of the concepts of productivity. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that productivity, loosely defined, is output per worker. He did not seem to understand that. He did not seem to know that, in the last national accounts, increases in productivity had been recorded. All he could do was to recite a bit of a mantra about how there was a productivity rise in the 1990s, that there was a long-term productivity trend of 2.3 per cent, that it had fallen away, and that we were all ruined if we did not elect a Labor government. I wondered where I had heard that before. I picked up my now well-thumbed copy of the dirty tricks manual issued by the ACTU, and I looked under ‘productivity’. These words came echoing back to me; this is what it had to say:
The statistics reveal productivity growth has fallen. Prior to the 1983 accord, productivity was 2.3 per cent. The Labor enterprise bargaining reform facilitated a productivity peak at an annual rate of 3.2 per cent, in contrast to the first Labor cycle. Since Howard’s first workplace reform, productivity has fallen back to 2.3 per cent.
That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition was arguing this morning. When he was asked by the interviewer whether he had read the national accounts, he did not answer the question and, when he was asked whether he understood them, he did not answer the question.
Mr Swan interjecting
The member for Lilley is warned!
Any fair-minded person listening to that interview—
Mr Swan interjecting
The member for Lilley will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Lilley then left the chamber.
would conclude that the Leader of the Opposition does not know the first thing about productivity. He has made productivity the centrepiece of his economic attack on the government, but today we have revealed statistics that have destroyed his attack on the social policies of the government, and this morning, out of his own mouth, he destroyed his own attack on the economic policies of the government.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s answer to the previous question when he said that he would tell the parliament how much the Liberal Party had paid to the Commonwealth for the use of the Lodge on 24 June 2005 and when that amount was paid. Will the Prime Minister agree to give that detail to the parliament by the end of question time? Will the Prime Minister also inform the parliament on how many other occasions the Prime Minister has used the Lodge or Kirribilli for direct or indirect fundraising purposes for the Liberal Party?
I can answer the second part of the question now by saying that neither of those residences has been used for Liberal Party fundraisers.
Mr Crean interjecting
The member for Hotham is warned!
As to the other information, I will make that information available to the parliament and the public when it is available to me, and that will not be before the end of question time.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the relationship between industrial relations policy and productivity? How would recentralisation of the labour market present a threat to productivity and the wider economic prosperity?
I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. Many factors can influence productivity in an economy. One, of course, is capital investment. Where you have capital deepening, although it may detract from productivity as it is going on, if it leads to increased capacity and boosts production, after a period of time that can lead to greater output per person. Another thing that can influence productivity, obviously, is the skill of labour. That is why this government is making a huge investment in the education system, particularly the post-secondary education system, because—
It has long lead times.
It does have long lead times, yes. If you take children who are, say, starting secondary school and you give them a better education and a better post-secondary education, you will, hopefully, get a pay-off in 10 years in relation to productivity.
But there are also some things that can lead to better output per person in the more immediate term. Of course, one of those is a better industrial relations system. If you allow people to so change their patterns of work and to have incentive for higher output, you are going to get better output per person and better output for each individual enterprise. I do not think there is any doubt that a decentralised system of industrial relations will promote productivity. I do not think there would be any credible observer—not the IMF, not the OECD, not the Treasury—that would argue against a decentralised industrial relations system. The only institution I am aware of in this country that argues against it is the trade union movement—because the trade union movement wants to control workplaces. And, of course, its political puppet, the ALP, is forced to go along with the ACTU.
Earlier today the Reserve Bank Governor made a speech, and I want to read to the House what he said in relation to the current economic position. He said:
Compared with what we expected a year ago, then, growth has turned out to be stronger, employment higher, but underlying inflation a little lower, and wages growth has been steady in the face of unanticipated labour market strength.
This is quite a favourable set of outcomes, and should prompt us to ask how it all fits together.
So how does this fit together? He went on to say:
But my guess at present is that at least some of the explanation for these better-than-expected outcomes probably has to do with changed behaviour in the labour market.
Despite, on most counts, the tightest labour market conditions for a generation, growth in most measures of labour costs has remained well disciplined for the past two years or more, after a mild acceleration earlier.
Wages are rising quickly in some areas, but quite slowly in others. That is, relative wages are changing, adjusting to the forces at work on the economy, but without, so far at least, a serious inflation of the whole economy-wide cost structure.
This looks like a text-book case of adjustment.
That is what the Governor of the Reserve Bank said today—‘a text-book case of adjustment’.
I have been making the point for a long time that, if your terms of trade are strong and some of your industries are doing well, you can afford increased wages and increased costs in those industries. But what you cannot afford to do is take settlements out of profitable industries and pattern bargain them or piggyback them across to other areas of the economy. That will result in general inflation. That is what has always happened in Australia in the past, and that is why a terms of trade improvement has invariably led to recession, inflation and its consequences in this country.
What has kept us going now is that we have a better system of industrial relations. I have compared the economy to a Formula One racing car. You have a growing economy. You have got 4.2 per cent unemployment. You have got in some cases full employment and labour shortage. But you can keep inflation moderate on a good industrial relations system. But if you want to put in the driver’s seat of that Formula One somebody who does not know how to handle it, somebody who brings back in an industrial relations system, it could threaten the whole delicate balance.
If you had wanted to know about a fearful example of what could be in store for Australia, you should have listened to the Leader of the Opposition on AM. It was painful. It was clear he does not know what productivity is, it was clear he does not know what creates it and it was clear that once you ask him a question off the ACTU script he is on his own. He is somebody on his own, but this time driving the Formula One motor car; he is somebody on his own, but this time running the Australian economy—a fearful event, almost embarrassing for those of us who were listening to it this morning.
If you do not want to listen to me and you do not want to listen to the Reserve Bank governor and you do not want to listen to the IMF and you do not want to listen to the OECD, could I plead with you: do not listen to the ACTU. Why not listen to Paul Keating, Labor hero, who takes responsibility for everything that is good in the Australian economy? He said on Lateline:
... the Labor Party [has] come back with something that will take them further back than the legislation I put in place in ’93.
They do not have a policy.
Government members interjecting—
They are listening; they are just pretending not to listen. They are engaged in deep conversation which, as those of you who are in question time will notice, will end the moment I stop talking. It is an elaborate charade from somebody who does not want to listen to the economic facts. It is all about the Australian people. You wonder why he does not understand productivity; it is because he does not listen to me at question time. Here I am; I am giving free tutorials, and all he does is engage in an elaborate charade. I will tender for him the speech of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and ask him to read it, and I will tender for him the interview with Paul Keating, Labor hero, the person who did everything good—according to him—in the Australian economy. I will make this point: Labor does not just want to go back to 1993 and it does not just want to go back 14 years; it wants to go back beyond to the prehistoric era of industrial relations, which will do nothing for the Australian economy.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s answer to my previous question on Kirribilli and the Lodge, their use for fundraising purposes by the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister’s answer that neither residence had been used for Liberal Party fundraising. If that is so, why did the Prime Minister say the following just before question time? Question: ‘The nub of this—it is fundraising, isn’t it?’ Answer from Howard: ‘Yes. But, well, it is that and, well, sometimes gatherings of that type that I have eluded to, you know, might in a remote way be associated with fundraising.’ Prime Minister, will you confirm finally the fact which stares the entire country in the face that both these events at Kirribilli and the Lodge were fundraisers for the Liberal Party, pure and simple?
The answer is: they were not, and the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to distort something I said at a news conference into a contradiction is absolutely baseless, and I reject it.
My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how seriously the coalition government views airport security? Are there any alternative approaches, and what is the government’s response?
I thank the member for Hughes for her question. Of course, given the proximity of her electorate to Sydney Airport she takes a great deal of interest in aviation security matters. Our government is very serious about security both inside Australia and outside Australia as far as Australian citizens are concerned, and particularly around the aviation industry in this country. Between the government and the private sector in the aviation industry there have been billions of dollars spent on aviation security around the country since the terrorist attacks of 9-11 in 2001. In fact, the government has spent over $1.2 billion on aviation security across Australia as a result of those terrorist attacks in ensuring that the travelling public in Australia is secure.
A security breach at Sydney airport came to my attention yesterday, when there was a media story about it. I thought I should find out about it, so I contacted the airport operators, SACL, and asked for some information about this so-called breach. It turned out that there was not a security breach, but there seems to have been a deliberate misuse of an ASIC—that is, the Aviation Security Identification Card that is issued to people that work on airport sites across Australia so they can gain access. They have been properly screened by security agencies. It seemed that there had been a misuse of an ASIC to gain entry to the airport yesterday with media personnel.
You might ask who they were and why would they do that. It seems that the cardholder was none other than one Sam Crosby, an official of the TWU. Although he was not employed on the airport site, he had access as a senior officer of the Transport Workers Union so as to be able to see his members. But not only is Sam Crosby a senior official of the TWU; he just happens to be the president of Australian Young Labor. Here we have the president of Young Labor in Australia, a senior official of the TWU, misusing his ASIC to take the media onto the airport in Sydney to try and create a scare among the community about security at the airport. I asked SACL about the incident and how it occurred. They have closed-circuit television and a record of the security gates that were used. According to their statement:
Sam Crosby, an official with the Transport Workers Union, holds an ASIC and as such has the ability to sponsor applications for Airport Visitor Cards.
On Tuesday 5 June, at 12.16pm an Airport Visitor Card was issued to Zoe Arnold, the TWU’s Media Officer, on the sponsorship of Sam Crosby.
At 1.22pm Airport Visitor Cards were issued to Justin Vallejo and Tobias Zerna, staff members of the Daily Telegraph, on the sponsorship of Sam Crosby. In all Sam Crosby sponsored three people for Visitor Cards. It was stated that the purpose of obtaining the Airport Visitor Cards was to attend a union meeting.
At 1.28pm Sam Crosby used his ASIC four times to gain access through Gate 25. An electronic swipe (using an ASIC) is required at Gate 25 and an identification and bag check takes place at that location.
There was no breach of security; there was a misuse of his ASIC. They arrived at 1.28. The group left the airport at 1.46, so they were on the site having the union meeting for an entirety of 18 minutes. They would have gone around and seen many members of the TWU in that time!
We all know what this is about. This was just a blatant stunt out of the ACTU’s manual for political stunts, which we have seen this week. It was stunt used by the president of Young Labor in Australia to try and undermine the security circumstances in our aviation industry across this country. He is a very senior position holder in the Australian Labor Party. There was no breach of security at Sydney airport. There was a misuse of an ASIC. Sydney airport has advised me that they have referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. I have asked that the Office of Transport Security provide advice to me as to whether Mr Crosby is still a suitable person to hold an ASIC to enter airport operations like those at Sydney airport. After this exercise, the Leader of the Opposition might think again before getting a photograph of himself and the leader of Young Labor put on the front page of a website. The Leader of the Opposition has said, ‘If the Labor Party is going to win and set the right direction for the nation it will require a 100 per cent effort from everyone at every level of the party to get involved.’ Sam Crosby has done that. He took his stunt straight out of the ACTU’s stunt manual in the lead-up to the election. I say again that there was no security breach at Sydney airport, but that there was a misuse of a privilege that a member of the TWU and the ALP had been granted by Sydney airport.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement by the Australian Electoral Commission director for funding and disclosure, Mr Kevin Bodel, that the Prime Minister’s gift of the use of Kirribilli to the Liberal Party does appear to be a gift in kind. I also refer to Mr Bodel’s subsequent statement, in which he said, ‘Basically, I’ve now been told to shut up.’ Prime Minister, did any minister or any ministerial adviser contact the AEC yesterday on this matter? What did they say to the AEC? Prime Minister, why did the government seek to intimidate the AEC, Australia’s independent election watchdog?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. Perhaps I can best answer it by reading a media statement released today by the Australian Electoral Commission.
Who wrote their lines for them?
Oh, I see: we do not have an independent Electoral Commission anymore! This is what the statement says:
The AEC announced today it is examining if any potential disclosure obligation exists under the Commonwealth Electoral Act in relation to a function hosted by the Prime Minister at Kirribilli House.
The AEC has noted suggestions that the Government may have attempted to ‘silence’ or constrain the AEC responses to the media on this issue.
‘The AEC takes its integrity and independence very seriously and I want to make it quite clear that no attempt was made by the Government or anybody else to influence the AEC in its response to this issue,’ Electoral Commissioner, Mr Ian Campbell said.
‘Contrary to some media reports, the AEC Director of Funding and Disclosure, Mr Kevin Bodel was not asked by the AEC or the Government to “shut up” regarding these matters.’
The release goes on to say:
The AEC also confirmed today that it will examine a complaint by the federal Special Minister of State regarding the use of electoral roll information in connection with the ACTU and whether this may or may not be in accord with the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
I have been anxious to ask a question of the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House on the importance of the Privacy Act and the obligations on organisations to protect and properly handle the personal information they collect from their members?
I thank the honourable member for Mallee for the question, because I know that issues in relation to the handling of personal information of individuals are of great concern to members of the House generally. From time to time I even hear comments on the importance of privacy issues from some members opposite. The act is quite clear. It provides important protection for everybody in the Australian community. The act imposes certain obligations on organisations when they collect or use personal information. There are certain National Privacy Principles in the act which set out the obligations of non-government organisations. The very first principle is that an organisation must not collect personal information unless the information is necessary for one or more of its functions or activities. Of equal importance is the principle that an organisation must take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual is aware of the purposes for which the information is collected. In other words, if an organisation collects information that is not directly relevant to its activities, it could be in breach of those principles.
I know from the noise being made that some members appear not to treat this issue as seriously as some of their colleagues who have pressed these matters on other occasions. But let me just say that there is some very important case law on these principles which ought to be of concern to everybody in this House. It involves, in particular, a union associated with the ACTU. I draw the House’s attention to a case involving the Channel 7 network and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and another. That body is a union affiliated with the ACTU. In that case, the alliance engaged a call centre to poll employees of the Channel 7 network before a scheduled vote on an agreement. The call centre was acting as an agent of the alliance when it undertook that polling, with scripted questions, and collected a variety of personal information from staff of the Channel 7 network that it contacted. Mr Justice Gyles of the Federal Court held that the collected information, no matter how useful or desirable to the union—that is, the alliance—was ‘hardly necessary for any of its functions’. This meant that this body was clearly in direct breach of the National Privacy Principles. His Honour also found that the call centre did not let people who were polled know the purposes for which the information was being collected.
I think this is a case of the utmost importance to us all. If an organisation is going to seek information from you or any of your constituents or any body of which you are a member or with which you are associated, even if it is the ACTU or its friendly local union representative, you are entitled to know why and you should make sure that it is necessary for the function of the organisation. If people believe their personal details have been misused, as they clearly were in this case, by an organisation to which they belong or with which they are in any way associated then they should lodge their complaint with the Privacy Commissioner so that these issues can be dealt with.
My question, again, is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his claim yesterday that the Kirribilli function was no more than ‘hospitality provided by me’. Does the Prime Minister recognise that Kirribilli is not his house and that it belongs to the Australian people, or does he agree with the member for O’Connor’s statement today—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite have asked this question again and again in different forms and in fact it has been answered in full. It is out of order.
I am listening carefully to the leader’s question. He has not completed his question. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
I refer the Prime Minister to his claim yesterday that the Kirribilli function was no more than ‘hospitality provided by me’. Does he recognise that Kirribilli is not his house and that it belongs to the Australian people, or does he agree with the statement made today by the member for O’Connor:
It’s his house and we say it’s his house ...
Prime Minister, don’t the Australian people deserve something better than a Prime Minister and a government who now regard the national estate as purely a fundraising vehicle for the Liberal Party?
Before I call the Prime Minister, I indicate that the Leader of the Opposition would be well aware that he should not debate questions. He would also be aware that the Prime Minister is not required to comment on statements made by backbenchers. On that basis I call the Prime Minister.
I am very happy to answer the question. I do not regard Kirribilli House as my house and I do not regard the Lodge as my house. I recognise that I am greatly privileged to occupy both of those residences at the present time because I happen to be Prime Minister of this country. I know that my predecessors—or most of them—would have adopted the same attitude.
But seeing that the Leader of the Opposition has persisted with this falsehood that the function held last Friday week was a fundraiser for the Liberal Party—which it was not—perhaps I might draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to a memorable paragraph in a book entitled The Fixer: the untold story of Graham Richardson, written by Marian Wilkinson, who is hardly a journalistic promoter of John Howard, to put it mildly. I think she almost competes with David Marr—no, not quite—as somebody who is fairly uncharitable to the current Prime Minister.
This particular book describes, on pages 262 and 263, an event that took place at Kirribilli House in the winter of 1987. As I remember, in the winter of 1987 Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister and I was the Leader of the Opposition. So I remember the winter of 1987 extremely well. It was a winter of some discontent for the Liberal Party of Australia and, in political terms, a winter of some comfort for the Australian Labor Party. The book spoke of a gathering at Kirribilli House in these terms:
The guest list for the night, if not secret, was certainly handled discreetly. The invitees were coming to Kirribilli House for what was, in reality, an exclusive fund-raising dinner.
Let me read on, because I can assure you that it gets infinitely better than that, Mr Speaker. It goes on to say:
Among the millionaires—
Mr Tanner interjecting
The member for Melbourne is warned!
Opposition members interjecting—
We don’t like 1987, do we! Even though they won that year, they do not like the uncomfortable reminder of their own hypocrisy. The book goes on:
Among the millionaires and multi-millionaires on the guest list was also Graham Richardson. He was there, quite simply, to put the hard word on the guests for their money after the delicious food, expensive wine and expansive speeches. He hoped that each of the men might be good for anywhere between $30 000 and $100 000—
and this was in 1987; if it were constant dollars, it would be a lot more—
comfortably lining Labor’s war chest for the election. The cheques would be collected after the election—this way the donations could be written off to the party’s administrative fund or its corporate entities. The confidentiality of the donors and the size of their contribution could be protected.
When the Leader of the Opposition asks about fundraising at Kirribilli House, that is what he ought to be talking about—not an entirely legitimate event that I held there last Friday week. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I seek leave to move a censure motion.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith:That this House censures the Prime Minister for:
It is remarkable indeed that on a day like this the government will not even take a censure on something as serious as the misuse of the Australian national estate for party political fundraising purposes by the Liberal Party. What we have on display for the nation and for the parliament is a government which has become arrogant in office, a government and a Prime Minister which have now lost touch with the Australian people, a government and a Prime Minister which believe that the taxpayers’ assets, the public assets, the people’s assets, are now the personal property of the Liberal Party of Australia. Their belief is that those instruments, those resources and those fundraising opportunities are now all political playthings available for their collective use in order to use to advance the partisan interests of their party.
This is a pattern of behaviour. It is a pattern of behaviour that we have seen unfolding again in recent weeks in this parliament. The Prime Minister sat there over recent weeks as he took question after question from us on what was happening with the government rolling its hand down into the pocket of the taxpayer to pull out wads of cash in order to fund party political advertising and to fund it straight from the taxpayer. We spent day in, day out trying to extract the truth from this Prime Minister on why and to what extent his government was using taxpayers’ dollars to prop up the political interests of the Liberal Party and the television ads which they had planned—which everyone knew they had planned, but which they did not have the courage or the honesty to admit at the dispatch box were then in process. This pattern of behaviour continues. It is not just reaching in and grabbing the taxpayers’ dollars for party political ads. It now goes to core parts of our national estate. Kirribilli and the Lodge are the official residences of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia in Sydney and in Canberra.
Since these matters opened up some five days ago following the coverage in the Sunday newspapers, we have had the government ducking and weaving around one simple proposition: was this a fundraising event or was it not? It is remarkable that here we are on a sitting Thursday and the Prime Minister still cannot bring himself to admit this fundamental fact. If you go to the text of the document itself, it is remarkable what it says. Let me read to you from the document of 2005—this was when they had fun down at the Lodge. The 2005 Liberal Party of Australia’s federal council document which was sent out to business observers says, ‘Registration form, Business observers: Please note, registration forms will not be processed until payment is received.’ That is the first point. Under ‘Attendance’, it says, ‘Registration fee: $7,500.’ And it goes to say: ‘The business observers registration fee includes all meals, including the council gala dinner, admittance to the business observers program and council material.’ It then says: ‘Numbers for some functions are limited. Please register and pay early to avoid disappointment.’ It also says, ‘To assist in administration and catering, please indicate your attendance at each of the following functions.’
So let us get the sequence right here. There is a $7,500 registration fee to gain acceptance and admission to the business observers program. Then you are asked on the selfsame form to tick the box as to which of the elements of this business observers program you are going to attend in response to the amount of money that you have paid. And what do we find on this list? On Friday, 24 June, you get morning tea with chiefs of staff. Then there is an economic luncheon with the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello. Additional tickets were $150 for that. There is the health luncheon, with the Hon. Tony Abbott. It was $150 for that. It would be interesting to see who went to what and who got the best numbers. And then there is this amazing little box: ‘Welcome reception’. It does not say where. It does not say whose welcome reception. But we now know it is the Prime Minister’s welcome reception. What we have been told by members of the business community is that when they are at their federal council meeting—
Order! The motion is to suspend standing orders. The Leader of the Opposition will speak to the motion.
We are speaking to the urgency of the suspension, and it goes to the whole question of the integrity of the use of public resources in this country for their proper purposes, including the whole question of the national estate. But when we come to the proposition that the business community, having completed a form like this, were then bussed from the Hyatt over to the Lodge and greeted at the door of the Lodge by the Prime Minister, it is transparently obvious what the function was. If it smells like a fundraiser, if it looks like a fundraiser and, given the canapes on offer, if it tastes like a fundraiser, in all probability, Prime Minister, it is a fundraiser. Let’s just call a spade a spade here. It is like saying in the last few weeks we have been in the parliament that when it came to taxpayer funded political advertising, because it had not been approved, the fact that the advertising campaign existed meant, according to you, that it did not officially exist. This is the sort of word game, Prime Minister, the Australian people are growing tired of because they have seen it up hill and down dale.
Here is the second problem which the Prime Minister has in his defence. The Prime Minister says it is not a fundraiser.
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will speak to the motion.
On the question of the urgency in this matter, it keeps coming back to the proper use of public resources, including the national estate. The Prime Minister asserts it is not a fundraiser at all. Yet if that is the case why then did he see fit to repay some money? There is a bit of a logical contradiction here: it is not a fundraiser, but we feel a bit guilty about it so we will return some of it. Of course, we do not know how much has been returned, nor do we know at this stage on how many occasions the Lodge and Kirribilli have been used for this purpose. These are mysteries yet to be unfolded for us all in this place. But when it comes to the use of these resources and the national estate, the Prime Minister has sought throughout this debate that we have been having all week in this parliament to evade basic accountability to the parliament on these key questions of truth. It happened in 2005; we know that. It happened in 2007. It was $7,500 a kick. There were a couple of hundred people rolling in the door, with Mr Howard greeting them, saying, ‘Welcome to the canapes.’ By the way, here is a question: which of the staff are actually engaged at this point? There are the official staff at Kirribilli and the Lodge. Then there are those which are seen to be engaged for the occasion. Are they separately accounted for in this exercise? These are matters to which we still do not have the answers, Prime Minister. But when you go through the final list of the 2007 function and look at all numbers listed, it is quite plain that the main event, the main attraction on that program for your $7,500 investment—
Fran Bailey interjecting
Order! The Minister for Small Business and Tourism!
is to get to the Lodge and to get to Kirribilli for the purposes of being greeted by the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in your ministerial code of conduct you say:
Ministers are provided with facilities at public expense in order that public business may be conducted effectively. Their use of these facilities should be in accordance with this principle. It should not be wasteful or extravagant. As a general rule, official facilities should be used for official purposes.
Prime Minister, what did you mean by that? What did you mean by this provision of the ministerial code? If it says, ‘Their use of these facilities should be in accordance with this principle’—this principle being that they should be used for public and official purposes—then using the national estate for fundraising purposes is in gross violation of the ministerial code you have laid down for your ministers. Is the Prime Minister asserting that he is not governed by the ministerial code he has put out there for his ministers? Obviously he believes he is beyond it and above it.
Then there is the final element of the saga: the panic here yesterday as they sought to get on the phone to the AEC and make sure there was no problem—through the Special Minister of State’s office, via his Chief of Staff, trying to nobble poor old Mr Bodel, who is responsible for disclosure matters at the AEC, to make sure that that individual was not going to cause a problem for the Prime Minister.
Fran Bailey interjecting
The minister for small business is warned!
This government exhibits arrogance pure and simple in its abuse of public resources. It is a government that has been in office too long. It is a government which has now lost touch with the people. It is a government which believes, Prime Minister, that the national estate is its personal property to use and do with as it pleases and, on this occasion, to raise money for the Liberal Party improperly to prosecute its election campaign. (Time expired)
Is the motion to suspend standing orders seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
At the outset I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that was not quite as bad as his AM performance but it went very close. Let me say to the House very directly why there is no case to suspend standing orders to discuss this issue. The reason there is no case to suspend standing orders to discuss this issue is that the two most important public policy issues before this parliament today are, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition’s inability to understand the basic principles of his own economic attack on the government—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting
Order! The member for Adelaide is warned!
and the basic principles of productivity in this country.
Mr Snowdon interjecting
Order! The member for Lingiari is warned too!
Secondly, the revelations in the ABS statistics that were released yesterday clearly show that the policies pursued by this government over the last 10 years have been policies that have—
Ms Gillard interjecting
Order! The Deputy Leader is warned!
benefited the less well-off in the Australian community. They are policies that have not robbed the poor in order to further enrich the rich. Rather, they are policies that have put on display to the Australian public the commitment of this government to principles of social justice and fair treatment of all citizens. If this parliament should be debating anything of public policy importance today it ought to be debating those two issues. That is why I believe the parliament should reject the suspension of standing orders sought by the Leader of the Opposition.
As I understand the working of this House, in order to suspend standing orders you need to establish that the issue you want to discuss is of such overwhelming importance that it cannot be put on notice and that it cannot wait until another day. In repudiating that proposition, I argue that what is important to the Australian people today is whether the alternative Prime Minister—
Mr McMullan interjecting
Order! The member for Fraser is warned!
of this country really understands his alternative economic policy. What is also important to the Australian people today is whether the policies that this government has pursued over the last 10 years are policies that have been of benefit to the great majority of the Australian people. In the last 24 hours we have seen a dramatic set of economic figures that have totally detonated any credibility in the economic attack of the Leader of the Opposition on me and on the government I lead. From the moment that the Leader of the Opposition assumed his present position he said that I led a government that had failed to use the prosperity of the last decade to fairly reward all of the Australian people. He said I led a government of privilege, a government of the rich, a government that did not care about the less well-off in the Australian community. That was a charge that was gathered under the quaint general description of ‘Brutopia’.
Ms Owens interjecting
Order! The member for Parramatta is warned!
I was depicted by the Leader of the Opposition as a person interested in privilege and indifferent to the suffering of the less well-off. That was always a false charge. It was a charge made false by the employment record of this government. What other Prime Minister can turn to an unemployment level at a 33-year low? What other government can point to real wages having risen by 20.8 per cent in 13 years? What other government can point to the low levels of inflation and interest rates? What this parliament should be addressing today are those issues of the fairness of the government’s economic policies and the total inability of the Leader of the Opposition to even understand the basis of his own economic attack. I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk exclusively about Kirribilli House today and I will come to Kirribilli House—
Mr Garrett interjecting
Order! The member for Kingsford Smith is warned!
but he has got to establish urgency. He is trying to deflect the gaze of this parliament and of the Australian public from those two very important economic debates. He has tried to divert the attention of the public and of the media away from his appalling economically illiterate performance on AM this morning when he did not understand the first thing about what he has been prattling on about for the last six months, and that is productivity. He was asked again and again whether he had read the national accounts and he either had not, or he refused to acknowledge that he had, or he was trying to misrepresent what they meant. You cannot be a credible economic alternative if you do not understand your own economic argument. This Leader of the Opposition, I charge, does not know anything about productivity. He does not know what it constitutes. He does not know the history of it in this country and he certainly does not understand the policies that are necessary to bring it about.
Having dealt with the issue of urgency, let me deal very briefly with some of the other matters that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Let me just explain to the House in sequence what happened in relation to the Kirribilli House event. As part of matters surrounding the federal council meeting there was a drinks party, which I hosted at Kirribilli, to which delegates to the federal council, a few other members of the Liberal Party and business observers to the council were invited. The invitations that were extended to the business observers in the first instance and the invitations on which decisions were made by those business observers to attend did not, I am advised, make any reference to attendance at Kirribilli House, but rather a reference to a Prime Minister’s reception. I regarded it as proper, as did the Federal Director of the Liberal Party.
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting
Order! The member for Gorton is warned!
The decision taken before the event was held was that, given it was an event taking place in conjunction with the Liberal Party Federal Council, it would be proper for the Liberal Party to pay the additional costs involved in hosting the event. And when I speak of additional costs I mean the additional costs of food and drink and any additional security, and the additional cost of any further staff that were obliged to attend. I think I advised the House of a figure of some $5,100, to which should be added, I am now told, some security costs of several hundred dollars.
I also inform the House that prior, to the event being held, verbal advice was obtained from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by my chief of staff that, given all the circumstances and given the intention of the Liberal Party to pay the additional costs, it was an entirely appropriate use of the official residence. That was the advice that was obtained.
Much has been made of the fact that these delegates were coming to the federal council meeting only because of the possibility, of which they were not formally advised before accepting the invitation to come, that they would be able to come to Kirribilli House. That might be a valid argument if the only opportunity of access to me or my ministers occurred at the Kirribilli House function. But I can tell the House that, unlike other party conferences, there was full access to me and to senior ministers at the meetings of the federal council and all the surrounding occasions, so there is no question of this being an improper use.
I simply remind the parliament that, whatever may be said about Kirribilli House, no use of Kirribilli House in relation to me or the Liberal Party could possibly match the use of Kirribilli House in 1988 to determine the future leadership of the Australian Labor Party. It is very instructive, when you are talking about who was included and who was not included, that at the famous Kirribilli House pact the only two people present, other than Mr Hawke and Mr Keating, were the then leader of the ACTU and the person who was then known as the most beneficial financial supporter of Bob Hawke and of the Australian Labor Party. That was a metaphor for the approach that government took to the use of Kirribilli House. (Time expired)
The Prime Minister has just told the parliament and the people of Australia why this is an urgent motion and why this government is so out of touch that it just does not get it, because, as far as the Liberal Party are concerned, there is no bill for Kirribilli. The Liberal Party believe that Kirribilli House and the Lodge are their own private country club. Let us have a listen to what the Prime Minister said. The first thing that he did was to speak about additional costs as if the security, the staff at the Lodge and the staff at Kirribilli House are there at his beck and call to serve the Liberal Party if the Liberal Party are using it for fundraising. To cover up this abuse of democracy, over the past 24 hours we have seen a compromising of the independence of the Australian Electoral Commission.
Order! I remind the Leader of the House of standing order 62.
The response of the government has been to breach the Australian Electoral Act and to breach the ministerial guidelines. And what does the Prime Minister say? He says, ‘We paid the additional costs.’ The only way that the food at Kirribilli could have cost $9.46 a head was if guests leaned over the fence at Kirribilli and fished it directly out of Sydney Harbour. The Prime Minister’s use—
Order! The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Leader of the House will resume their seats or leave the chamber.
No wonder they do not want a debate on this.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not think it was a problem to do what I have just done. Certainly members opposite do it all the time.
That is not a point of order.
The Prime Minister was reminded that he had not tabled any costs for security staff, so what did he do? On the run, he told parliament, ‘Oh, there were several hundred dollars spent on extra security for the Kirribilli House function.’ We also know, because it has come out today, about the 2005 function—that this is a regular abuse, a serial abuse of the Prime Minister’s two residences to raise money for the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister says that he has advice. He should table it before this parliament, because it is pretty clear that this was an abuse. You have only to look at the business observer’s registration form and you will find it has a series of events. Many of them have additional tickets available where you can buy your way in, with the exception of three events, and those three events are the Senate afternoon tea, the morning tea with chiefs of staff and the Prime Minister’s reception at Kirribilli House.
Order! The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship will observe standing order 62.
It is very clear, with due respect to the senators and with due respect to the chiefs of staff, that the big attraction for this event was the reception at Kirribilli, where you got food—oysters, prawns, fine wine, posh soup in little shot glasses—for the bargain basement price of under $10 a head.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member opposite is now seeking to debate the substance of the motion. He is not debating why standing orders ought to be suspended and he ought to be brought back to the motion.
The Manager of Opposition Business will come back to the motion before the chair.
The only way that the food at Kirribilli could have cost $9.46 a head is if they had flung a fishing line into the harbour and caught the fish themselves.
Mr Speaker, I resume my point of order. Under the standing orders, it is quite clear that this is a motion to suspend—
The minister will resume his seat. There has been a wide-ranging debate on this motion; there has been a wide-ranging debate on both sides. The member’s time has expired. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Mr Speaker, the member for Hotham made an offensive remark about the Leader of the House.
I did not hear it. If the member for Hotham made an offensive remark about the Leader of the House, he will withdraw it.
I do not believe it was an offensive remark, and if you did not hear it, why would you take his word?
The member for Hotham will not reflect on the chair.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Rudd’s) be agreed to.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, I have.
Please proceed.
A number of opposition members have claimed that I or my office interfered with the investigative processes of the AEC. This is completely and utterly false. In various electronic media organisations it has been claimed that I or my office interfered with the investigative processes of the AEC. That is completely and utterly false.
Mr McMullan interjecting
The member for Fraser has already been warned.
In an article by Sam Maiden in the Australian it is claimed that I or my office ordered the AEC to shut up. That is completely and utterly false. I quote from an AEC press release issued today that the Prime Minister quoted from—
Did you call them?
The member for Gellibrand!
It says:
The AEC takes its integrity and independence very seriously and I want to make it quite clear that no attempt was made by the Government or anybody else to influence the AEC in its response to this issue.
Did you call them?
The member for Gellibrand is warned!
That was the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Ian Campbell. Also:
Contrary to some media reports, the AEC Director of Funding and Disclosure, Mr Kevin Bodel was not asked by the AEC or the Government to “shut up” regarding these matters.
I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. It concerns the use of standing order 94(a) to exclude the member for Lilley today from the House without warning, for an hour.
I would remind the Manager of Opposition Business that the member for Lilley was warned.
Mr Speaker, could you examine the tape and argue whether the member for Lilley was the most disorderly person in the House during question time?
The Manager of Opposition Business is now reflecting on the chair.
No, I am not.
The Manager of Opposition Business already has the answer to his question. The member for Lilley was warned. He continued to interject, and he was accordingly asked to leave under standing order 94(a).
Could you examine the tape and see whether the behaviour of any government members was disorderly during question time and during the suspension debate before the parliament today?
I say to the Manager of Opposition Business, yes, I do examine the tape after occasions like today, but I will not be revisiting any decisions.
Mr Speaker, could you investigate whether someone in the journalists area, a female wearing a brown coat, took a photo during the last division, with her digital camera? I notice that she has been escorted away by one of the security guards, but I think that is a breach of protocol and a breach of the House.
I thank the member for Franklin. I will make further investigations on his behalf.
Mr Speaker, I ask you to write to the Minister for Education, Science and Training and ask for reasons why she has not responded to my question of 6 February, question 5299, in respect of the Ipswich Careers Link service and some allegations made about that service. I also ask you to write to the Minister for Defence asking for reasons why he has not replied to my question in respect of land at Greenbank Army Reserve, question 5520.
I thank the member for Oxley. I will write to both ministers seeking a response to his question.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
During question time the Leader of the Opposition misrepresented me with a selective extract from a short comment attributed to me by the AAP at the doorstop this morning. The complete short quote is:
“It’s his house and we say it’s his house because we insist that the prime minister of the day lives either there or in the Lodge,” Mr Tuckey told reporters.
Clearly the reference to ‘we’ is the Australian people and not any other party.
Order! The member will not debate his explanation.
My question relates to the matter that the member for O’Connor just raised. During question time the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a question which included a reference to the quote that the member for O’Connor has just referred to. In response to that you stated that the Prime Minister is not required to comment on statements by backbenchers. Over the years there have been many occasions in my experience where government ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister, have been asked questions regarding statements made by government backbenchers, including as to whether such statements reflect government policy. Those questions have been allowed to stand as being in order. My question to you, Mr Speaker, is: under what standing order did you make the ruling that the Prime Minister is not required to comment on any statements made by backbenchers?
I thank the member for Melbourne. I refer him to the House of Representatives Practice, where it is quite clearly stated that previous occupants of the chair have ruled that part of a question out of order.
My question concerns respect for public property and the parliament. At the time of the 1996 budget you will remember that the union movement, particularly the CFMEU, doorknocked Parliament House. You will recall that they doorknocked so hard that it came clean off its hinges. There was hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage caused while they trespassed and rampaged through the house. Was the CFMEU billed for this damage and, if not, why not? In light of the fact that the union movement is so cashed up at the moment, will the Speaker now pursue payment?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member will be heard. I did not hear the last part of the question. I say to the member for Lindsay that she is talking about something that happened many years ago. I am sure that the occupier of the chair at the time would have dealt with it as he saw appropriate.
Mr Speaker, is it not a legitimate question that the member for Lindsay raises? It is in the preserve of the Presiding Officers to ascertain this fact. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the member for Lindsay to ask it, and I respectfully ask—reiterating her question—that this matter be investigated and reported upon.
I will look carefully at the full text of the question by the member for Lindsay. I did not hear the last part, but I will have a close look at it and give it further consideration.
I can repeat the last part of the question for you if it would help. I asked whether the unions have been required or requested to pay a bill for damages to the House and whether that bill has been paid. If it has not been paid, given their current cashed up circumstances will you pursue it now?
As I have just said, I will look carefully at the full text of the question and give it further consideration.
I request, in accordance with the standing orders, that you write to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism seeking an answer to question No. 5592, which was placed on the Notice Paper on 26 March 2007. This is a very important question because it goes to the potential misuse of taxpayers’ money by the Minister for Small Business and Tourism when she attended the G’day LA tourism functions this year. This is about transparency and accountability and the misuse of taxpayers’ money.
I thank the member for Batman. He does not need to debate his question, but I will follow up his request with the minister.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 44 of 2006-07 entitled Performance audit: management of tribunal operations—Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following documents:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner—Reports for 2006—Social Justice.Australian National University—Report for 2006.Gene Technology Regulator—Quarterly report for the period 1 January to 31 March 2007.National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Current and future governance arrangements for the Indian Ocean territories—Government response, June 2007.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Grayndler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s use of Kirribilli House for party political purposes.
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—
I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Question put.
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.
Debate resumed.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Before question time today, I was speaking in support of the opposition’s second reading amendment to the Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007 and indicating my view to the House that the bill is not only belated but also insufficient. It funds only the first and second years of an apprenticeship, whereas Labor’s trade completion bonus targets the completion of an apprenticeship. The bill also does not address the fundamental structural issues at the heart of the current skills shortages and is simply, I believe, a bandaid on what is a structural haemorrhaging in vocational education and training. The TAFE system alone has turned away over 325,000 people while the government has been in power and is in desperate need of increased funding and investment in infrastructure. This neglect has left the nation facing acute skills shortages.
Young Australians who have not completed year 12 and are not fully engaged in the workforce and low completion rates for apprenticeships are issues that need to be addressed in order to rectify these skills shortages. A skilled workforce is essential for our long-term economic prosperity. It is essential that vocational qualifications are attractive to all Australians—and this begins at the school level. This bill falls seriously short of fulfilling the claim by the Minister for Vocational and Further Education that it will encourage young people to consider technical and trade training. It does not address the root causes of the problem. Providing assistance to only first- and second-year apprentices does not fundamentally resolve the low completion rate of apprenticeships which I referred to earlier. Labor’s trade completion bonus for apprentices would make one payment of $1,000 halfway through an apprentice’s training and a further $1,000 payment at the completion of the apprenticeship. This would help facilitate the completion of traditional trade apprenticeships by providing payments to reward those who continue beyond the first two years and complete their apprenticeships in traditional trades on the national skills shortage list.
This bill does not acknowledge or address the structural root of the existing problem of skills shortages, which is at the school level. At a structural level, Australia needs to lift the number of students who complete senior secondary school and increase the number of people with vocational and skilled trade qualifications. Of those young Australians who have not completed year 12, a significant number are not engaged in the workforce in a meaningful way. Apprentices and trainees who commenced their training contract without completing year 12 have a lower probability of completing their training than apprentices and trainees who have completed year 12. In May 2005, 20 per cent of school leavers who had completed year 12 were not fully engaged in study or work, compared with 40 per cent of year 11 completers and nearly 50 per cent of year 10 or below completers. There were over 48,000 early school leavers not fully engaged in learning or work. Those who finish school are relatively advantaged in terms of education and labour force destinations. So we need to skill up and fully engage young people in our labour force.
This is something that many people are aware of. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has identified the importance of growing a skilled workforce locally. The evidence is apparent that increasing secondary school completion rates and establishing clear avenues to post-school education and training are imperative for increasing productivity and individual prosperity as young Australians are equipped to avoid unemployment and/or underemployment. The OECD has identified a clear link between increasing retention rates and increasing productivity with better employment outcomes and social inclusion available to individuals.
Many young people see education solely as a means to employment. This means that there is less incentive to complete year 12 if there are opportunities as unskilled workers, and senior schooling is unfortunately too often seen as simply a means of gaining entry to university. Improved access to vocational education and training in schools and to school based apprenticeships will make schooling more relevant for the almost two-thirds of students who do not go on to university study. A school environment that is more engaging for students with vocational programs could be integrated with mainstream subjects and thereby capture the imagination of students. This would provide a disincentive to leaving school before year 12 as the value of remaining becomes apparent.
Vocational education and training should be seen as a genuine choice for young people and should be reflected as such in the standard of facilities available at secondary school level. Facilities at secondary school level accommodating vocational education and training need to be upgraded and improved. State and territory governments have recognised the importance of a high-quality vocational education and training system and its integration within the school system. A federal Labor government would, with a national school based vocational education and training system, invest some $2.5 billion over the course of the next decade to lift secondary school retention rates and to create high-quality vocational education and training opportunities throughout Australia’s secondary schools. This kind of approach to vocational education and training and trade skills goes to the heart of the problem and invests in our human capital. By increasing retention rates in schools and rectifying the underemployment that characterises a significant number of early school leavers, productivity and workplace participation will be lifted. I believe that a high-quality national system of vocational education and training at the school level that engages students will facilitate higher retention rates and increase the reputation and perception of vocational education as a first-class career choice. This will go a long way towards meeting our skills shortage and providing a long-term solution.
The government has also substantially increased the number of skilled migrants coming into Australia. During 2004-05 the government increased the number from 63,300 to 97,500—a 50 per cent increase. Skilled migration to Australia is now more than four times what it was in the last year of the Labor government, jumping from 24,100 to 97,500. That jump is so big that it has caused total migration levels in Australia to almost double what they were in the first year of the Howard government—from 73,900 to 146,500. Over the years I have taken a big interest in unemployment because of its impact on the community that I represent and I have come to the conclusion that unemployment nowadays is all about education and skills. If you have got the education and the skills you will get a job. If you have not, best of luck. It is a mistake to import skilled migrants to meet our skills needs and allow our own young people to languish on the scrap heap for lack of decent investment in skills and education. This goes on in tertiary education. Domestic undergraduate commencements have increased by the very meagre amount of 3,000, from 132,000 to 135,000. That is a bare two per cent increase—essentially flatlining. During the same period undergraduate commencements by overseas students in Australian universities have increased by 20,000, from 16,000 equivalent full-time students in 1996 to 36,000 students by 2003—a 125 per cent increase. As you might expect, this has led to a dramatic increase in the percentage of Australia’s student population who are overseas students. In 1996 it was 10.8 per cent of the student population. By 2003 it had doubled to 21.1 per cent. This means that young Australians are missing out on university places and the job opportunities that come with the university places. It is the same with apprentices and trade training. We have seen cutbacks in federal government support and a move to import our need for skilled labour, essentially outsourcing our demand for skills and training.
Labor believes that we can do better. In May 2005 we called for the budget to include a trade completion bonus for apprentices to address the skills crisis. It is regrettable that the government has failed to take up this initiative. In 2005 the government decided it would make income support through Youth Allowance and Austudy available to apprentices, but the harsh participation requirements for these payments have meant that only a small number of apprentices have been benefiting from this support. Of the 60,000 apprentices that the Department of Education, Science and Training estimated would receive youth allowance in 2005-06, only a quarter of this number—15,000 apprentices—actually received income support. When the government was challenged, the explanation it gave for the low take-up rate was that apprenticeship and parental incomes were higher than anticipated. Yet, in the bill before the House, we can see that the government acknowledges through the apprenticeship wage top-up measure that these wages need to be supplemented.
Along with a failure to provide adequate financial support for apprentices and to address the appalling completion rates, particularly in traditional trades, the government has presided over neglect and underinvestment in the vocational education and training sector. We have seen a slashing of investment in vocational education and training. The government’s own estimates show Australia facing a shortage of more than 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years. Part of its response to this has been to spend half a billion dollars on a stand-alone network of Australian technical colleges that will at best only produce 10,000 graduates by 2010. The other side of the coin here is that the TAFE system has turned away over 325,000 people and is crying out for additional recurrent funding and investment in infrastructure. In order to seriously address the magnitude of the current skills crisis, we need to focus on the areas of maximum impact. That includes the TAFEs, which are responsible for the substantial majority of post-secondary vocational education and training. We need to focus on vocational education and training in schools. We need to focus on on-the-job trades training. That is why Labor has announced a 10-year $2.5 billion trades training centres plan aimed at the million students in years 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools. This plan will provide secondary schools with between $500,000 and $1.5 million in order to build or upgrade the vocational education and training facilities in order to keep kids in school, enhance the profile and quality of vocational education and training in schools and provide real career paths to trades and apprenticeships for students. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007 is another demonstration of the Howard government’s commitment to young Australians in ensuring that they are able to access effective trade training in a way that ensures that it is both attractive as a career option and also, importantly, economically viable for employers and industry. This bill, along with many others that have been introduced during the term of the Howard government, is a very clear demonstration that this government is listening to the community, industry and individuals and responding in a positive and effective way.
Let us look at what has been achieved since the Howard government came to office in 1996. In particular, let us look at my electorate of Hasluck. In March 1996, there were 660 apprentices residing in Hasluck. By September 2006, I am very pleased to report, that figure had significantly increased. (Quorum formed) I can certainly understand the opposition whip calling a quorum. They do not want to hear about the success of the Howard government in providing apprenticeship opportunities for Australians and they do not want to hear about the disaster that they made of it during their term in government, because their performance was pathetic. I was saying that in March 1996 there were 660 apprentices residing in Hasluck. By September 2006, I am very pleased to report, that figure had significantly increased, to 1,430, an increase of some 117 per cent. We need to also look at the more mature age demographic, which reflects that significant change is occurring in our communities—which Labor would not recognise. Encouraged and supported by this government, older people are taking up apprenticeships. In 1996, in my electorate of Hasluck there were only 30 apprentices aged between 25 and 45, compared to 380 in 2006. This is a massive increase, of some 1,167 per cent, demonstrating the former Labor government’s lack of understanding of the evolving labour market.
These figures clearly demonstrate that the Howard government’s strong and effective economic management is flowing through our business communities, providing greater opportunity for those who wish to take up an apprenticeship and positively impacting on and benefiting many families in Hasluck and across Australia. Having looked at the positive changes in apprenticeship numbers and vocational opportunities in Hasluck, let us look more broadly. Since 1996, the Howard government’s policies and their effective implementation have ensured considerable growth in the opportunity for all Australians to access vocational education and training. Australian apprenticeship commencements have increased significantly. In fact, training opportunities for 15- to 24-year olds have increased dramatically, with Australian apprenticeship commencements in 2006 up a massive 154 per cent since 1996. There are now more than 404,000 apprentices in training, compared with only 154,000 in 1996. The number of young Australians aged 25 to 29 with at least certificate III vocational qualifications has increased from 40 per cent to 56 per cent, up 16 percentage points since 1996. The government’s commitment of $2.7 billion this financial year is an increase in funding for vocational education and training of some 90 per cent since the Howard government came to office.
In the lead-up to the last federal election the Howard government made a commitment to establish 24 Australian technical colleges across Australia to assist in the establishment of school based apprenticeships and to provide an effective school based model for the delivery of vocational training with industry and employers. The Howard government’s commitment to establishing these new Australian technical colleges to boost the status and quality of technical and vocational education in Australia is on target, with 20 Australian technical colleges currently operating at 33 campuses. In 2008 there will be 25 colleges at 39 campuses. By the end of 2009 they will be operating at up to 42 campuses.
I was very pleased to see that the recent budget announced further choices for those seeking to develop a trade based career, with a further three Australian technical colleges to be established. This will bring the number of Australian technical colleges to 28, providing training on state-of-the-art equipment, led by industry and business through their respective governing councils. Students will be provided with industry based trade and vocational training and workplace opportunities which will lead to an apprenticeship, a trade qualification and will also provide for a year 12 academic certificate. Indeed, the Australian technical college concept is a real innovation which is already established as a model for the future in developing vocational and trade training in specialist high schools. This Howard government initiative has already forced a number of state Labor governments who, as always, were dragging the chain, to recognise and belatedly introduce school based apprenticeships and to lift their game in those underresourced high schools that are struggling to deliver effective vocational programs.
I am unashamedly a strong advocate for Australian technical colleges and will be working hard on behalf of my electorate and constituents to ensure that one of the new Australian technical colleges earmarked for Western Australia is located at the Midland Railway Workshops. There is a very rigorous and dynamic group who are also determined to see an Australian technical college in Midland. They include the Swan Chamber of Commerce, the City of Swan, the North East Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council. This objective already has the strong support of the community and local businesses. It effectively links the historic past record of apprenticeship training at the Midland Railway Workshops with the future.
The Prime Minister said in parliament last year, in his ministerial statement on Skills for the Future:
With our investment in ... Australian technical colleges the government has said quite emphatically that the days when a trade or vocational qualification was deemed ‘second class’ in our society are over.
Labor do not get it. Labor still do not get that a trade qualification is equal to a university degree as a pathway to a satisfying and rewarding career. Labor do not get the need for industry and employer participation in the education and training process to ensure that the skills being taught meet the needs of employers and industry, whether they are small businesses, such as the local master plumber, or big businesses, such as BHP or Alcoa.
Labor’s lack of understanding of this relationship is demonstrated by their actions in the dropping of industry based advisory committees in the trade sectors in TAFE colleges as far back as 1986. Talk about living in the past. It was further demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech, where he announced that they would fund 2,650 schools to deliver vocational training, without any mention of industry or employer involvement and certainly not enough financial commitment to ensure that they would be adequately resourced. In fact, the member for Wills just mentioned that each school may be eligible for $500,000 to $1.5 million. If they are going to effectively provide vocational training, they will need substantially more than that. They will need to develop relationships and partnerships that assist in the delivery of that. There was no mention of that. They will not be adequately resourced by skilled industry trainers or indeed have the necessary tools and equipment to effectively deliver vocational training of real value.
I again quote Mr Brian Toohey, from his column in the West Australian recently:
Kevin Rudd has made a bad policy mistake by promising to give every high school in Australia a trade training role. The job is much better done in specialised technical and vocational colleges where the money can be concentrated on producing fully skilled graduates.
Quite clearly, the Howard government has got it right. We will continue to build on this record through specialised Australian technical colleges and by supporting apprentice wages and the costs of training fees and other innovation initiatives.
I will further expand on this by referring to last year’s announcement by the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, of a major investment in upgrading Australia’s workforce and building its skills base by investing $837 million over five years to fund the Skills for the Future initiative. This important training initiative delivers a range of opportunities for Australians to gain new skills and will help to develop a more entrepreneurial workforce. It helps to highlight the understanding of the need to continuously upgrade one’s skills over the course of an individual’s working life or to even start a new career in a traditional trade.
Unlike the Labor opposition leader, the Prime Minister of Australia does get it. He knows and understands what Australians need to remain actively engaged in the workforce. He knows what industry and business need to increase productivity and profitability in the 21st century. He understands that requiring business and employers to pay an adult apprenticeship rate where a worker is older than 21 is a disincentive to employers and a barrier to older Australians changing career and taking on an apprenticeship.
The Western Australian government, only a few years ago, moved all apprentices over 21 onto the minimum adult wage without any serious consultation with employers of mature age apprentices. This decision, unfortunately, immediately led to many of those mature age apprentices losing their apprenticeship. It was a great and unnecessary tragedy for those affected. Instead, the Labor government should have adopted a similar approach to that announced under the Howard government’s Skills for the Future package, which provides support for mid-career apprentices of an amount of $307 million. Apprentices aged 30 and over will receive $150 per week—the equivalent of $7,800—in the first year of their apprenticeship and $100 per week, which is equal to $5,200, in their second year. This is paid to either the apprentice or the employer, depending on the industrial arrangement the apprentice is employed under. That is the way to encourage older people into the workplace and to take up apprenticeships.
Other initiatives announced under this program include work skills vouchers to the value of $408 million. The $3,000 works skill voucher is a great opportunity for those people over 25 to hone their basic skills, especially to gain the literacy and numeracy skills that are basic requirements in the workplace. Other initiatives include the business skills vouchers for apprentices, worth $12 million; more engineering places at universities, worth $56 million; and incentives for higher technical skills, worth $54 million. These are all worthwhile initiatives aimed at keeping apprentices of all ages in the workforce.
The recent budget announcement to provide apprentices with an additional $1,000 for the first two years of their apprenticeship was well received, particularly by those apprentices in a trade occupation included on the migration occupations in demand list. This initiative will see first- and second-year apprentices under 30 who are undertaking an apprenticeship in a trade occupation included on the migration occupations in demand list as experiencing skills shortages significantly advantaged by this additional tax-free payment. It is expected that, over four years, some 220,000 Australian apprentices will benefit from this initiative. These payments are planned to be made in six-monthly instalments until they have reached the end of their second year.
These incentives are targeted specifically at those areas identified by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations as being areas of national shortage, and currently include such critical trades areas as bricklaying, cabinet-making, carpentry and joinery, drainery, gas fitting, general plumbing, mechanical servicing, air-conditioning plumbing, metal fabricating, metal machinistry, pressure welding, sheetmetal working, welding first-class, fitting, fibrous plastering, general electrical, general electronic instrument trades and lift mechanics—to name but some of those trades that would make terrific opportunities for many Australians.
These trades are necessary for the further development of essential infrastructure and future economic growth and prosperity. The coalition government has long been committed to restoring the status of trade and technical qualifications as an important part of ensuring that Australians see an apprenticeship as a valued and supported career choice. It is sad, though, to see that the Australian Labor Party has walked away from these essential trades in favour of an academic university qualification, irrespective of whether there is a job at the end of it or not. Indeed, today there are many mature age apprentices who have degrees but have seen the real opportunity that trades, such as those mentioned earlier, provide.
For a young person leaving school, there is nothing as important as having the opportunity to find work or an apprenticeship in a chosen trade or career path. In 2007, that opportunity is much more readily available than it was in 1996. In the early 1990s, 34.5 per cent of teenagers and school leavers were unemployed. In fact, the prospect of a job or apprenticeship was pretty remote. We even had the CES, as it was known, going into schools and advising leavers how to sign up for the dole, such were their prospects of employment. All of this was during the reign of what can only be described as an inept Labor government.
Let me demonstrate that ineptness. This is what the member for Brand, the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, had to say in 1993 in respect of youth unemployment in an interview on 6 May 1993:
Interviewer: So this group are being told, in their twenties, by society, effectively: You’re the losers; go to the scrap heap?
Beazley: Well, those who haven’t made it into work and who are among the long-term unemployed, that’s a reasonable statement.
We all know that we ended up with over a million Australians unemployed. The then Labor government had no response, no solution and could not fix these problems or even kick-start the economy.
The member for Wills said, ‘Labor can do better.’ We have been looking at what they have done. Let us look a little bit further. At that time, with the Labor government’s focus on university degrees, Australia lost a generation of apprentices and tradespeople simply because of their inability to understand how to kick-start the economy. At that time I was a strong advocate for industry based training centres as an alternative to TAFE to provide retraining and upskilling for existing skilled tradespeople and to ensure their skill base and knowledge remained relevant in a market that was rapidly advancing with the introduction of new technology and systems. It was very difficult at that time to get TAFE to address the changes that were occurring through technology.
It was obvious that there was a crisis in apprenticeship training and a need for much more flexible training arrangements and competition in this critical area. I, with other like-minded people committed to ensuring future opportunities for school leavers in apprenticeships and a future skilling of existing tradespeople, set about establishing a training facility. This led to the innovative MPA Skills in Maylands being established. Initially, it was precluded from delivering apprenticeship programs through an unproductive and restrictive Labor government policy. It was the first industry based skills centre to serve the building and construction industry in Western Australia, if not Australia. It is now a significant provider of apprenticeships for the skilled trades of painting, plumbing and gasfitting. (Quorum formed) (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
I want to talk this evening about some matters relating to the Public Service. Firstly, and most importantly, I want to talk about politicisation of the Public Service. I have a serious concern that after 11 years we have a government which takes the benefits of office as a right. We have seen it in highly publicised ways in, for example, the outrageous advertising campaigns robbing the taxpayers to fund what should be funded by the Liberal Party. But I want to proceed from that, which I now take as a given fact, to some serious matters concerning the Public Service.
One matter concerns the stories today that related to the Australian Electoral Commission. I notice the Special Minister of State is here. He gave a personal explanation today which I have to say was significant for what he did not say rather than for what he did. He did not refer to the outrageous situation we read about in the newspaper of his spokesperson, a politically appointed staffer, purporting to speak on behalf of the independent Electoral Commission. I thought it was an outrage, and an example of a continuing activity of politicisation. But that is really the icing on the cake of concern that I have, which is more longstanding.
I refer as an example to the Auditor-General’s report which had been released previously but was publicised yesterday by AAP. This recent report of the Auditor-General relates to the outrageous pork-barrelling by the then family services minister Mr Anthony of 120 funding applications made through the volunteer small equipment grant program. The previous finding of the Auditor-General was that the changes to the VSEG recommendations led to an increase in the allocations to coalition, particularly National Party, electorates. That is pork-barrelling and I do not approve of it, but that is not my point for today. My point is that the Auditor-General then went on in this report to say that the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs amended the entries in their database regarding the 120 affected applications, such that the department’s funding recommendations in the database agreed with the then minister’s changes—that is, they retrospectively changed the database to conform with the decisions the minister had made when the minister had overturned their original recommendations. The Auditor-General quite correctly condemned this behaviour and said it was below the standard expected of Australian government agencies. In my view, this is not an act carried out by bad people; this is an act carried out by people put in awful circumstances and making what I believe is an error of judgement but, in so doing, compromising the high standards of the Public Service.
I now want to go to a very important long-term analysis, but I will not have time to deal with it at any length. The analysis was produced by Andrew Podger, who was appointed by the Howard government as Public Service Commissioner and also as secretary of the department of health and who was previously a departmental secretary in the Keating government, including, for a brief period, of a department of which I was minister. That history is not relevant, other than to show that this is a person respected in a bipartisan manner—he has been appointed by both sides. He has made a very powerful analysis of long-term systemic problems in the way the Public Service is being managed and politicised, going right to the head of the government, to the Prime Minister. Those issues are important and need to be recognised, and Australia needs to think that this is an abuse of power.
I also want to refer briefly to some false stories that are being spread in my electorate about proposals to cut the Public Service under a Labor government. I make no apologies for the fact that the Labor government will change priorities, and we will transfer Public Service resources from current low-priority uses to higher priority purposes. We have outlined them in press releases, and I stand by those. They are low priorities and we will transfer those resources to higher priority uses, like the wonderful proposal for early childhood which will be a fundamental, important reform. The shadow minister for finance has made absolutely clear that these are cuts we will make so we can increase investment in productivity drivers like education, skills and infrastructure. (Time expired)
As we speak, thousands of South Australian teachers and parents are rallying across South Australia protesting against the South Australian Labor government’s budget cuts to public schools. These cuts will take $84 million from public schools over the next four years. The government announced the cuts last year and they have now told schools that that will be raised by a one per cent WorkCover levy on their staff budgets. This money will have to come out of the schools’ discretionary budgets. These budgets are used to highlight programs which the school community and principal decide are priorities, such as literacy and numeracy programs, and reading recovery programs. The amount of money that will be taken out of their budgets ranges from $3,000 for a small preschool to $60,000 for a school with 400 students and up to as much as $100,000 for a large high school.
To get an idea of what a Rudd Labor government would look like, we only need to point to the performance of the state Labor governments. Five years ago Michael Rann was elected on a platform to make health and education the priorities. In their most recent budget, the Rann government are clawing back money from government schools and preschools. Why? Three reasons: they have mismanaged their budget, they have mismanaged WorkCover and they are having to increase debt. A Rudd government would be—
Order! The member will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title.
A Labor government led by the Leader of the Opposition will be no better at managing the economy. In their most recent budget the South Australian government announced that they would be increasing their debt levels tenfold! This is the first time we have seen an increase in the debt level in South Australia since the days of the State Bank debacle. When we look at the community reaction to this in the letters to the editor for the Advertiser today, Glyn O’Brien, President of South Australian Primary Principals Association, has said:
We can’t afford it. We have to carefully and cautiously plan over a three-year period for computer upgrades, additional staffing to support students with learning difficulties or to buy books to encourage and enrich reading.”
Andrew Gay, the school council chairman of Westbourne Park Primary School in the electorate of Boothby estimates that WorkCover will cost that school $60,000. In a letter to the editor he said:
We have no option but to take money budgeted for other critical areas of student support to help pay this levy.
And he goes on to say:
... the impacts on class size, teacher workload and possible extra costs to parents all are leading to a disaster for so-called public education.
The problem is that this decision undoes all the good work which has been achieved locally. Some of the projects which I have worked hard to deliver include $1.2 million for new classrooms and a new library at the Coromandel Valley Primary School and over $2 million on a major capital upgrade at Colonel Light Gardens Primary School, and there are now in the pipeline major capital upgrades at Bellevue Heights Primary School and Paringa Park Primary School. These are all projects which the federal government has pushed for and which I have pushed for as the local member. We now have Investing in Our Schools money for every school in the electorate of Boothby, with several up to the maximum amount of $150,000. The state Labor government need to admit they have got it wrong. Teachers and parents are furious at this decision to take money out of their discretionary budgets. The Labor government need to reverse this decision and not claw back the $84 million over the next four years which they are taking out of government schools.
Yesterday in question time the Minister for Health and Ageing on behalf of the Howard government attacked our hard-working nurses. It was a disgraceful, shameful attack in which he falsely claimed that nurses were ‘indoctrinating patients and were responsible for lengthening waiting lists in NSW because they were all at ACTU indoctrination lessons’. What a lowly, pathetic attack that was. Nurses in my electorate of Richmond—who are at this minute hard at work saving lives and caring for our ill and elderly—are asking themselves, ‘Why do I get attacked by the Howard government for doing my job and working hard?’ The health minister has not even offered an apology. What an incredible display of arrogance! The health minister obviously has no idea how important nurses are to the community. This is just another indication of how the Howard government has lost touch with working families.
In light of his comments yesterday I demand that the health minister come to Richmond and apologise to our local nurses. I know how upset they are by his comments. This vicious attack by the health minister comes amidst well-founded fears that this government will force nurses onto AWAs. I know that the Australian Nursing Federation is seeking a guarantee from this government that health funding in the 2008 Australian healthcare agreements will not force nurses onto Australian workplace agreements. This government, far from giving that guarantee, has engaged a consultant to model the economic impact of moving more Australian workers onto AWAs so, indeed, the nurses definitely have a right to be very concerned.
Nurses are already suffering from this government’s extreme industrial relations legislation. Jill Iliffe, the federal Secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation states on the ANF website:
By far the biggest threat to nurses’ capacity to provide ongoing quality nursing care to the Australian community is the WorkChoices legislation.
What are the implications of this attack we have seen on nurses on other service areas? Who is going to be next? Will it be our teachers or our emergency service personnel such as firefighters and police officers? Will they be the next to lose their pay and conditions? We have already seen thousands adversely affected across a whole range of industries. Who will be next? Who is in the firing line? Many locals in my area are very concerned that the Prime Minster’s industrial relations acts will now fall on our local nurses, teachers, firefighters and police officers. Just think for a minute what this would mean for the police service, for example. As a former police officer I know first-hand the challenges involved with police work. It is absolutely shameful that this government could potentially now be seeking to remove their working conditions. It is the same with all emergency service personnel. It proves yet again how out of touch and arrogant this government is.
It is the same situation with nurses. Let us look at nurses and the job they do. Their job is to provide health care, a job they do extremely well often under difficult and challenging circumstances. How is this government rewarding them for all their hard work? What are they doing? They are attacking them in parliament and now taking away their working conditions. Our nurses need to spend their time caring for patients. That is what their job is; that is what nurses do—they care for patients. Now they are living in fear of the Prime Minister’s industrial relations acts falling on them and, as I said: who will be next?
What is next from this government when it comes to industrial relations? In the last election the government did not tell the Australian people at all about their plans for Work Choices. Nothing was said about it at all. Of course they will not be telling us what they have in store next for workers, will they, and that is certainly of huge concern to many locals in my electorate of Richmond. What is going to happen next? What other plans have they got up their sleeves? Every time this question has been put to the Prime Minister and he has been asked about it he tends to use those tricky words to weasel out of answering it. There are just more tricky words without an actual direct answer.
Our nurses did not deserve the vicious attack on them made by the health minister yesterday. Our nurses deserve to be treated properly and respected by our entire community—individuals and community groups—and by this government. Our nurses also deserve to be appropriately paid for the great work they perform. Any attempt by this government to force nurses onto AWAs is unacceptable. It is not good for our nurses; it is not good for our hospitals and aged-care facilities; and it is not good for our community. And I say again, in light of the health minister’s comments, I call upon him to come to Richmond personally and apologise to all our local nurses who are indeed very distressed by the comments that he made yesterday. His comments were shameful and disgusting and he needs to come out and apologise immediately.
I rise to inform the House that the Western Australian state Labor government is, astonishingly, about to turn down $10 million of Commonwealth money to fix a black spot in my electorate of Stirling. For many year years, the state Labor government and the federal Labor Party have promised to fix this black spot, where Reid Highway intersects with Mirrabooka Avenue. For years they have refused to live up to their responsibilities. The excuse they have been using is that the Commonwealth government has refused to meet them in providing this funding.
This is a 100 per cent state government road, and it is a 100 per cent state government responsibility. But, in desperation to get this done for my constituents—because people are being injured and killed at this black spot on a regular basis—I lobbied heavily for the government to provide some funding. So, in this year’s budget, $10 million has been allocated to fix this black spot. You might think that the state Labor government would say, ‘That’s fantastic; the Commonwealth government are now helping us to meet our responsibilities.’ But, no, apparently they are not going to match the Commonwealth’s funding offer. This is despite the fact that, for years, they have been promising my constituents that they would fix this black spot and build an overpass.
I would like to give the House some examples of where they have promised this. During the February 2005 election campaign, the member for Yokine, Bob Kucera, distributed a flyer headlined ‘Traffic black spot solution: Bob Kucera delivers overpass construction commitment’. In the brochure it said:
The Gallop Labor government has thrown its support behind the construction of an overpass at the intersection of Reid Highway and Mirrabooka Avenue—one of the state’s worst traffic black spots.
There is a picture of Bob Kucera at this overpass bragging about how he secured the money to build it. Of course, there were some carefully worded weasel words within the paragraph. It said that the Commonwealth government would need to find matching funds for this overpass to go ahead and that the state government were not prepared to fulfil their responsibility without the commitment from the Commonwealth.
In March 2006, Bob Kucera spoke to the Business News, which is a local paper in Western Australia. When asked why no overpass had actually been built, even though he had issued a brochure promising to do it, Bob Kucera said:
Without a commitment from the federal government for half the cost, it would be pretty difficult for the state government to do it.
If they come to the party tomorrow, there is a very strong case to get on with it.
Yet, since the commitment has been made by the federal government for $10 million, the member for Yokine has said absolutely nothing. It turns out now that the state Labor government are not going to accept this funding offer. They have until tomorrow to accept it; otherwise it will be spent elsewhere.
Indeed, the federal Labor party have expressed their concern to my constituents about this particular black spot. I have a brochure here. The member for Melbourne was so concerned about this black spot that he went down to have a look at it with Bob Kucera. This is a brochure that was issued to constituents in my electorate. It reads:
Labor’s federal shadow finance minister, Lindsay Tanner, was in Stirling recently to find out about the Mirrabooka Avenue-Reid Highway traffic black spot. At the 2004 election federal Labor to work with the state government to build this overpass and save lives. Local people need this black spot fixed but the Howard government just will not listen. He is so concerned about it.
If the member for Melbourne is so concerned about this black spot in my electorate then why won’t he pick up the phone to his state Labor counterpart in Western Australia, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alana McTiernan, and ask her to accept the Commonwealth’s money and fulfil her commitment—and I challenge him to do that.
In the 2004 election a brochure was issued to my electorate which says ‘Government to fix WA’s worst black spot: the Reid Highway and Mirrabooka Avenue intersection’. This is a Labor party brochure put out by Jann McFarlane, who was then the federal member for Stirling. A letter she wrote to my constituents headlined, ‘Labor to fix Mirrabooka Avenue-Reid Highway Black Spot’ said:
A Latham Labor government has pledged $6 million to build an overpass. This project is strongly supported by the state Labor government and both governments will work together to deliver this vital project.
Yet never once, in all this bleating about this black spot, has one dollar been allocated by any relevant government to actually build this overpass. The first time it will ever happen will be after the 2007 budget, yet the state Labor government have said that they are not going to match this— (Time expired)
I want to take the opportunity in the adjournment debate this evening to endorse the statements of my colleague the member for Richmond and speak on behalf of the many hardworking nurses in our electorates. I want to put on the record the concern they have about the comments made by the Minister for Health and Ageing in this House this week. We have had a level of debate this week around the fact that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has commissioned some modelling to determine the impacts of either changing the current IR policy or expanding it. Indeed, the expansion options it was asked to look at included increasing the number of staff on AWAs across the country and, in particular, those who are state government employees.
Clearly that would be of concern to people like nurses and teachers, firefighters and so on. My colleague formerly worked as a police officer and I formerly worked as a teacher, so I think we have pretty well got them all covered. The issue of concern is that obviously when government ask for this sort of modelling to be done there has to be some intention to it. It is, one would assume, not a whim about which the government thought, ‘That would be interesting to read on the weekend. Why don’t we spend some taxpayers’ money commissioning something to entertain ourselves with?’ I give the government the benefit of the doubt—and it is a long benefit of the doubt, given the topics in the House this week—that they would not be looking at wasting that money, so one must assume that this research has a purpose.
The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has scoffed at the idea that there is a secret plan. He says that it is merely research covering existing policies, having a cursory look at what would happen if the policies were reversed and what the costs of that would be. I do not know whether he is talking about his own reversal of the introduction of the so-called fairness test. Perhaps he is concerned that his own amendments are now going to have a negative impact on the government’s industrial relations reforms, and he might be thinking of revisiting that after the election. I think that many people are suspicious that that may be the case. This was a series of issues that were of clear concern to state government employees.
We saw government ministers come to the dispatch box this week to have their little say about an ACTU campaigning strategy. Rhetoric and hyperbole are not uncommon in this place, but it seems to me that the Minister for Health and Ageing always manages to take it just that bit beyond the pale. I refer to his statements in the House yesterday where he was talking about the nurses union becoming involved in this campaign. His comments about the nurses participating in a political campaign were that they would be politicising every hospital. His actual words were:
... now you have the politicisation of every hospital.
Coming from this government, I think that is an amazing accusation. In the Illawarra Mercury today there is a letter from a parent who attended the opening of a new Catholic high school in the member for Throsby’s seat. This parent was absolutely horrified by the extraordinarily political nature of Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells’s address to the opening of that particular school. The parent made the point that the senator could not help but run an entirely political message to parents at the opening of a new school. I would suggest that if the government is particularly concerned about political campaigning tactics it might check its own backyard before it goes out and criticises unions for political activity, which one would think would have been one of the reasons why workers would have formed unions in the first place.
In particular, the Minister for Health and Ageing went on to say that nurses would be so busy running around with their political activism that they would be indoctrinating patients instead of giving them their medication. He said that they would be brainwashing patients instead of giving them the standard health care that they deserve at the bedside and that elective surgery lists were blowing out because nurses were doing this. It was just over the top. It was disgraceful for the Minister for Health and Ageing, in particular, to attack nurses in that way.
The argument that working people are not able and do not have a right to be involved in political activity is the height of arrogance. It reflects a government that now thinks that anybody who dares to put an opinion of their own needs to be gagged. (Time expired)
I find it extraordinary that the previous speaker could find anything that Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells said as extreme or extraordinary. She is a very valuable, conservative member of our party. Compare a speech by a member of parliament at a school opening with what is happening at my local hospital, the Nepean Hospital. Your Rights at Work pamphlets are plastered all over the fence along the main drag into Penrith and as you enter the hospital, and Your Rights at Work pamphlets are plastered over every notice board as you enter every lift at the hospital. There is a weekly barbecue with a free sausage sizzle for all the nurses so that they can come down and be indoctrinated by the unionists with absolute twaddle about a misguided campaign. I find the previous two speakers’ efforts extraordinary at the very least. The only people waging a misguided and over-the-top campaign in this matter are the unions and those opposite who are standing up for them.
Mr Speaker, I rise tonight because, as you will recall, last night I brought to your attention the plight of a Mr Pearce who is a TPI pensioner. He was involved in the collision of the Voyager and HMAS Melbourne in 1964. He went through, inter alia, a lengthy process with solicitors who I feel were ambulance chasing rather than really giving him profound advice. He was presented with a letter, and I was quoting from that letter when I ran out of time in last night’s adjournment debate. The letter said:
We estimate that the total legal costs payable to the Defendant—
which is the Commonwealth in this matter—
will be between $150,000 and $275,000 ... once we receive the Defendant’s account we recommend you provide us with $2,500 to pay the cost assessor to object to the terms of the account.
So they were already putting in delaying mechanisms. In fact the letter said:
This may be an effective delaying mechanism.
The letter continued:
... because you are a TPI pensioner it may be that the Defendant—
the Commonwealth—
will be prepared to await execution of the costs order until you and your wife are deceased.
This is a legal opinion that he is ostensibly paying for saying: ‘Hang on a minute. If you can string it out, you might be dead before the Commonwealth legally and legitimately pursues you for costs in a matter that is 37 years old and that you never had a hope in Hades of winning.’ The letter continued:
Unfortunately, we do not know what they will decide to do and in the circumstances we suggest you stay quiet and hope for the best. It is best not to remind them of the situation.
This is an honest person who has honestly dealt with these solicitors. He has honestly said, ‘But I don’t think I can afford any further costs; let’s stop now,’ and he has been told to go on. He is in receipt of a TPI and now he is left with an outstanding account of close to $300,000. He is now wondering whether he will have to sell his house. In fact it has been suggested by the solicitors to Mr Pearce that he could sign over his share of the matrimonial home to the solicitors to pay their costs and disbursements—forget about paying the Commonwealth.
Mr Pearce informed me also that Hollows Lawyers have contacted a number of veterans who served on HMAS Melbourne at the time of the collision, and in fact there are more veterans who are in this same financial predicament. I would like to see action taken and state legislation introduced to stop this ambulance chasing by lawyers who use undue influence in acquiring work. They have not explained fully or in plain language the moneys that will be paid by a client in a no win, no pay arrangement. No win, no pay does not mean that you will never have to pay anything—it never has—yet there is a popular culture out there, brought about by American television shows and whatnot, that somehow in the Australian legal system this could possibly be the case.
We need to make lawyers accountable for their actions. One of the big bars that they have is the prohibition of finding negligence in lawyers, because it means retrying a case. If the law societies and the bar associations are now more rigorous in weeding out negligent lawyers then parliament must surely take action to protect our valuable veterans. At the moment, each year our universities are training as many lawyers as are currently practising. (Time expired)
In the few seconds that remain tonight I would just like to remind the House that once again we saw the Prime Minister dodging a proper discussion of issues which relate to the activities that he has undertaken on behalf of the Liberal Party with respect to fundraising. What came out today was that at recent functions in relation to the Liberal Party Federal Council— (Time expired)
Order! It being 5.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.
I was concerned to read a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 June 2007 which stated that Western Australian MPs have been advised by email from Telstra that constituents should be advised to complain directly to Telstra. The story further stated that this practice would be extended nationally to all MPs. If this report is accurate, I am appalled. In the past, parliamentarians have had a direct contact at Telstra if we needed to clarify a question or if we needed to refer an issue.
I have several objections to this abysmal decision by Telstra. Firstly, it is inappropriate for an organisation, publicly or privately owned, to determine what course of action parliamentarians should take on behalf of a constituent. Secondly, several of the complaints my office has received relate to the actual complaints procedure itself. Many people, especially the elderly, find it frustrating and, to be honest, confusing to be advised by a disembodied voice to push button 1 for one issue; button 2 for another; button 3 for a third; and so on—and, frankly, so do I. Thirdly, one constituent has advised my office that Telstra usually will not put information or problem resolutions in writing. The constituent has no comeback when Telstra say, for example, ‘We didn’t promise to reissue your bill,’ or, ‘We didn’t promise to restore your phone within seven days.’ Members of the public are, on most occasions, required to put their complaints in writing, yet Telstra is not required to do so.
I am a lifetime supporter of Telstra and its predecessors and I find this latest decision intolerable. In 2004 I spoke against the proposed privatisation of Telstra in the debate on the Telstra privatisation bill. This newspaper report provides a classic example of why I did so. At the time I stated that a privatised Telstra would be too powerful for any government to regulate efficiently. We now have evidence that a privatised Telstra is becoming too powerful for any government to control. The privatised Telstra has no accountability to the public beyond its shareholders. Telstra is not simply another private company; it is the provider of an essential service to the Australian community. The situation is not satisfactory. It is simply not acceptable. Telstra should back off from this proposal and continue to allow constituents to approach their members of parliament to act on their behalf.
I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and I was a lawyer by profession before I came into parliament. I do not propose to give a definitive opinion on this, but I must say that Telstra is sailing very close to the wind in attempting to limit what members of parliament can do, and it may well constitute a breach of privilege. I seriously think that Telstra should consider its action, reverse it and allow the status quo to continue.
I would like to commend the people of the electorate of Fisher and its surrounding areas for their very strong support for the substantial number of agricultural shows held each year in and around the electorate. These agricultural shows are a success because of the way that local people become involved to showcase the produce of their local communities. They are also a wonderful opportunity for the community to work together and to have sporting and equestrian events and for local farmers to show the quality of their cattle and so on.
Somewhat differently from the large city shows, the small agricultural shows in country areas very much revolve around volunteer labour. Often you find that the people who are displaying the produce are the people who are taking the money at the gate. I think we need to encourage as many people as possible to support agricultural shows, because they are a wonderful opportunity for a community to have a window to the world. Our agricultural shows have, of course, been affected to a greater or lesser extent by drought. I am fortunate that the area I am privileged to represent has had substantial rain, to the extent that the Caloundra City Annual Show at Maleny was virtually rained out on the second day of the show, held only a couple of weeks ago.
The local shows in and around the Fisher electorate include the Kilcoy show, the Caloundra City Show at Maleny, the Caboolture show this weekend just gone, the Sunshine Coast Show at Nambour this coming weekend and the Woodford show on 21 and 22 June. All of these shows provide entertainment for local families and also help to recognise, and as a community enable us to value, the work of our farmers.
Interesting things happen to members of parliament at shows. At shows I have had numerous opportunities to do things I do not do very well and this year I was invited to be one of the competitors in the milking competition. Not actually having been brought up on a farm, I must say the Ayrshire cow allocated to me was in no mood to have her udder emptied by a stranger and it took three people to hold her still. Even while I managed to get a late start, the event was all over before I could prove my milking skills, and the Caloundra City Mayor, Don Aldous, had claimed a victory. I am ashamed to say that I was actually disqualified.
At the Caboolture show over the weekend I was able to reforge some acquaintances with people who have returned to the electorate of Fisher. Let me say that shows give all residents, young and old, the opportunity to be reminded of the importance of farms and rural communities and the sense of community spirit that is so important. (Time expired)
The tempest that struck our region last Friday exposed the people of Newcastle and the Hunter to the world and, although we appeared battered and bruised, our community strength has been revealed for all to admire. The natural disaster began when 50-knot winds and 17-metre waves blasted the coal ship Pasha Bulker over the Nobbys Beach reef almost onto the shore, posing an immense rescue and salvage challenge. AMSA, Newcastle Port Corporation, harbour master Tim Turner and United Salvage Adsteam all went into action, and I particularly thank Gary Webb for his constant updates. Rescuing the 21 crew members in the horrendous weather was executed by the Westpac helicopter team with precision, skill and courage. Always our everyday heroes, on that day they were superheroes. To Graham Nickisson, the crew chief, and that bright, shiny boy I once taught: I am immensely proud. To the entire environmental damage control and salvage teams, thank you for being there so quickly. We hope for a safe and successful salvage.
But Mother Nature had more in store. Rain continued to fall that day in quantities that would quench the thirst of this land, defying the man-made pass constructed to contain the run-off and cutting paths of destruction through streets, homes and businesses. Trees were uprooted, powerlines fell and torrents of water wreaked havoc everywhere, and thus the rescue effort began. Family members, neighbours and strangers undertook great acts of bravery and compassion. About 2½ thousand State Emergency Service volunteers worked day and night, responding to 15,000 calls for help. At the height of the storm, 200,000 homes were blacked out, 28,000 people’s phones were off and water supply was cut in many areas. A superhuman effort by emergency and health workers, police, power, water and telephone teams, who swung into action, averted further tragedy.
But the loss has been great and, while restoration has commenced, nothing can be done to bring back the nine people who lost their lives over the course of that terrible weekend. I extend my deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones of Wayne Bull; Adam Holt and Roslyn Bragg, their daughters, Madison and Jasmine, and their nephew Travis Bragg; Nigel Beeston; and Bob and Linda Jones.
Thank you to the SES commanders, police commanders and the Premier’s office for their coordination and updates. Thank you to all our agencies and authorities who kept the information flowing and a very special acknowledgement to the entire 1233 ABC Radio team for their amazing heart-warming round-the-clock coverage. For many people without power, the trannie tuned to the ABC was their only link to the world—a constant source of emergency information, human contact and hope. We are all grateful and proud.
Now that the recovery phase has begun, it is time for everyone—political leaders, bureaucrats, insurance companies, contractors, tradesmen and retailers—to become heroes too. Today I name in parliament the first insurance company to fail that test. I name CommInsure, the insurance business arm of the Commonwealth Bank, which increased its profit after tax by 38 per cent last year to $215 million. You have failed one Hamilton North family who have complained to me. I ask you to think again. My office will continue to monitor the work of all parties involved in the restoration phase, and I will keep this parliament informed. (Time expired)
I rise this morning to support and comment on the Australian government’s initiatives for education. In a regional area such as Braddon, located on an island off the mainland, the need for quality education and knowledge is vital for the continuing sustainability and growth of the region. In Braddon we are very fortunate that we have secured very exciting and leading-edge education and knowledge transfer initiatives that not only build on the skills base of our region but also drive innovation and development within my electorate.
My region of Braddon has to its credit a quality university, the University of Tasmania, which is developing leading-edge studies in knowledge creation in the science of regional studies as well as providing a wide variety of faculties to local students in business studies, computer science, arts, law and education. I am a graduate with an education degree from the University of Tasmania, and I am currently studying commerce/law. These facilities are so important to the progress of our region.
As a specialist knowledge base for regional-specific learning, I am proud to say that in recent years we have secured the Rural Clinical School, which is meeting the challenge of providing an education to medical students specialising in rural medicine. Additionally, we are ensuring strong innovation and leading-edge knowledge transfer to our important agricultural industry through the agricultural research centre located within the Burnie campus. Thanks to the previous Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, the Hon. Gary Hardgrave, we have secured an Australian technical college for our skills based learning in the trades area of the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as you would appreciate, education does not stop at university. I have mentioned the Australian technical college, but we also have a variety of high schools that continue to develop education applicable to the region. Our local schools have also benefited greatly from the Investing in Our Schools Program from which Tasmania, as a whole, has benefited by some $2.4 million for very worthwhile programs to improve the learning environment for our students.
As a high school teacher in a previous life, I am very aware of the importance education and knowledge have for both the individual and a regional area. For this reason, I have supported the pilot of a program with the name of PICSIE, which enables the cross-pollination of working universities in developing the science skills of students from an early age through to high school.
I commend the government’s budget initiatives in education, in particular the $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, which will provide a base for the continued development of capital works and research within our university facilities. This program is complemented by the $1.7 billion Realising Our Potential program, which incorporates $638 million for VET funding and $843 million for our schools. With such exciting initiatives, complemented by the Australian government’s skills and apprenticeship learning programs, Braddon, as a regional area, stands strong to work within the global community.
Monday, 11 June to Sunday, 17 June is International Men’s Health Week and is primarily concerned with the health challenges that men face and the incidence of particular diseases to which we are more prone as males. The week is also an opportunity to acknowledge the diversity of males around Australia and to celebrate the positive contributions of men and boys in our communities.
Men and boys face different health concerns than women and girls—be they due to anatomical or biological differences, work or lifestyle differences or differences that have a psychological impact, becoming manifest through social, communal and often our own individual expectations of ourselves, the roles we perform and the responsibilities we shoulder. International Men’s Health Week is an important opportunity to both acknowledge these differences and look for ways to improve the health and wellbeing of men and boys.
Fundamentally, the purpose of International Men’s Health Week is to heighten the awareness of preventable health problems and encourage early detection and treatment of disease among men and boys. International Men’s Health Week has only been celebrated in Australia since 2003. It is quite new and easy to miss, but I hope in the future it becomes a big event.
We should acknowledge that more than 40 per cent of Australian men over 40 years suffer serious health problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Men have a lower life expectancy than women. In 2002 to 2004, male life expectancy was estimated to be 78.1 years, while female life expectancy was 83 years. Men under 75 years are almost three times more likely to die from coronary heart disease, stroke and vascular disease than women in the same age group.
We are fortunate to have amongst us an advocate for prostate cancer checks, the member for Lilley, who continues to advance the need for such checks. I believe only last week he spoke in the seat of Adelaide about his experience with prostate cancer, just as he did in my seat of Hindmarsh last year. We had a huge turnout that day and were able to promote people’s awareness of prostate cancer. We have a former member of this place doing, I am sure, a terrific job on television at the moment advancing men’s effective communication with their doctors regarding mental health—Mr Tim Fisher.
I would like to conclude by making a connection between the health of men and the impact that poor health can have on loved ones in the immediate vicinity. White Ribbon Day is 25 November, a day in support of non-violent relationships, to exemplify the fact that men can stand by one another in support of healthy relationships with our family members and people generally. We all have ample opportunity to try to advance such good causes and such good messages within our respective communities and to promote healthier lifestyles and therefore, I am sure, happier and longer lives for men throughout the nation.
I rise today to acknowledge and support the work of Micah Challenge. Micah Challenge Australia is a global Christian campaign comprising over 40 Christian aid and development and church groups who are working together to provide a powerful voice for the poorer communities of the world. Next week across the nation and in Canberra, Micah Challenge will be holding and hosting a number of activities which will be not just about raising awareness but about challenging governments and people in our communities to increase action and become more generous.
This year Micah Challenge will be focusing on the key framework of the Millennium Development Goals. These eight goals include the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; the achievement of universal primary education; the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; the reduction of child mortality; the improvement of maternal health; the combating of HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases; the assurance of environmental sustainability; and the development of a global partnership for development.
There has been progress made; however, not one region in the world is on the way to achieving their goals and there are many more who are nowhere near achieving them. I do, however, wish to congratulate the G8 countries that have committed to write-off the debts of 19 of the poorest nations in the world. But there is more to be done. Over 835 million people will suffer from chronic hunger. Over 10.4 million children died before their fifth birthday in 2004 from preventible causes. More than one in five girls of primary school age do not attend school. Basic sanitation in the developing world is accessed by less than half of its people. Having travelled throughout PNG and the Philippines, I have observed some of these challenges firsthand. In PNG, just at our doorstep, it is estimated that 34 per cent of the population are suffering from HIV-AIDS.
Micah Challenge Australia is also a sister campaign to Make Poverty History, and I support their call to the Australian government to keep its commitment to help achieve the millennium goals and halve global poverty by 2015. In 2005-06 the ratio of Australian ODA to gross national income is estimated at 0.28 per cent, placing Australia above the OECD donor average, which in 2004 was 0.25 per cent. I would like to see us at least reach 0.3 per cent in 2006-07, but I encourage the Australian government to use the millennium goals as key measures when evaluating and planning our aid program. Australia has committed to providing increased aid focused on reducing poverty. (Time expired)
I rise today to add my voice to the ongoing calls for this government to come clean on its plans for a second airport at Badgerys Creek. As usual, we are seeing the government at its tricky best, dancing around the issue and trying to delay any decision until after the next election. The last minister to speak on this issue in this place was the member for North Sydney who, as minister for tourism, said:
Existing government policy is to commit to a second airport in Sydney at Badgerys Creek ...
Since that speech, no senior government minister—indeed, no minister at all—has stood up in this place and ruled out Badgerys Creek as their first, second or even last option for a second airport in Sydney.
The Minister for Transport and Regional Services in response to a question in writing only last year said:
The Government has previously made it clear that it does not believe that a second Sydney airport will be needed in the foreseeable future.
It was not even a never-ever promise. It was a foreseeable future promise. Then he went on to say that they will be keeping the land and protecting it from development incompatible with the building of an airport. Why would you need to protect a site you do not intend to use? Now we know: the government just might use it but they will not tell us until after the next election.
The Deputy Prime Minister has written to councils in Western Sydney confirming that there will be another review of the need for a Badgerys Creek airport in 2009 and, until then, land at Badgerys Creek will be held in reserve. Let me make this clear: a second airport at Badgerys Creek will not work and there will not be one under a Labor government. It would only inflict aircraft noise, air pollution, health problems and social problems on hundreds of thousands of extra people in the fastest-growing region in Australia.
The EIS could not tell us how westerly winds from the Blue Mountains would affect the operation of the airport or how associated runway and approach lighting would affect the surrounding area. It did point out that some 38 endangered species of flora and 22 species of fauna, plus the additional 70 significant species of fauna that have been recorded in the area as transitory visitors, would be put further at risk, including a number of nationally significant species. It also pointed out that such an airport would mean an extra 24,000 articulated fuel tankers on the M4 and Great Western Highway between Clyde and Badgerys Creek, with an estimated five tanker accidents each year. That is just not acceptable. The government must come clean on its plans, rule out Badgerys Creek once and for all, and before the next election free up the site and move on to more sensible alternatives for Sydney’s growing transport needs.
I have reported to the House on many occasions the fact that the only toll road in the entire state of Queensland passes through my electorate. Residents in my area not only have to pay a toll to access the Gateway Motorway extension, the Logan Motorway connection, to head on to roads west, north and, indeed, south of Brisbane but also have to suffer the problems of interstate trucks that are moving around those tollbooths during the daylight hours. At night it is not a problem because the Australian government pays the toll for the trucks. We have put $1.7 million on the table and made it a toll-free drive for trucks heading from interstate to the port of Brisbane. There were 221,000 fewer trucks on my local roads in just under two years as a result.
You can imagine how exasperated I was to find in this morning’s Courier-Mail newspaper—a journal of great repute—that the Queensland government have decided to increase tax on residents in my electorate by increasing the toll on the tollway that I am complaining about. So, instead of actually taking the tollway out of contention and making certain that the best purpose-built road in my area is in fact used by motorists and not avoided by motorists—there is something like a twentyfold potential increase in the amount of traffic that it currently carries; it runs at about five per cent capacity or less as a result of this toll—the Queensland government have decided to increase the toll. ‘It is only 10c,’ they say, but why don’t they just call it what it is? This is a form of regional taxation that impacts on suburbs in my electorate: Sunnybank Hills, Stretton, Calamvale and Runcorn. Local residents in those areas have to pay a tax to access a road that in every other part of Queensland is available free of charge.
Queensland government local representatives, Ministers Spence and Robertson, are very important people; they are ministers in the Queensland government. Stephen Robertson presides over the failed Queensland health system. He is the bloke who is in charge of the issue of ‘Dr Death’, Dr Patel. Minister Spence presides over the failures of the Queensland Police Service to adequately meet community expectations. Neither of these people speak out against this. What has been their representation in cabinet discussions in the budgetary process which has delivered this tax hike for local residents in my area? Why is it that the Queensland government can take record amounts of stamp duty from new residents in my area? All of these suburbs are new suburbs. The Queensland government are never afraid, never behind the door, when the question of stamp duty on housing and land transactions is being discussed. They are always there with their hands out but never put their money on the table to assist people to gain access to reasonable infrastructure and services. Two state members are silent. I am the only one who ever speaks out on these issues. That is the difference I bring to the local community: I draw people’s attention to the failure of the Queensland state government. (Time expired)
I would like to support the comments made by the member for Banks in his statement to this House. I have had similar concerns. The Area General Manager of Telstra in the Hunter, Chris Cusack, came to visit me last week to justify the sacking of 210 workers in my area. Whilst he was there he told me that Telstra would no longer communicate with my office. He told me that, if I wrote to him on behalf of a constituent, he would contact the constituent and give absolutely no feedback to my office.
Disgraceful!
It is absolutely disgraceful. If my office rang Telstra Country Wide with a complaint, it would not get back to me; it would get back to its customer. I want to put on record in this parliament my absolute contempt for Telstra and the way it has behaved in recent times. It has become a law unto itself, sacking workers and refusing to communicate with members of parliament.
The other issue that I would like to very quickly raise relates to radio and television reception within my local area. I am currently undertaking a survey of residents in affected areas, checking out those residents to see whether or not they can get commercial or ABC radio coverage, mobile phone coverage—which appears to be the worst of all from the surveys I have received back—and commercial and ABC television. I have already written to the minister about this issue and she wrote back to me saying that residents in the area may not be able to obtain reception. She came up with a couple of suggestions—talking to an antenna technician, which all of these residents have done; modification of orientation of existing equipment, and most of them have already done that—and also stated that any changes for the ABC’s point of view would have to relate to budget considerations. The one suggestion she gave me that absolutely floored me, considering that none of my electorate would be more than 185 kilometres from Sydney, is that they apply for a satellite and then they might be able to access Southern Cross through the Seven network or Imparja.
I think that, in this day and age in an area that is just outside Sydney and very close to Newcastle, it is an absolute disgrace that they are not able to access radio and television. I think that, once I have completed this survey, I will have the hard evidence to demonstrate that something needs to be done. (Time expired)
Last weekend I had the pleasure of helping to open almost $10 million worth of capital works at Hervey Bay’s Xavier Catholic College representing ministers Bishop and Truss. The college opened in 2003 with a student enrolment of 90, all of them in grade 8. But already it has forged a fine reputation in sporting, cultural and academic excellence.
Departing from my set script that day, I was inspired to reflect on four images. The day was quite windy, so I felt it symbolised the spirit in the school. With most of the 720 students present, it reinforced the image of a young city like Hervey Bay. Hervey Bay faces some challenging infrastructure problems. In that respect the Catholic community in Hervey Bay has played its part in providing infrastructure which helps to make a diverse community cohesive and focused. I also had an image of choice at the opening. All families want to have a choice of where their kids are educated. By funding both government and non-government schools, the coalition is giving parents that choice.
Part and parcel of providing quality education for children is creating a learning environment, whether that be in classrooms, playgrounds, science labs or the school library. This has been one of the largest capital works agendas I have seen over such a short time. Xavier Catholic College is doing a fine job by promoting a tremendous school spirit and giving students a truly Christian outlook on the wider world. A big part of that comes from support, fellowship and friendship of the schools, leaders and faculty.
The blessing of the college was carried out by the Archbishop of Brisbane, John Bathersby, in the presence of Hervey Bay Mayor, Ted Sorenson; Councillor Trevor McDonald; chamber president, Steve Dixon; Principal Kerry Swan; and P&F Association president, Elwy Smith. They were all on hand for this very important day.
It is most impressive to see a school forge ahead in the way that Xavier has. Today, with around 720 students—most of those in the secondary grades; only 185 are in the primary school—who are well supported by 81 staff, the school has a great future. The facilities which were opened at the weekend officially brought online all of the school’s primary classrooms, a senior technology precinct—said to be one of the best in the state—several general purpose classrooms, new computing and science facilities, and the college library and extensions to staff and administrative areas. It is a very fine college. The Commonwealth has helped with $900,000 in the first stage and $1.9 million in the second stage. (Time expired)
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Consideration resumed from 13 June.
Department of Health and Ageing
Proposed expenditure, $4,914,078,000.
I call the honourable member for Gellibrand, but I do not think there is anyone here to listen.
It is pretty difficult to ask the questions of the government that need to be answered in this portfolio without the minister even being here. I see the junior minister has decided to turn up—maybe just to fill in a little bit of time—but obviously Minister Abbott is not prepared to be here.
Is that the best you’ve got?
Is there a more important reason than actually coming here and answering questions about the health portfolio?
If I could interrupt, I would say that I think the government needs to get its act together, because this happened twice yesterday. When the estimates are on, ministers or junior ministers who are coming to the chamber should be ready, because they do not know when this is going to finish. The next one should be ready immediately.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I could not agree more. Obviously this is a very important part of the estimates process, being able to ask the ministers questions about their portfolios, and it is very frustrating for us that the process is treated with some contempt. I do hope that the Minister for Ageing is going to be able to answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Health and Ageing, and I am sure that some of my colleagues who will be coming in the later part of this session will also want to ask particular questions about the ageing portfolio.
Minister, on the first bunch of questions I wonder whether you could give us more detail about the dental program that has been announced. The minister has already conceded, both at a conference to the AMA and also in parliament yesterday, that the chronic disease scheme that has been in place for the last three years for dentists—and this is a quote from the minister—‘was not working very well; let’s be honest about it. There were very few referrals and not much happening’. Given that the government has announced in this budget nearly $400 million to go into a dental scheme, and the Senate estimates process has revealed that the government does not know how high or low the rebates will be, what out-of-pocket costs will be—I can go through these slowly for you, Minister, because I am hoping for answers on this range of four or five issues—whether the referral process will be reformed, and whether or not dentures will be included as part of this process. I think that I might hear your answers on those issues first, Minister, because it is of most pressing concern to us whether or not this scheme is going to have the slightest effect. If you can give me some information about that, I would be grateful.
It was my intention, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing here in the Main Committee, for opposition members to put their comments, questions or statements that they wish to make and then I would respond to them all at the end. If they have any further questions after that, of course I am happy to take those as well. But I am not going to have an exchange as suggested by the member for Gellibrand. I would much prefer to go through—
That’s how the process works.
Actually I have done this process before too, thank you. That is how I did it last time and that is how I am going to do it this time.
It is the minister’s prerogative to decide to do that.
So basically it means that the minister does not have an answer on any of these questions.
That is not what I said. I am facilitating the process—
This is a consideration in detail process. It is not up to the minister to tell us how long we can or cannot speak for—
The minister can decide to answer either immediately or at the end.
We will ask our range of questions. I am going to ask you each time to answer them. If the minister wants to stand up each time and say that he is not going to answer them that is entirely up to the minister. The next range of questions—that, obviously, the minister is also not going to answer in any way—go to the dental package. The minister would no doubt be aware that in the announcement of the dental package it was estimated that 200,000 people would be able to be covered by this—a staggering figure given that only a handful of people have been covered to date by the existing program and given that the government does not know and has not yet been prepared to tell us what the rebates will be, what the out-of-pocket costs will be or whether or not the referral process will be reformed. I would like the minister to advise how that figure of 200,000 was worked out. What estimate is it based on, given that there is no estimation of what the rebates will be and there is no information as yet of what procedures are actually going to be covered? Minister, if you could tell me how that figure of 200,000 people was achieved I would be grateful.
Obviously, the minister is not prepared to answer these questions. I am absolutely sure that the reason that this decision has been taken is that there are not any answers. The minister, after the questions have been asked, will provide some sort of excuse for an answer but does not want to have any follow-up. He does not want the parliamentary process to actually work in the way that it is intended to work. He does not want to provide any information, obviously making a joke of the parliament and this process. It is very frustrating for the opposition and does not achieve anything for the government. It shows that they are not prepared to engage.
You’re just wasting your time.
I do not think it is up to the minister to tell me what I can use this time for.
I was not listening to the minister, member for Gellibrand; I was asking for your questions.
Thank you. Given that I am being provided with the time to do this, I understand that I am able to make any comments and ask any questions that I might wish to during this time. One comment that I am going to continue to make will be about the fact that it is apparent that the minister is not going to, in any way, provide any decent information to us about these issues.
Minister, I would like you to also answer some questions about the existing chronic disease program that the government has now committed several hundred million extra dollars to. It is my understanding that only 68 Tasmanians across the entire three-year period of the program have actually been able to access any benefit from this program. I would like the minister to confirm whether that is in fact true. Similarly, I would like to know whether or not it is true that only 657 Queenslanders across the entire three-year period have used this program. Obviously, the minister would be aware that there are currently 650,000 people on the public dental waiting lists and, given these extraordinarily low numbers, I ask again: how is it that the government reached an estimate of an anticipated 200,000 people using this same program in the coming three years? Those questions are the main questions in relation to the dental program and the minister might like to answer them in a group.
I have indicated how I intend—
The minister is obviously not going to answer those questions for us. It is going to be a very frustrating and pointless 50 minutes, I imagine, if this is the way we are going to go. Perhaps it means that the minister just does not have these answers. The vast array of people here from the department will no doubt provide the same information that has already been provided to Senate estimates. If that is the case, the processes for Senate estimates and consideration in detail, where the ministers answer, really do not fulfil the separate roles that they are supposed to. In any case, I hope that the departmental advisers who are here are able to provide a little more information.
You are wasting your time. Ask your questions.
Minister, I will manage the Main Committee.
I also ask the minister whether he will deal with the issue of type 2 diabetes. He may or may not be aware that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has doubled in the period of time that the government has been in office. Obviously, this is a modern disease and its growth is exponentially increasing. The government did announce a diabetes initiative as part of the budget package, and I am wondering whether the minister can provide some information about the copayment of $50 which is required for people to participate in the diabetes related weight loss programs. My particular interest in this is that we know the prevalence is particularly high in Indigenous communities. If the minister has any intention of answering the question, it is important that he actually knows what the question is, so I will wait for him to be in a position to hear it.
I think there are many ears in the room, Member for Gellibrand.
Thank you, but it is the minister’s ears that I am hoping to have listening.
I’m all ears.
As you know, the copayment is $50 for people who have diabetes who want to participate in this program. Our particular concern about the copayment is our knowledge that there is an especially high incidence in the Indigenous communities. We are concerned that, for some members of those communities, the $50 will be a disincentive to participate in the program. I am wondering whether the minister will be able to tell me whether any assessments are made on who will be able to participate, whether the payment will have an impact and whether it will be a disincentive for people to participate in this program. Is the minister prepared to answer that question? He is still not prepared to, but I am hoping that there will be answers to these questions as I go on.
Minister, I have a particular question about the listing on the PBS of Strattera. The budget papers make clear that around $100 million is going to be added to the PBS and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme between 2007-08 and 2010-11. I am wondering whether the minister can advise if the government has given any reconsideration to this listing or reviewed it in any way, given the growing community concerns that there have been about the side effects of this product. Obviously it is an issue which is of great concern to the many people who have been affected. I am wondering if the government can give me some advice on whether any other mechanism has been put in place to deal with this.
Minister, further on the PBS issues, I am also wondering whether you can give us any information about ADHD drugs, which are also costing a significant amount of money through the PBS. Can you give us an update on the NHMRC guidelines committee that has been established? The minister may or not be aware of the process that has been put in place. There was quite a—
Mr Pyne interjecting
So the minister would be aware that the guidelines were withdrawn two years ago. It has been a very slow process to get a new committee established. We know that the government believes that that committee can do this work, but it is obviously a slow process. Can the minister tell me how that process is going, any expected time, and if any other variations to the process have been made, given the controversy over the conflict of interest of, I think, the chair of that committee? Perhaps the minister might also consider whether he is prepared to advise us of the members of that committee, which to date have not been made publicly available. Those are the questions in relation to the PBS.
Minister, I am also wondering whether you can answer some questions in relation to the Ageing portfolio. You would be aware that my colleague in the other place has been asking questions as well. You were reported in, I think, Monday’s West Australian as being assured by the industry in Western Australia that there was a glut of aged-care places. But you would no doubt be aware that your own department assesses that they are something in the order of 500 beds short in Western Australia. Minister, I am wondering whether you can give us an update on the department’s and the government’s assessment of the bed shortages in each state. We estimate that they are of a high order. Whenever we have asked these questions in the past, the government has always talked about aged-care places as a whole. We of course acknowledge the care that is provided through community care packages. But, as the Minister for Ageing would be well aware, they cover entirely different types of needs and people with different care needs. If the minister could provide us with an update—particularly in relation to Western Australia, since he is in the paper asserting that there is a glut—that would be useful. We would also appreciate an update, Minister, if you have one, on the status of aged-care beds around the country. State by state would be preferable. I have some further questions, but I am going to allow my colleagues to ask a couple. The minister, unfortunately, has not seen fit to answer any of the questions along the way, but we are hoping he might.
I want to raise with the minister the announcement in the appropriations for health that three new MRI licences are to be allocated. I do not know whether the minister at the table is aware of this, but I know that Minister Abbott is aware that we have been lobbying for five years to get an MRI licence allocation at Wollongong Hospital. I am obviously very keen to know whether the three new licences are already identified to go to particular places. If not, if there is going to be a process by which a new round of allocations will occur, will it go on existing lists and requests or will a new round of requests and indications of interest be required? I would like the minister to jump up and assure me that Wollongong will get one, but I suspect that that is probably a bit of a premature expectation. At least if we knew what the process will be and what the intentions are for those three licences that would be useful to my community. It would be especially useful for the specialist base in Wollongong, because it is a major referral hospital and people from there constantly ring me to find out when they can get a licence for the hospital base machine for their patients. It is not so much your standard MRI for people who have sporting injuries and so forth. It is the major oncology and radiology referral hospital, so those specialists practising in that town centre really want to be able to send their patients to the Wollongong facility for an MRI scan, rather than, as some of them are doing, admitting them overnight to hospital in order to get a bulk-billed scan done as an in-patient. We are particularly keen to know what is happening with those three announced licences.
I want to add something further in that line. In relation to the MRIs we are particularly keen to know, as the member for Cunningham has indicated, if any decision or preliminary identification of sites has been made for those additional three licences. The minister may be aware that Launceston General Hospital have also been arguing for a long time that they should have an MRI licence. It is a similar sort of situation to the one described by the member for Cunningham, where there is a major hospital that does not have access to this facility.
I have also recently been to Redcliffe Hospital, where they are developing an oncology specialisation as well. One of the things that is stopping that is the absence of an MRI machine licence. People have to travel fairly long distances from the north of Brisbane into town to access those services. Again, all three of these places seem like places that should be given consideration by the government, but we have not had any information from them. I know that many people in those local communities are very interested to know what the government’s plans are. Also, Minister, if decisions have not been made, people want to know the expected time for decisions to be made on those licences.
Along those lines, Minister, I wonder if you could get some information for me on the licensing of the PET scanning machine in the Hunter. There have been numerous applications made for that machine to be licensed. At the moment it is operating well under capacity because the government refuses to allocate a licence. It is a very large area, covering an enormous number of people in the Hunter and New England, yet the government constantly refuses to license a machine. Could you please look into that for me and provide us with information.
The other issue that I would like to ask the minister to consider in terms of MRI licence allocations is one that has been raised with me by other providers in my area. I am interested to know if the government has done or intends to do any analysis of the competitive effects of licence allocations in regions. Obviously I am indicating the anticompetitive effects that happen with this very limited licence allocation process. Whilst I understand the cost implications for governments of giving these things out willy-nilly, it has been raised with me by other scanning providers that the ability to offer MRI scanning has a big impact on your ability to attract staff. People want to be able to access as part of their professional development those diagnostic services, so the one provider who has the licence has an extraordinary advantage over other providers in the area in terms of business competitiveness. I think that is a genuine concern.
I do not know that that is something that would change the allocations policy, but I would certainly encourage the government and the minister to have a look, at this point in the process of allocating licences, at any sort of anticompetitive effects it may be having on other providers in the area. It is clearly something that is being raised with members of parliament. I would suggest that serious concerns are increasing as this becomes not unusual service but in fact a standard component of the range of services that radiology looks to provide in the local area.
Second, I understand that the most recent allocation of licences had a requirement for a bulk-billing component. However, the previously allocated licences do not. The dilemma that we have with licence allocation in Wollongong is that the provider only bulk-bills particular types of oncology patients. It does not bulk-bill, for example, healthcare cardholders in general. This is creating a great deal of distress, particularly amongst pensioners and family people. Indeed, only this week I saw a lady whose daughter had to have a scan once every two weeks as part of the treatment she was receiving for a cancer related disease, but she did not meet the very limited guidelines this provider has for bulk-billing. That is causing major issues. So I ask whether the guidelines for the allocations have been changed for new licences, whether the requirement to bulk-bill will be maintained for, at least, healthcare cardholders, and whether there is any capacity to review the existing licence holders who are not meeting those requirements.
Again, I would argue that part of the problem is the lack of competition for those providers. Particularly in an area like mine, patients have to get into Sydney—or travel down to Nowra, as the member for Gilmore knows—to get a bulk-billed service. I ask whether there is a view that there should be a review of some of that in-built anticompetitive bad pricing behaviour that was there in the early rounds—which was unsurprising, with a new program and a rollout. Is there the capacity to go back and have a look at those charging practices of the existing licence holders?
I would like to raise the issue of workforce shortage and the scheme that the government brought in a couple of budgets ago to encourage doctors to move to outer metropolitan areas. I understand that there has been a cut in funding to that scheme. I would like to ask the minister if he could go back and review the RRAMA classification scheme and the strategies that are in place to address workforce shortage issues. My area is classified as an area of workforce shortage, but I would like the government to make a lot clearer the method that they use for classifying those areas where there is not a doctor that is taking new patients and where there is a very elderly population. I would also like the minister to come back with information that will clarify for me and the people that I represent in this parliament why, in an area that is so close to inner Newcastle and Sydney, people are unable to see a doctor. I would like that information even for the benefit of my staff, who have to pick up people from their homes and drive them some 10 kilometres to see a doctor that will bulk-bill or even see new patients. I would also like the minister to come back to me and tell me what sorts of items are in this budget that are going to address that chronic workforce shortage.
On another issue, I notice that in the budget there is a line item for breastfeeding education support. The minister may or may not be aware—or may or may not be listening to what I am saying—that there is a line item for this going over the next five years. I would like details of what that line item refers to, what the government’s actual strategy will be in relation to breastfeeding, who it is contacting and who it is using as its resource. I understand that the government is removing questions in relation to breastfeeding from the national survey that is conducted by the Department of Health and Ageing and I would like to ask how this line item, which seems to indicate that the government is making some sort of commitment to breastfeeding, lines up with the fact that it is no longer asking questions about it. That is another question that I would like the minister to provide me with an answer to.
The next issue relates a little to one that the shadow minister raised earlier, and that is aged-care beds and the shortage of aged-care beds within the Shortland electorate. There is a chronic aged-care bed shortage. The Central Coast, I believe, has a shortage of just under 600, and in the Hunter it is just under 400. I would like the minister to come back to me with up-to-date figures on what those bed shortages are. In addition to that, I would like the minister to provide me with details of the actual bed shortage number in relation to operational beds, because those figures are calculated once again on bed licences that are issued and do not show the number of beds that have been approved but are non-existent—phantom beds, in other words. I would like to be able to very clearly identify in my mind the beds that are operational and those that are just phantom beds—those that are out there on paper but are non-existent and not available to constituents in the Shortland electorate.
Minister, I have one last question, which I am sure you will not need the advice of the department on. I understand that the minister recently made some comments and, after acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which he was speaking, also decided that he should acknowledge the traditional owners of the Liberal Party, the Pharmacy Guild. I was wondering if the minister might be able to tell us what exactly that means, and is there anything in the budget that we should be looking for that is an indicator of that commitment?
I wanted to ask some questions about respite care and aged care. In my electorate of Boothby 18 per cent of the population are over 65, based on the 2001 census. I know that the Minister for Ageing has a similar age profile in his electorate—the Marion Central statistical local area is still recognised as an area of need or an area requiring additional places. One of the things I hear from constituents is a need for respite care when you have elderly carers in the family. Also, in the area of community aged care, we now see very much a preference for people, if they wish, to stay in their own homes as long as possible. I would be interested to hear if there is any update on respite care and community aged care.
Are there any other questions before the minister sums up?
Ms Roxon interjecting
Look, we are not going to have this stupid argument because the minister has said that he will reply at the end. If the member for Gellibrand has any more questions—
We have asked our questions and the minister is of course entitled to answer them—
Have you finished?
but there is nothing in the standing orders that prevents us from seeking the call after the minister has finished answering the questions. He may or may not answer them adequately, and if there is time—
Have you finished your questions?
We have finished our questions for now, and I will not remove or reserve—
Thank you. The member for Boothby has the call.
I am going to ask more questions—
I’m happy for you to do so.
He’s not intending to answer any of ours. Maybe he’ll answer yours.
We have now had accreditation and certification in aged care for a number of years. I am interested to hear from the minister about the impact of the accreditation process on improving standards and quality of care in aged-care places.
I thank the opposition for their detailed set of questions and I also thank the member for Boothby from the government side. I had always intended, as I did last year in this process in the Main Committee, to listen to all of the questions from the members who chose to ask the government questions in the consideration in detail stage of the appropriation bills. My intention was to listen to all of those questions or comments, to sum them up as best I could, and to give answers as best I could in this next part of the process. There was never any intention on my part to obfuscate or avoid answering questions—in fact, quite the opposite. It was always my intention to carry out exactly the same system that ministers usually adopt in this process, which is to hear all the comments and questions and then to try and give a comprehensive answer at the end of the process. I note that the member for Hindmarsh has entered the chamber. It seems that he would like to make a comment or ask a question, so I am happy to sit down briefly, if he would like. He can have a go and then I will try and answer his questions at the end.
I would like to ask the minister a question about aged-care beds. Recently in the 2005 stocktake, if you want to call it a stocktake, of aged-care beds in the south and western regions of Adelaide there was an undersupply of 287 aged-care beds as at 2005. That undersupply had increased to 315 beds by June 2006. That was approximately a 10 per cent increase in unmet demand. I was wondering what the June 2007 stocktake means for Adelaide’s western and south-western suburbs where there was unmet demand. Perhaps you could give me a figure of what it currently is and whether the supply will meet the demand perhaps by June this year, next year or the year after. When will the demand be met? Will there be another 10 per cent blow-out in undersupply by this June? Can the Australian public expect the unmet demand again to be in the vicinity of the 350 mark, as has been the case for a number of years now when the stocktake is done?
Can the government continue to expect people to move to where the beds are? That is one of the big issues. When people come to see me in my electorate, they tell me about their loved ones, usually their mums or dads, needing a nursing home bed. Usually, they are either in respite or waiting in a public hospital. People may say to me that they have found a nursing home for their mother or father but it is up in Gawler or Elizabeth or down south in Christies, which makes it very difficult for some of these people who are themselves elderly, in their late 60s and 70s, to travel, perhaps every day, to see their loved ones. Even though there may be beds within the vicinity of metropolitan Adelaide, they are some distance away from the western and southern suburbs and that creates a problem for these people. How will we meet the unmet demand for people who need beds to stay within their communities?
The other question I have is: can the minister tell us how many people are in beds in public hospitals waiting for beds in nursing homes in South Australia at any given time—perhaps a snapshot over 12 months? I also want to know about those waiting in respite care for nursing home beds, because that is the other issue. There are many people who come and see me in my electorate whose parents are either in a public hospital or even in a respite bed, but when they are due to come out of the respite bed in two, three or four weeks time there is nowhere for them. Again, it is the same issue about having people close to their communities. I suppose the question is: will that undersupply be met, when and how will it be met, and are there any dates for those targets to be met? If we could get those figures for Shortland in New South Wales, the Hunter and the Central Coast as well. I am sure the staff could get those figures for the member for Shortland.
It is a pleasure to be representing the Minister for Health and Ageing today in the consideration in detail of the appropriation bills. The members for Gellibrand, Cunningham, Shortland, Boothby and Hindmarsh have been keen participants in this process and have asked me a series of detailed questions. Some of those are obviously within the portfolio of health, and I am less familiar with those than I am with the portfolio of ageing, but I will with the support and help of the department attempt to respond to these as best I can and hopefully to the satisfaction of the House.
The member for Gellibrand asked about a number of specific issues. I will deal with each one of those. Firstly, she raised the issue of dental health and dental treatment. It is an area that has been something of a bugbear in public policy for some time. Obviously dental health is a primary responsibility of the states. When Labor were in power all those years ago, they had a specific program that had targets to be met; those targets were met and the program came to an end. Since that time, the Commonwealth has expected the states to fulfil their responsibilities for the dental health of their electors, and in this budget we are—
Tell us how your budget is going to work.
I will answer the questions in the way that I choose to answer them—
Ms Roxon interjecting
in exactly the same way that you asked the questions in the way that you chose to ask them. You were aggressive, antagonistic and rude.
Ms Roxon interjecting
I do not intend to be any of those things.
Try and answer the questions.
I intend to answer the questions courteously and methodically, and that is what I am going to do. I have about 12 minutes to answer those questions and I would have thought that you would prefer that I answer the questions rather than engage with the trivial and petty interjections across the chamber.
Ms Roxon interjecting
That is a matter for you. I can talk about your interjections until the cows come home, if you choose, but I prefer to deal with the questions you asked me. Is that what you want me to do?
Try and answer them.
Well, then, I will do it. In this budget we did put a very good dental health program on the table for the future. People with chronic conditions and complex care needs often do have poor oral health, which can adversely affect their medical condition or their general health. In the budget, the government committed $377.6 million over four years to make it easier for these people to access dental services in the private sector when they need treatment or they receive preventative care. Under the new Medicare arrangements, eligible patients will be able to claim Medicare benefits for a diagnostic dental consultation as well as benefits for a range of dental treatments up to a maximum of $2,000 each calendar year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
Order!
It is estimated that approximately 200,000 people will benefit from these new Medicare items.
Order! I ask the minister to resume his seat.
I wondered if the minister might take a question and, rather than reading the budget paper back to us, be prepared to actually answer the questions asking for more detail that have been put to him.
Is the honourable minister prepared to take a question?
I am not prepared to give way, no. I would like to actually—
There is a process for this within this second chamber. I ask the minister whether he will take a question. You prefer not to take a question?
Not until the end of my contribution.
Thank you. The honourable minister.
I make the point that the member for Gellibrand has asked many questions and I am trying to answer them. I am trying to give her the position generally on dental health and answer her specific questions as well. I was saying that an estimated 200,000 people will benefit from these new Medicare items, and they will commence on 1 November 2007. The budget significantly expands on the existing Medicare dental items, introduced in 2004, for people with chronic and complex conditions. The intention is to cover a broad range of areas. The member for Gellibrand asked about specific areas such as assessments, fillings, extractions and dentures. The member for Gellibrand specifically asked about whether dentures would be covered, and the answer is that that is the intention.
The implementation arrangements are currently being discussed with the dental profession. The government is working closely with the Australian Dental Association on the issue of rebate and out-of-pocket expenses. My understanding is that the Dental Association have been very pleased with this announcement by the government and it went much further than they had initially expected.
I was also asked about the uptake of existing dental items so far. That was a legitimate question from the member for Gellibrand. I think that the point the member for Gellibrand made about a low uptake of existing dental items is exactly the reason why the government has expanded this area of Medicare items. It is why we are addressing the issue. We recognised that there was an issue that needed to be looked at, and that is exactly why this item is in the budget. We are responding to the needs of the community, especially people with chronic health conditions. Rather than criticising us for doing so, I would have thought the Labor Party should congratulate the government on taking this excellent step.
The member for Gellibrand asked a specific question about type 2 diabetes. The answer to that question is that the copayment for type 2 diabetes has been set at $50 and the government will consider waiving the copayment for concession card holders when designing the administrative detail of the scheme in the near future. When that is done, the member for Gellibrand will no doubt be informed of it, as she is in the normal course of events.
I was also asked a question about Strattera and the PBS. I have to say that this is specifically an area for the Minister for Health and Ageing. I have sought advice from the department on the answer to the member for Gellibrand’s question and I have been told that all the appropriate staff in that area are in committee and unable to answer that question specifically today. I will take it on notice and make sure that an answer is provided to the member for Gellibrand in a very short space of time, which I think should be today or tomorrow, as soon as the appropriate staff are available.
The member for Gellibrand and the member for Shortland asked about ADHD. This is an area that has been of great interest to me. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, I had something to say about issues to do with ADHD, Ritalin and drug prescription, specifically to infants and young people, and I initiated a review of the guidelines. When I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister for health we asked the Royal Australasian College of Physicians to conduct a review of the guidelines. The member for Gellibrand is quite right: they were rescinded in December 2005. It is an area that is of great interest, I think, to the mums and dads and grandparents of Australia, who are being bombarded with information that the uptake of these prescription drugs is growing exponentially.
When I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister for health and inquired about this area, I was told that some of the statistics indicated dramatic take-up of some of these prescription drugs because of the fact that they had not previously been on the PBS, and therefore, when they did come onto the PBS, there was a large movement from other drugs across to, for example, Ritalin. It did not mean necessarily there was a massive increase in the prescribing of ADHD drugs generally, but it meant that there was a movement across to particular drugs which were now much cheaper for the mums and dads who were purchasing them.
And the committee?
I am getting to the committee. The member for Gellibrand is champing at the bit to suggest that I am not answering the questions. I am trying to answer them as specifically as possible. The member for Gellibrand asked about the committee of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians that was conducting this review. It is true that Dr Daryl Efron was originally appointed by the RACP to chair the working party overseeing the revision. Dr Efron stepped down from that position. The new chair, as advised by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, will be Associate Professor David Forbes. Associate Professor Forbes is a highly regarded paediatrician. He is very familiar with the NHMRC guideline review process. His areas of clinical practice and research are not associated with ADHD in any way. He has declared he has no pecuniary or professional interest in companies involved in the development or marketing of drugs and medicinal preparations.
And the rest of the committee?
I am not at liberty at this stage to advise on the rest of the committee. That really is a matter for the Minister for Health and Ageing to announce as he chooses to do so, or the parliamentary secretary for health. I am sure that that will be done in the fullness of time and when that is appropriate to do so.
I am mindful of the time, so I will try to answer some of these other questions. The member for Shortland asked me about positron emission tomography machines—PET machines. I am advised that the minister for health is currently awaiting advice from the Medical Services Advisory Committee on new clinical applications for PET machines and the department is also preparing advice for the minister regarding funding for PET machines. I am sure that all of the applications for PET machines and MRI licences will be considered appropriately. I could not, as you would imagine, make a commitment to provide a PET machine in the Hunter, no sooner could I do so for an MRI licence in Wollongong. But I am sure that when those applications are appropriately made, they will be appropriately considered.
The good news, Member for Gellibrand, is that I do have an answer now on Strattera. The appropriate departmental people have been able to be found. Strattera has been fully evaluated recently by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the TGA—the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The TGA and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee carefully considered the safety and efficacy of Strattera in the treatment of ADHD and recommended its use. The TGA has required a boxed warning statement. I am sure the member for Gellibrand would be familiar with what that means. I used to be responsible for the TGA and it is obviously significant. A boxed warning statement will be included in the consumer information for Strattera alerting people to the potential for suicide issues. The TGA will monitor the safety of Strattera once it becomes available on the PBS on 1 July. Of course, we would welcome reports from prescribers of any concerns about side effects.
I really answered the question about MRI licences when I answered the question about the PET machines. The minister has not yet made a decision as to what process will be used to allocate the new MRI licences. I would like to comment on the Ageing portfolio, so some of the other questions on breastfeeding and workforce issues we will take on notice and get responses to the members who have asked those questions.
I would now like to turn to ageing, which is actually my portfolio, for a few minutes. I was asked specific questions and they generally revolved around so-called phantom beds or a shortage of beds. I can advise the House that, in the last 11 years, we have increased the number of allocated beds by 48 per cent, which is a massive increase. Our record on the number of beds being available is, quite frankly, exemplary. We now have 208,000—
Ms Hall interjecting
Did you want the answer to the question or not?
Yes.
Right, then why don’t you wait for it? There are 208,000 operational beds in Australia—operational places. When we came to office, the ratio of beds for each group of 1,000 people aged 70 and over was 93 under the previous government. By 2010, the ratio will be 113. That will be made up of 44 high-care beds, 44 low-care beds and 25 Community Aged Care Packages.
I note that the Labor Party has this obsession with ignoring Community Aged Care Packages and pretending that they are not aged-care places. Of course, I can understand why they do that. When they were in government there were only 4½ thousand community aged-care places. Now, by 2010, there will be 45,000 community aged-care places. We have increased the number tenfold. So I can understand why Labor is embarrassed about community aged-care places and therefore tries to pretend that they are not an alternative to aged care.
People vastly prefer to stay in their own homes and age in their own homes if they have that option available to them. That is why we have doubled the funding for home and community care places across Australia and why we have increased the number of community aged-care packages tenfold in the last 11 years. It gives people the opportunity to stay in their own homes for a much longer period of time, and it is obviously an important part of the government’s response to the ageing process. It does not surprise me that Labor is embarrassed about that, because we will have increased the spending on aged care since 1996 from a paltry $3.1 billion to $10.1 billion by 2010. Quite frankly, the government’s record on aged care should be embarrassing to the Labor Party.
We have increased the number of community care packages, which the member for Boothby asked me about, from 4,500 to 45,000. There are now 25 per 1,000 people aged 70 or over. The Prime Minister has a particular affection for respite care, and we ensure that respite is a significant part of any program that involves carers and others. When Labor was in power we were spending $18 million on respite care in 1996. By 2010 we will be spending $190 million on respite care. (Time expired)
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Proposed expenditure, $4,180,814,000.
I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for taking the time to come to the Main Committee this morning. I want to ask some questions about Budget Paper No. 2. The first is about an issue on page 80 in respect of the Cole inquiry and possible criminal offences arising from that inquiry. I want to focus on not so much the issue of the possible criminal offences but whether the department will be conducting an investigation into what we would submit is clear evidence of flawed processes. I am not going to the integrity or honesty of any person in raising this issue, but clearly there appears to have been, just as a basic matter of administration, failure of communication in respect of the weapons for wheat issue.
Going back to as early as 1998, the Australian intelligence community had certainly been warning of the involvement of the trucking company Alia in paying kickbacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, Saddam Hussein’s family had interests in Alia. There had also been warnings by Bronte Moules, from the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, regarding bribes generally as far back as 13 January 2000 and on other occasions. There had been cables from DFAT in Canberra mentioning the occurrence of irregularities generally in respect of the oil for food program. There had been specific warnings going back to Colonel Michael Kelly, who was based in Iraq at the time. He said in May 2004 in one of his emails:
Looks like the jig is up on AWB and the OFF scandal.
Subsequently, in July 2004 he told an Iraq task force meeting that AWB were up to their eyeballs in the illicit payments of the oil for food program, had cosy relationships with the Iraqi ministry and regime figures, and understood where the money was going.
I have a number of pages here documenting those warnings—in the order of 32. Albeit some of them are general warnings, others are very specific. As a matter of effective and efficient administration, we would think—and the public would expect—that the senior departmental administration would have called people in and asked them: ‘What did you know and when did you know it? Who did you communicate it to?’ Or ‘Why didn’t you communicate it?’ One would think the department would have been looking at some system to address what has been, from the point of view of basic administration, unquestionably a gross failure of effective communication.
I note by way of passing that the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on the detention issue in Iraq in August 2005 pointed to this characteristic within the department. It said that ineffective record keeping, unclear, haphazard reporting processes and poor communication networks meant that both departments—that is, DFAT and the Department of Defence—were unable to present a coherent, detailed and accurate account of the matters of concern to the committee. In its recommendations, the committee raised concerns about the communication and reporting processes within the departments for falling short of what is expected of a highly skilled and professional organisation.
With respect to the kickbacks issue, the AWB scandal, irrespective of issues of criminality, there are clearly further examples of failures of communication, transparency and accountability. We want to know what, if anything, is being done to find out what went wrong and what needs to be done to fix either the culture or the system of communication.
Whatever the opposition members want, I am happy to accommodate them with that. I am happy to answer their questions as they come, one by one. It might be a bit easier than trying to remember them all at the very end.
Because the government had information coming out of the Volcker process, in particular, that there were at least allegations of AWB Ltd having been involved in a kickbacks operation in Iraq—something that we profoundly disprove of—we decided to set up a commission of inquiry with the powers of a royal commission, which was called the Cole inquiry. This was established in late 2005 and had hearings through the early part of 2006. Commissioner Cole produced his report in November 2006—if memory serves me well. Commissioner Cole went through all of the documentation, cables and emails that my department and other relevant authorities had and, in some cases, he called people before the inquiry as witnesses and examined those people. Those people were also cross-examined by counsel representing AWB employees. The Labor Party had a close relationship with the counsel representing AWB employees. They spoke with them every day and kept in close touch with them, as they did with Caroline Overington.
This was all played out in a dramatic way during 2006. All sorts of allegations and claims were made. The honourable member refers to Colonel Kelly. Colonel Kelly’s testimony was contradicted by people from my department and from other departments. In the end, Commissioner Cole chose not to call Colonel Kelly because he thought the claims Colonel Kelly made—and recently more light has been shed on the basis of those claims—did not merit examination. I cannot speak for Commissioner Cole, but this view was taken presumably in the light of the fact that Colonel Kelly’s claims were contradicted by other witnesses and other evidence.
The Labor Party has come to its own conclusions. I appreciate that. The party political line here is that the Liberal Party and the National Party are guilty of all manner of crimes. My department, according to the honourable member, should be investigating fraud within the department. I have always said that the public servants in my department are good and honourable people; I do not have any evidence of their being corrupt. I do not have any basis for calling for an investigation into fraud in my department in relation to the AWB matter. More than that, Commissioner Cole produced a report and made his own findings and they happen to be at complete variance with the allegations made by the Labor Party. They were 180 degrees different.
In answer to the honourable member’s question, I would recommend to him, with the best will in the world, that he spend time reading the Cole report. It is several volumes; I appreciate that it would take a lot of time—but I would do that if I were him. He might find it interesting. Just making a few party political points like the ones he has made will not take him very far.
The department will receive $4.6 million over four years for the implementation of the government’s response to the Cole inquiry, and the resources will allow the department to carry out the enhanced responsibilities for the implementation of UN sanctions conferred upon the department by the government. The department intends to use these resources to enhance its capacity to support the incorporation of sanctions regimes into Australian law, administer and coordinate the implementation of sanctions regimes, develop systems to monitor and ensure compliance with Australian law on sanctions, undertake outreach in Australia and overseas to develop awareness of responsibilities for the observance of sanctions regimes, and develop online and hard-copy publications providing guidance on Australian requirements for the implementation of sanctions. Those resources are provided under a cross-portfolio measure, which was announced in the budget, led by the Attorney-General.
Before I move on to an issue I should correct the record. At no stage have I accused any representative of the minister’s department of fraud. I prefaced my previous question by saying it was based distinctly on raising an issue not of integrity or honesty but simply of systems failures. The minister’s final response to the question started to go in that direction. I should indicate to the minister that I have read the report. I have put a number of questions on the Notice Paper as a result of having read the report and there will be more to come. They will focus specifically on the issue of systems failures: why information was received at certain levels and why it was not communicated up the chain. I would have thought from the process of administrative effectiveness that the minister would want to have known why that did not occur. Stepping perhaps beyond my brief in my next question, I thought it appropriate to place that on the record.
Our engagement in the Asia-Pacific region is an important issue for both sides of politics. I have a number of questions. Has the minister’s department considered placing a permanent representative with the United States Joint Interagency Task Force West? Have there been any discussions with the Federal Police, for instance, about placing a Federal Police officer with that agency? Both the Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies in Honolulu and the East-West Center would relish the opportunity to have Australian representatives on staff. Has consideration been given to that so that we can work more closely with the issues of governance capacity building in our region? Is there concern that it appears that East Timor is developing its future military intentions without participation or sufficient input from Australia? Again, without being judgemental from afar, there seems to be a lack of effectiveness in our relationships with the Solomons and Fiji. Has there been any review as to how we might develop a different mode of operating so that we could be more effective in our operations?
There is a reference in the budget papers on page 200 to the development of multilateral initiatives. Given the minister’s attempted canning of me a couple of days ago for suggesting that Australia should take an approach to multilateral issues, how does he justify that line item? Finally, in terms of disaster response, just what measures are we taking in respect to, for instance, the threat of bird flu? Are we assisting Indonesia to develop vaccines, both for chickens and people? What are we doing to plan for the evacuation of nationals? What are we doing to plan for the protection of first responders? Indeed, what are we doing to plan for a transit point to take evacuees prior to their return to Australia in order to check them for disease? In response to the Asian tsunami, has any analysis been undertaken by Australian authorities of the massive and substantial aid response—that is recognised—and how that could have been improved? They are issues that we would like to focus on. I appreciate that in the time available it may be difficult to respond to all of these questions, but perhaps the minister could do so at a subsequent time if he is able.
I thank the honourable member for all his questions. We have until 11.40, so I will leave time for other members to raise issues they might want to raise. I will go through these things very quickly and no doubt inadequately. First of all, I will look at the questions about the AWB matter. The honourable member started his comments by asking whether the department will be conducting an investigation into fraud within the department. That really took me aback a bit. That is an allegation that people in my department were involved in fraud. I wrote down what the honourable member said. If that is what he means, there has been a royal commission into this matter. As I said, I would recommend he not just glance at it and listen to his leader’s fanciful allegations but read it.
As far as Australia working with the Americans in the Asia-Pacific region is concerned, I was in Honolulu a couple of weeks ago and our relationship there works as well as it has ever worked in modern history—since 1945. We have a very intimate relationship with the Americans working in South-East Asia in particular. Some of the great successes, for example, in the area of counterterrorism—obviously, because these are sensitive matters, without getting into any of the details—would not have been possible without the excellent cooperation between Australia and the United States. I often make this point to people, particularly people on the left, who say that they do not think we should be so close to the United States and that we are too close to the Bush regime and so on. If you want to deal with the issue of terrorism in South-East Asia, you need good, strong bilateral relations with countries like Indonesia and the Philippines and you need to be working with them. But you also need a close relationship with the Americans. You need to be able to influence American policy in South-East Asia. Bagging the Americans would probably somewhat reduce your influence in South-East Asia. I suspect that you would find that, should you win the election.
As far as East Timor goes, I thank the honourable member for asking this question. There will be an election in East Timor on 30 June. If I were the honourable member, I would watch the election process and not get into the game of reacting to every proposal that has been put forward by politicians in the context of an election in East Timor—though that might not necessarily be so true of Australia. Anyway, surely none of us would comment on that.
In the case of East Timor, the parliamentary elections—which, in a way, are the most important elections—are on 30 June. The leaders of the different political parties are putting forward various proposals, some of which are, frankly, ambit claims. For example, the proposal that East Timor would build up a defence force of 3,000 and have naval vessels with missiles on them is not part of the planning that is being done at the moment for the next three-year evolution of the East Timor defence force. This is a debate which needs to be understood in the context of the circumstances of East Timor at the moment. East Timor simply will not have, at any time in the immediate future, the resources to deal with that.
I would recommend that the honourable member have a good look at some of the activities of the governments of the Solomon Islands and Fiji. I would not want, if I were the honourable member, to put myself in the position where I was somehow a bit of an apologist for Manasseh Sogavare and Commodore Bainimarama. I am happy for the Labor Party to put itself in that position if it wants to, but it seems to me that that is not smart. To know all is to understand all. To know what these people have been doing, to know what their ambitions are, is to understand why the Australian government holds very strong views about them. It is fair enough, I suppose, for an opposition—I think I may have done some of the same things in opposition in the past, to be quite honest about this—to suggest that, ‘Gee, if we were the government, we would have better relations with Sogavare because we would be able to handle it so well. We wouldn’t have published an open letter in the newspaper.’ You would just do what he wanted you to do, would you? Is that the policy? If the opposition were the government and they did what Mr Sogavare wanted them to do then I do not think that would be in Australia’s interests.
You do learn in public life sometimes that you should stand up for what you think is right, and sometimes that involves a bit of an argument with someone. Just because you are having an argument with someone does not mean that that is a bad thing. Sometimes that is a good thing. RAMSI still exists. RAMSI still has integrity. RAMSI is still in place, and it would not be if we had not taken a strong stand in the way we have done. Sure, that has involved some arguments with the Solomon Islands. The opposition thinks that it is wrong to argue with them. The right policy, therefore, must be to go along with what they want. I reckon that is wrong.
We have a bad relationship with the Fiji government because it is an illegal dictatorship, in effect—a military dictatorship. We did our best, as did New Zealand, the United States, the UK and the European Union, to try to persuade Commodore Bainimarama not to mount a coup. So did plenty of people. I think we should keep the pressure up on Commodore Bainimarama. If the opposition policy is to do anything else—which I suspect it probably isn’t—I think it would be the wrong policy.
Of course we participate in multilateral institutions. We are a member of the United Nations. I enjoy my five-day visit to the General Assembly every year. We have a very active engagement with the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. But we are basically focused on outcomes, not on process. Process is fine and process is part of life, but if diplomacy were just about process and all we wanted to do was have a kind of merry little relationship in multilateral institutions with New Zealand and Canada—which is apparently the opposition’s policy—I do not think we would get terribly good outcomes. We are getting good outcomes in counterterrorism in Indonesia not because we are having a great gabfest in the United Nations or because we have some fantastic liberal multilateralist initiative. We are actually having success with the Indonesians and the Filipinos in the area of counterterrorism because we work bilaterally with them. We are focused on outcomes.
I do not have time to go through all the list, but there is a long list of various things that Australia has done in response to avian flu. I hosted a meeting of APEC health ministers in Brisbane to develop an APEC program for addressing avian flu. If the honourable member cares to go back and have a look at the conclusions of, I think, the 2005 APEC summit, he will see that APEC put together what I thought was a very effective response to the issue of avian flu. A tremendous amount of work is being done on avian flu. We, of course, are spending an enormous amount of money helping countries in the region. I have seen a few press releases and speeches on this from the honourable member. I would say that, whilst he is right to draw attention to the issue of avian flu, and Australia should be doing everything it can to try to at least contribute to addressing that issue in the region, that work is all being done.
Finally, I will address the issue of the tsunami. A lot of Australians put their own money into aid going to people in Indonesia and the victims of the tsunami. Off the top of my head, I think it was about $350 million of community money, quite apart from the more than $1 billion the Australian government put in. I set up a working group with the major NGOs to monitor how that money is being spent. We had six-monthly press conferences and meetings and we published reports on how that money was being spent and distributed and what the challenges and benefits are. I do not have time to talk about it any further, but I commend to the honourable member those reports and other material produced by AusAID on the success of the AusAID programs in response to the tsunami. I think it has worked pretty well. I do not think it is true that our response was in any way uncoordinated or ineffective. It was incredibly well coordinated, including coordination with the United States, Japan and the United Nations. There were phone hook-ups from time to time with Colin Powell, the then Japanese foreign minister, the head of OCHA and the United Nations to make sure that we were coordinated. (Time expired)
Obviously, there are points of difference, but I will not rebut any of the points the Minister for Foreign Affairs has raised; they are for subsequent argument. I think I may have used the word ‘rort’ as opposed to ‘fraud’ in the context of describing the the oil for food issue. I was not accusing any member of the department of fraud, and the Hansard should reflect that.
I will begin by asking one very brief factual question before I make my major contribution. It relates to the question of the announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of $32.5 million for adaptation to climate change and, within that $32.5 million, the $7.5 million contribution to the Least Developed Countries Fund of Global Environment Facility. Can I just get clear, before we talk about the merits of broader questions to do with climate change, whether that is in fact a one-off contribution or whether the $32.5 million is the beginning of a series of annual commitments of that amount? It is not clear on the face of it. Is the $32.5 million a one-off? The forward estimates do not reflect, as far as I can see, any expenditure in the out years. I wonder if the minister can just confirm that first.
We of course will have an ongoing program in the budget of commitment to assist developing countries in relation to the issue of climate change. I answered a question in the House about three or four weeks ago on this issue, and I commend that answer to the honourable member. This is the figure for this year, but I made clear in that answer that we have been involved for a long time, and will continue to be involved, in activities in relation to climate change in assisting countries in the region to adapt to climate change. I just use as one example—because it does not get too much publicity—the very longstanding sea level monitoring stations that we have. Off the top of my head, I think there are about a dozen of them around the Pacific. So we can monitor any changes in sea level and obviously assist those countries if the situation begins to deteriorate to the point that it causes concern.
We assist developing countries. I had a long chat the other day with the advisory body, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, ACIAR, about assisting with research into ensuring that crops in particular, but agriculture more generally, can be adapted to changing climatic conditions. I suspect that not only will we have for many years into the future a continuation of these programs to address the issue of climate change and adaptation to climate change but also—if some of the more serious predictions about climate change turn out to be right—we will probably have to do more than we are planning to do at the moment.
I understand it would have been difficult for the minister to give a detailed specific response to that question at short notice, but I will proceed on the very generalised response that he has given me and pursue the matter subsequently. The government has announced with some fanfare some propositions with regard to climate change. Let us disaggregate the figures and look at them in the context of the aid budget—leaving aside the context including funding outside AusAID, most but not all of which will count in the aid budget with regard to the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, the adaptation to climate change and, within that, the contribution to Least Developed Countries Fund of the GEF. Certainly, I agree with that last $7.5 million contribution. It is not that I think we should not be making it. To the contrary, I think that is the sort of area to which we should be making a more substantial contribution.
Peeling away the fanfare, I ask the minister to confirm the simple arithmetic. Over the forward estimates period the commitments with regard to the aid budget, both that from AusAID and that from associated departments on the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, come to between one and 1.3 per cent of the aid budget. It seems to me that there is no question that, for many of the countries in our region, the capacity to develop a sustainable response to poverty alleviation depends upon a capacity to respond to climate change. I am a big fan of ACIAR—I welcome the fact that it is looking at some of these issues—but let us be realistic. This is a very tiny contribution, and in fact the funding in the budget on adaptation to climate change—the separate fund apart from the deforestation—comes to 1.02 per cent of the aid budget.
My point is that we have rhetorically had statements of commitment that have been dressed up as very substantial amounts. But within the aid budget it is a totally inadequate response to the character of the challenge. I welcome the fact that the government has made a commitment to increase the aid budget; I said that and I do not retract that support. We all know that what has really happened is that, having made substantial cuts to the aid budget in terms of percentage gross national income, the increase simply gets us almost back to where we started from—but not quite. But at least it is better than not having that increase. I ask the minister whether he can confirm that the percentage of the aid budget for deforestation and the percentage of the aid budget going to the initiative on the adaptation to climate change, even assuming that it is annual—which the figures do not show—rather than one off, is in the order of, in each case, about one per cent of the aid budget.
How can we see, going forward, this tiny proportion of the aid budget going to these climate change initiatives, irrespective of debate about their merits—and a lot of people have questions about some parts of that; I certainly support at least the part going to the Least Developed Countries Fund. I think that is an appropriate place to be spending the money. How can you say this is an adequate response to the challenge of climate change for our neighbours?
First of all let me say, so everybody understands this, that the budget includes $164 million, which is over five years, for the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate—and I think that is a very important initiative. I would not necessarily measure the efficacy of these programs by the amount of money you put into them but by what the money buys and what it does. The $32.5 million is in 2007-08, as I explained earlier, and that is for partnerships with international organisations on climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives. And I announced on World Environment Day, which was 5 June, a $7½ million contribution, which the honourable member for Fraser referred to, to the Least Developed Countries Fund and other smaller initiatives.
I am not sure what the percentage of the total aid budget is, but I am not quite sure what the member’s point is. If the point is that we should cut funding for poverty alleviation and proportionately put more funding into some sort of unspecified climate change initiative, I would not do that. I would not do it. What we need to understand—in fact, I feel pretty passionately about this—is that we are a global community. Politicians need to be a little bit better than one-trick ponies. I know the focus groups and Hawker Britton and so on tell you to talk about climate change the whole time, and I know you did a little deal with AID/WATCH the other day—apparently you were opposed to debt relief for Iraq, or you were in favour of it but not in favour of it, and debt relief is not really aid.
Mr McMullan interjecting
It is just a completely bizarre sort of opportunism, the like of which we are of course enormously used to—
Because it’s not true.
We are very used to it. Of course it is—
You’re making that up.
There was the honourable member’s name sprinkled through the story, and he was on the radio first thing in the morning as if it was something he had just read in the paper and stumbled across. I think not, mon ami; I think not. I have been a member of parliament for over 20 years. I think I know what MPs get up to.
My point is this: we need to address the issue of poverty alleviation and the issue of climate change, not just one of them—and addressing poverty alleviation can sometimes lead to increases in CO emissions. For example, poverty alleviation in China has been achieved but it has certainly led to a massive increase in CO emissions. But I am proud of the role Australia has played over many years in assisting with poverty alleviation, even though I accept that in many instances that has led to increases in CO emissions. At the same time we now have to try to get CO emissions down. That is an important challenge. We have got to do both things.
So, if we were to set ourselves some sort of target to increase the aid budget from whatever the percentage is today—I simply have not calculated it, because we run programs that we think will be effective; we do not do it on the basis of the percentage. Setting targets is a great favourite of the political Left. Remember Stalin—he set targets, didn’t he, for steel production and things like that? Targets are a great favourite of the Left. To set ourselves a target for a certain percentage of—the honourable member is leaving. I will not bother answering his question.
Sorry, I have to go—
It is just very bad manners, very bad. You ask a question and then you walk out. That is the Labor way, is it?
I have some questions on trade. I note that the trade minister is not here. Are you able to—
Well, you ask them, and if I cannot answer them I will take them on notice.
I just register my concern that this is the consideration of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio and the trade minister is not here. So, if we are talking about bad manners, let us get that on the record. I have two aspects of trade that I want to go to: one deals with the free trade agreement negotiations with China and with the US, the other to exports and the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. I will ask the questions about the free trade agreements first and get to the second group of questions if we can in the time available.
I refer the minister to evidence given in Senate estimates recently by the government’s lead negotiator for the Australia-China free trade agreement, Mr Ric Wells, first assistant secretary of your department, Minister. He conceded that negotiations with China are going nowhere because ‘the Chinese government does not want the FTA’. He also revealed that China has no interest in having a comprehensive free trade agreement and would prefer to exclude chapters on education, telecommunications and financial services. Mr Wells went on to say:
The Chinese also have reservations on including a chapter on competition policy. They have reservations on including the sort of chapter that we want on investment. They have reservations on including a chapter on electronic commerce. They have reservations on including a chapter on government procurement. It is quite a long list …
Minister, do you share the view that China does not want an FTA? If so, why has the budget allocated a further $12.7 million to this set of negotiations? Is the government going to insist on the chapters the Chinese want excluded being included? Does the government now accept that conceding market economy status to China without getting anything in return was a flawed strategy? In the interests of transparency, has the government undertaken and made public any hard, comprehensive study which shows what Australia will actually gain from an outcome in the free trade agreement? My final point on free trade agreements goes to the US free trade agreement. Can the minister confirm when the mid-term review on the free trade agreement with the US, which should be taking place around now, is to take place? What items will the Australian government be pursuing in that review?
Some of these questions will have to be referred to the Minister for Trade, and any detailed questions on the Export Market Development Grants Scheme should certainly be put on notice for the trade minister. Let me just make a point about the FTA negotiations with China. I was in China a couple of months ago, and while I was there I spent some time talking about the FTA negotiations with China. There is no doubt that these are difficult negotiations. There is just no question of that. They are difficult negotiations. The reason these negotiations are difficult is partly that within China there is a lot of sensitivity about agriculture. Why? Because there is a lot of poverty, particularly in western China, and there is a growing wealth divergence between the urban parts of China—particularly in the coastal fringes of China, where there are high rates of economic growth and very substantial increases in income—and the rural parts of China. The government is very concerned about that. That means that the issue of agriculture is inevitably going to be a very sensitive issue.
Equally, given China’s history—you find this, by the way, with most developing countries—they are quite sensitive about the services sector. Of course, the very big gains that Australia could get from an FTA with China would not just be in agriculture; they would be in services. So that is difficult. There is no question of that. Equally there are sensitivities here in Australia, in the textiles, clothing and footwear and passenger motor vehicle industries. We have always said—and I think this is the point that Mr Wells was trying to make—that these negotiations are inevitably going to be very difficult. They will have their ups and down. We offer no guarantee that these negotiations will be successful. The Prime Minister has said that, I have said that and the trade minister has said that on many occasions. But they could be successful. We could achieve an outcome in these negotiations which would be very beneficial to Australia.
I think the wise thing for this country to do is to try its best to get a good outcome. I think it would be unwise just to tank the whole negotiations, to abandon the whole negotiations, on the grounds that they were difficult. That is not my approach to life. Just because something is difficult, I do not abandon it if I think it is potentially very beneficial. If I could say this to the honourable member: I think that is the perspective he needs to look at this FTA through. It is difficult; there is no doubt about that. It is very difficult, but worth trying. We have a chance of achieving a successful outcome, so we should stick at it. These are going to be protracted and difficult negotiations.
I am not sure of the exact timing of the mid-term review—that could easily be established—but the point is that the FTA with the United States has worked well so far. As the chamber knows, the government is much in favour of it. I think, particularly over the years, you will see very great benefits flow from the integration of the Australian and American economies, particularly bearing in mind the dynamic nature of the American economy in areas such as R&D and technological development and innovation. It is a most impressive component of the American economy.
There were obviously aspects of the agreement which we would have hoped would have been better. We said so at the time, in particular in relation to sugar. We will always have a look at and talk with the Americans about ways we could improve the agreement over the years ahead through mid-term reviews and other processes. But I think it has got off to a good start. We are pleased, in general terms, with the way it is working, and there are at least no high-profile problems with the FTA that have necessitated my direct involvement with my counterparts in America.
Some of the second grouping of questions might need to be taken on notice, but I ask the minister to confirm that since 1995-96, when the government came to office, the real value of the EMDG has been halved. I ask the minister to confirm that, earlier this year, Austrade advised him that, if funds for the EMDG were not increased, funds to be received by eligible businesses would have to be rationed and that the first tranche guarantee limit of $70,000, for example, would have to be reduced to $50,000. That was the advice we understand the minister got from Austrade. We understand that, in turn, he wrote to the Prime Minister before the budget seeking additional funds for Austrade. What I would like to know is why the Prime Minister refused to support Australian exporters with additional assistance. I say that against the background of the government’s target set back in October 2001 when the then trade minister, Mark Vaile, announced, ‘The government will aim to double the number of exporting Australian companies by the year 2006.’ He further stated that 28,000 Australian companies exported in the year that he made the commitment.
The facts are that, far from doubling the number of exporters from 28,000 to 56,000 in the time frame now past, there has only been an increase to 42,000 in the number of exporters. In other words, the target is only half—
Mr Downer interjecting
It is quite good, is it, Minister, to half meet a target in what is arguably the longest resource boom in Australia’s history and some 14 years of economic prosperity? The government has failed dismally in terms of the exporters of this nation. One of the points I am trying to make is that part of the reason we are not doubling but only meeting half of the target is that we are halving the funds going to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. Exporting is about a partnership, and this government does not understand or accept its obligation in relation to that partnership. I ask the minister: why has the government failed so dismally in meeting its target?
In the recent Budget Paper No. 2, page 287 shows that the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources is getting $122 million over five years to facilitate Australian SMEs to participate in global supply trains. Why was Austrade, with all of its expertise, excluded from this program? Why has the government not sought to re-establish a business input into the activities of Austrade, having abolished the industry board that used to advise Austrade? I talked before about partnerships—partnerships with government and with business. If we are to support our exporters, they need resources and input. They need to give direction to the way the department and the agency, which are there to service them, oversee functions. I am disappointed again that the minister responsible is not here to directly answer these questions but I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take them on notice and ensure that we are supplied with the appropriate answers.
I will not take them on notice; I will answer them. I understand that our exports have reached a record level. We have never exported more than we export today. The proposition of the Labor Party is that there should be a massive increase in government spending on exporting, apparently. At the end of the day we believe in the private sector economy. I suppose this is what has historically differentiated the Labor Party from the Liberal Party and the National Party. This is a blinding revelation to some people, but we are not socialists. We actually do not believe in the government conducting all of these activities.
We do provide assistance. We had to cut the EMDG, I seem to remember, in 1996, when we were left with an $11 billion budget deficit. The Labor Party had scheme after scheme—the government will do this; the government will do that. The government will set your alarm in the morning and make you a cup of tea, the government will drive you to work and the government will export your goods and services—the government, the government, the government. Members opposite are socialists. They love all that sort of stuff. We believe in the private sector, in the genius of private enterprise, in the liberal market economy. When the honourable member’s father was a member of parliament the Labor Party used to be much more into socialism than it is today, but over the years the Labor Party has realised that just about everything it ever stood for was wrong. Imagine spending your whole life arguing for something and then admitting you were completely wrong. This is the Labor Party at its worst: why isn’t the government spending more money here and more money there? We know what the Labor Party’s point is: like the state governments, if Labor became the Commonwealth government it would blow out the budget and go into massive debt. The ordinary people of Australia would pay the price, through higher interest rates and a weaker economy. We know that. The Labor Party wants to spend more on this and more on that. That is all we have heard from it today. I will not take the questions on notice because they are the usual sort of rant about how we should be spending more government money—and not pursuing responsible budget policies. Yet we have the highest level of exports we have ever had in the country’s history. I think that statistic answers the question very fully.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
I suggest that the order agreed to by the Main Committee for the consideration of proposed expenditures be varied by the Main Committee so that it next considers the proposed expenditure for the Treasury portfolio and then the Defence, portfolio, the Veterans Affairs’ portfolio, the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, the Attorney-General’s portfolio, and the Finance and Administration portfolio.
Is the suggestion of the minister agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed.
Department of the Treasury
Proposed expenditure, $3,688,304,000.
My question, which the minister could perhaps answer for us, is on an issue that came up in a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing in The blame game report that was produced earlier. It is about the lack of PBI status, or public benevolent institution status, of certain institutions. Recently, submissions were made to the health and ageing committee’s inquiry into health funding. One of the issues that came up when we visited the IMVS in South Australia was that they had lost PBI status. People were working, perhaps side by side, in the same institution—medical staff and all sorts of people in diagnostic laboratories, pathology, and in-patient and outpatient clinical services—and were treated differently by the ATO. Consequently, the IMVS was unable to offer some staff the same salaries that other staff were getting in institutions that still get the PBI status. They were finding it hard to recruit and retain staff in such an important area, especially in regional areas, where we have huge shortages.
There was a recommendation in The blame game report, which I am sure would have been brought to the attention of the minister at some stage, that the Australian government amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. It also affects aged-care facilities that are operated by local governments. The recommendation reads:
At the IMVS in Adelaide there are approximately 1,000 employees who are affected by this decision. They would like to see their status returned. A lot of them are leaving the institution and finding work with other employers who do offer those benefits. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could tell us whether there are any plans for the government to come up with a solution.
I thank the member for Hindmarsh very much for his question. I appreciate the detail of his question, but I will have to take it on notice. I would be happy to do that and come back to the member for Hindmarsh.
This change to the PBI status affects local government and nursing homes. Because nursing homes are not benevolent societies and are run by local governments, they are affected by this ruling in a big way. In my electorate of Hindmarsh, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get nursing home beds in the western suburbs, but to be losing staff as well makes it even harder for us to recruit and to get the nursing home beds that are required in the area. With a bit of incentive, as was recommended by The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding, we might be able to retain staff by offering better facilities in one of the oldest electorates in the country. This would ensure that we had enough aged-care beds for those people who need them. Currently, because land is fairly expensive in the inner western suburbs, new nursing home beds are being provided in outer suburbs. This is making it very difficult for people to stay in their community with their loved ones and others whom they want to remain close to.
If staff in these nursing homes are not getting the same tax breaks as other employees in the health industry, they will be attracted by ‘sweeteners’ or packages to leave these institutions to work in other areas. This will cause a loss of employees in the sector. There is a shortage of nursing home employees. This sector has one of the highest turnover rates of staff. We want to maintain those staff and the good facilities offered by the nursing homes that are run by local governments in my electorate and all around Australia. One of the recommendations of the report into health funding was that the government take this issue into consideration. Recently in parliament we tabled a petition with over 1,000 signatures which called for that recommendation to be taken into account by the government. Perhaps the minister could look at this area and let us know where we are heading with it so that we can at least maintain some of the staff who are already working in these nursing homes and also maintain some of these good institutions and their facilities. These institutions do a lot of good work, not only in my electorate in South Australia but all over Australia. I would appreciate a response from the minister at some stage, although he might not be able to give one off the cuff if it is an issue he is not aware of.
Again, I appreciate the remarks from the member for Hindmarsh. I will take it on notice and come back to him.
I would like to raise the matter of withholding tax, particularly in regard to distributions from Australian managed funds to overseas non-Australian resident investors, and the costings of that tax, particularly the costings of a proposal to reduce the tax from 30 per cent to 15 per cent and to abolish gearing completely—which is opposition policy. The week before last, in a committee of the other place, evidence was heard from significant players in the financial services industry that the rate of gearing for investments in managed funds in Australia is very high. Under thin capitalisation rules, the rate can be as high as 75 per cent. Evidence was also heard from the Department of the Treasury that it assumes a gearing rate of zero per cent in relation to these investments. This obviously has a big impact on the costing of any policy proposal.
My question is: will the parliamentary secretary ensure that the Department of the Treasury sits down with key representatives of the industry represented by various peak groups, including IFSA and others, and obviously some of the big players in the industry such as AMP, Barclays et cetera—but particularly with the peak groups—and discuss those costings? Considerable evidence has been put to the government that the gearing rate is actually very high. Treasury say, ‘We do not get tax returns.’ Considerable evidence has been put in response that investors are using an Australian subsidiary company to avoid their withholding tax and are paying Australian company tax instead and with gearing rates bringing that down. Therefore, if the withholding tax were reduced from 30 per cent to 15 per cent and gearing were abolished, those companies would no longer have the requirement to do that and would be paying withholding tax, and the Treasury’s costings would be substantially different and, under some analyses, it would actually result in an increase in government revenue. I ask the parliamentary secretary to respond on behalf of the government to ensure that what is a very worthwhile policy initiative is not rejected by the government on the basis of poor assumptions and incorrect methodology.
I thank the member for Prospect for his question. I am not sure what he is getting at. As he knows only too well, since we assumed government in 1996, we have gone out of our way to consult with industry stakeholders, unlike our predecessors. The Department of the Treasury is always consulting with industry stakeholders on a whole range of ideas, suggestions and proposals. In terms of asking whether the Department of the Treasury is prepared is to consult industry stakeholders, it is business as usual. They do that each and every day. In terms of the comment he made about a very worthwhile policy, you would expect that from him, wouldn’t you? But that is for others to judge, isn’t it?
After that extraordinarily disappointing response from the parliamentary secretary, can I confirm that he is not willing to ensure that the Treasury takes new evidence on the costings of this policy and that the Treasury and this government will take into account the substantial sworn evidence that was given to a Senate committee of this parliament—that the government is going to completely reject that evidence and not consider that evidence in relation to a policy change?
I want to encourage the member for Prospect not to verbal me today. I understand that he enjoys being negative, but I am a positive person. As I said before, the Department of the Treasury consults more than any other government department, I am sure. That is why I am glad to be in this portfolio. They do a marvellous job of consulting with stakeholders and they will continue to do that. I confirm that the Department of the Treasury will consult with industry stakeholders. That is what the member for Prospect wants me to say. They do that each and every day. In terms of taking on board sworn evidence of Senate inquiries, the government places a high degree of importance on Senate inquiries and Senate activity and it will review all evidence in relation to every inquiry in the way that it always does—in a very serious and dedicated way.
Parliamentary Secretary, will the government take into account the specific, clear, sworn evidence given by industry experts? Will they consult further with those experts on this very important policy to make Australia the financial services hub of Asia?
As I have indicated, the answer is that the Treasury will consult with industry stakeholders.
I am sure industry stakeholders will be glad to hear it and I am sure they look forward to their meeting with Treasury officials. This raises a very important matter. This government has adopted a policy of giving Australia an uncompetitive tax regime. This government has adopted the policy, despite the fact that the tax regimes of the United States, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Ireland and most other countries have a withholding tax rate equal to or less than 15 per cent—and they are flat and final withholding tax rates—and says it is acceptable to have a withholding tax rate of 30 per cent.
Australia has the 53rd highest population in the world, yet we have the fourth highest level of funds under management thanks to the superannuation reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments, which the Liberal Party opposed. We have the fourth highest level of funds under management and yet other countries are overtaking us when it comes to encouraging overseas investment in Australia. In Ireland, where the government has taken the approach of encouraging financial services investment and financial services exports from Ireland, they will soon overtake us in terms of funds under management and investment into this country from overseas nations. That is going to happen because we are being left behind with our tax regime, which is uncompetitive, and because this government, this Treasurer, refuse to adopt the policy or at least to talk to industry about the policy of reducing Australia’s withholding tax rate.
I heard the Senate debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 3) Bill 2007 the other day. I heard a particularly vacuous presentation from Senator Ronaldson, who chaired the hearings of the Senate economics committee into this bill and—I will not say he misunderstood the arguments, because I think he understood them very well—clearly gave a completely different version of those arguments to the Senate. That shows the lack of foresight of this government in relation to the financial services industry and funds under management in this country. I call on the parliamentary secretary and the government generally to review this policy and give the Australian funds industry a chance and to get out of their way and give Australia a competitive tax regime—not to pick winners—which gives them an even chance in competing with their competitors overseas.
The first comment I would like to make is that we really do not need anybody from the Australian Labor Party to tell us how to manage tax in this country. I think the difficulty that the member for Prospect—from his remarks just now—has been listening to Sharan Burrow much too much. I cannot understand why the member for Prospect and those in the Australian Labor Party continue to want to sell down our country. Australia is the best country in the world and they keep on bad-mouthing Australia and selling us down. I cannot get over it. I know that is what the ACTU want to do, but I would have thought that a federal member of parliament would want to sell up and uplift our country. That is the first point I make.
The more general point is, as I mentioned earlier, that I do not think we need any gospels or preaching from the Australian Labor Party when it comes to tax. The member for Prospect talked about the Hawke-Keating government and tax. I remember the Keating government in relation to tax, as you would, Mr Deputy Speaker Secker. I remember the famous l-a-w tax cuts, which we Australians were meant to get, which were never realised of course. But the Howard coalition government has done more to help Australians and Australian business in relation to tax than any other government in Australia’s history.
Moving on to another matter, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that under the Trade Practices Act he, the parliamentary secretary, the Assistant Treasurer or the Treasurer can give a written direction to the Chairman of the ACCC to formally monitor prices, which includes profits, margins et cetera, in any industry in Australia?
The member for Prospect, like all other members, understands the TPA, and there is a facility for the Treasurer to direct the ACCC in relation to the matters that he has mentioned. But, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the ACCC already monitor petrol prices.
I am happy to speak for a couple of minutes so the parliamentary secretary can check whether he has the power. I am not sure that he knows. He might want to check whether he has the authority personally, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, to give the direction himself. I will speak for a couple of minutes and he may wish to take the opportunity to check. He may not choose to take that opportunity, but I ask him to confirm whether he, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, has that capacity.
In 2005 the Chairman of the ACCC, the watchdog of motorists and consumers, said there was something funny going on with petrol prices. Two years later, in January this year, he was on the front page of the Daily Telegraph saying that oil companies were not passing on reductions in petrol prices from overseas and he was very concerned. He said the same thing last week. I have no quarrel with Mr Samuel—I think he does as good a job as he can with the authority that he has—but under this government’s changes to the Trade Practices Act he cannot formally monitor petrol prices, which means getting behind petrol prices, seeking documents, talking to witnesses, ensuring that there is no price gouging and ensuring there is no collusion, unless he has a formal written directive from the government to do that. I am asking the parliamentary secretary to confirm to the House that he, as an individual, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, has that personal authority.
As I indicated to the member for Prospect, the Treasurer, as the portfolio minister, has the ability under the Trade Practices Act, and naturally anybody else that is a sworn federal executive councillor in the portfolio under the delegation of the Treasurer would be able to do that.
I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. Given that the Treasurer has the powers to direct or request the ACCC to investigate fuel prices, can you tell me how many times the Treasurer has actually exercised that power in the past 11 years?
As I mentioned earlier—I am not sure whether the member for Bendigo is aware—the ACCC already monitor petrol pricing throughout Australia. It is already happening. I am not sure what the Australian Labor Party is on about. The ACCC undertake informal price monitoring. It is used to provide information to consumers. They do this through publications and on their website. They also monitor LPG prices. They do this at around 4,600 stations throughout Australia.
I thank the parliamentary secretary for that non-answer. The question was: how many times has the Treasurer of Australia contacted the ACCC and directed them to monitor and appropriately deal with the cost of fuel in Australia?
As I mentioned earlier, the ACCC already undertakes the monitoring of petrol prices in Australia. It is already happening.
At the moment the ACCC does informal price monitoring. Let us be clear. The parliamentary secretary is taking the opportunity to use a terminological inexactitude which he very well knows is misleading the House. The ACCC does an internet search of petrol pricing. The ACCC puts petrol prices on its website. It does a good job at that. The Australian people do not need a website to tell them that petrol is expensive. What they need is the ACCC to have the power to get documents to examine petrol pricing and to have the power to formally subpoena people to provide evidence on petrol pricing under section 95ZE of the Trade Practices Act. The parliamentary secretary has confirmed that he has the personal authority to do it; can he confirm that he declines to write to the Chairman of the ACCC under section 95ZE of the Trade Practices Act?
I am sorry; what was the question?
Will the parliamentary secretary confirm that he is declining to write to the Chairman of the ACCC and direct him to formally monitor petrol prices, as provided for under section 95ZE of the Trade Practices Act? And, no, it does not happen at the moment; at the moment there is no formal petrol price monitoring.
Whether or not I write to the ACCC is a decision I will make. I will not make it based on an invitation from the member for Prospect, with the greatest respect. But, as I have already indicated, the ACCC does monitor petrol prices throughout Australia. I also remind the member for Prospect that, as he knows only too well, there are other provisions in the Trade Practices Act where the ACCC can actually oblige people to provide information. So, far from me misleading the House, I suggest that the member for Prospect was being a little too cute in some of the comments that he made earlier.
The parliamentary secretary clearly is not comfortable talking about petrol prices, so I will move on to a broader matter. Given that the Dawson inquiry recommended criminal sanctions for cartel operations in 2003, as I recall, and given that the government indicated in 2005 it would legislate to introduce criminal sanctions for cartel operations, some four years later can the parliamentary secretary confirm when the government intends to introduce this legislation?
The government has made its position on this policy known, and it is moving forward on that basis.
Why don’t you know it, then? Could you tell us what it is?
Yes, could you tell us what it is? When—some time this decade?
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. The honourable member for Prospect.
I thank the parliamentary secretary for that John Moore answer. Could the parliamentary secretary assist the House by telling us when the reforms to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act which the government accepted as a result of the Senate inquiry in 2004 might be introduced into the House. Will they be introduced in this session?
The government will introduce its legislation at the earliest possible time.
Let me ask a question about whether something has happened—not when something will happen, because the parliamentary secretary is not clearly willing to answer those. Has the government circulated its proposed changes to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act to the states as required under the act?
I will have to take that question on notice and I will get back to the member for Prospect.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Department of Defence
Proposed expenditure, $19,720,501,000.
I have a series of questions I would like to ask the minister. I would like to begin by drawing the minister’s attention to a media release following the recent ASIST conference in Melbourne. Delegates to this conference included representatives of the RSL, the VVFA and the TPI Federation, as I am sure he is aware. In a media release, conference delegates unanimously resolved:
That, the DVA Mental Health Policy Section Directorate advise the Department and the Minister as follows:-The Minister provide new and additional funding to match the amount announced by Allan Griffin—
Labor’s shadow minister for veterans’ affairs—
to ensure the positive future of Program ASIST and its extremely valuable contribution to the wellbeing of the Veteran Family.
The Minister instruct the Department that Program ASIST be formally placed under the control of the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Services (the VVCS).
The Minister … meet with a delegation from the ASIST National Conference to give a formal and definitive reply prior to 31st July 2007—
which is not too far away. It also said:
It was the strong resolve of all Delegates that Program ASIST would not continue within the current arrangements.
I want to confirm whether or not the minister has actually received this advice or seen the press release and, if so, what was his response? Will he be following Labor’s lead in this area? Will he continue as his predecessors have done and just ignore the program?
I thank the member for Oxley for his interest in this subject. I am sure he will assist me if I have overlooked any elements of his question. I am aware of the meeting last Thursday. In fact, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs hosted, arranged and funded the participation of people in that meeting. That has been our process each year because we are very supportive of ProgramASIST. In fact, the Howard government is the government that provided the resources and the commitment to actually see ProgramASIST established. It is a program that we think is important. It helps to build knowledge of suicidal behaviour and build the confidence in people who might come in contact with a member from the veterans community at risk of self-harm. It looks at a number of mental health issues. It encourages people who feel that someone is at risk of self-harm to contact proper mental health professionals and the comprehensive program of support that is offered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for mental health and self-harm concerns.
For the member for Oxley’s information, I am aware that the opposition has made some claim about putting some funding into ProgramASIST. It was an interesting announcement that, I think, was made at the Queensland congress of the RSL. It implied that, even though the call for funding was, I think, $1.6 million over four years, the opposition indicated a willingness to contribute $1 million over four years and implied that the department would need to find the rest from its own resources. That is rather odd because I think earlier in the day there were accusations that the department was cutting back its resources and that there was not enough to do its work. Yet, here, the Labor Party was insisting that some magical $600,000 of help could be found.
One thing that needs to be recognised is that the department has an open-ended willingness to support participation in ProgramASIST. What happens is that the department funds the training scheme. I cannot remember the name of the provider, but the provider of the program does a terrific job. Where there is a veteran member willing to participate in that program, we fund the program participation fees, which are about $200 per attendee. We have developed and distributed a package of ProgramASIST promotional material, and we partner with the veterans community to make sure any willing member of the veterans community keen to participate in this program is able to do so. That is an open-ended, ongoing, multiple-year commitment that the government has made, and that stands. What we have also supported is the work of the coordinating committees with two meetings each year as well as face-to-face meetings and teleconferencing, and ongoing financial and administrative support for the national coordinator. We are very supportive of the program.
What also needs to be recognised is that in 2006-07 there were 56 veterans who participated in this program and we funded their participation. In fact, over the years tens of thousands of dollars have gone towards that. The opposition seems to think there will be thousands and thousands of veterans participating in this program, and that is the assumption on which their funding commitment is made. As if the only constructive thing that the community can do to support veterans at risk is to fund participation in the program when clearly there is not that level of interest. There were 56 participants in the last financial year. We have made an open-ended commitment. If there were 556 participants we would finance that contribution.
But to suggest that it can be fixed by throwing more money at the program—recognising that we have been supportive of it since 2001, that there is not the take-up that we anticipated and that it has the support of all the major veterans organisations who also promote it, yet there is still not the take-up of the program—I think highlights just how unwise it was of the Labor Party to simply stick its sticker onto an email, which I also received from the promoters of this program, and claim it as policy. They did not do the hard work and recognise that self-harm and the mental health and wellness of our veterans community requires a comprehensive strategy, one the department is continually putting in place and improving.
We are working on Operation Life, which is also a comprehensive program that recognises that we need to promote resilience, mental health and wellbeing across the broader veterans community. We need to look at what those protective factors are that reduce risks. We need to involve families and those supportive in addressing self-harm, deliver support through the veterans and veterans’ families counselling service, develop the know-how within the veterans community and continue research. That is the comprehensive strategy that the veterans community is looking for and that is what we are delivering.
I have a question of the minister in relation to Indigenous veterans’ graves. I have been approached by a Mr John Schnaars from Western Australia as to the provision of greater support in terms of Aboriginal servicemen and Indigenous members of the defence forces where their graves can be identified. He expressed some frustration at the ability to gain further funds for this worthwhile cause. I ask the minister: what funds are currently available and are there any proposals for the future?
Thank you to the member for Canning for his question. The area of Indigenous veterans is a significant priority for the department, for the government and particularly for me. There are estimated to be between 3,000 and 4,000 Indigenous veterans who have served our nation with great honour. Those veterans and their dependants are an important part of the veterans community. But what we know is that we are only engaged with about one in 10 of that group. What we have, and this has been in place since 1999, is a communications strategy to reach out to the Indigenous veterans community, to emphasise that the benefits and support including the proper commemoration of graves is an entitlement to which they are eligible, as are non-Indigenous veterans, and to make sure that we have systems in place to reach out and engage the Indigenous community.
I have put on a staff member, a veterans policy officer called Rob Nobel, who is an Indigenous person himself with experience in the military area. Right across the country, we have Indigenous contact points and awareness raising as part of our work. I would be more than happy to pursue that matter further with you and put the individual that you have spoken to in touch with Mr Nobel and our team, who are very focused on the needs of our veterans community, particularly those Indigenous members of the veterans community who are not fully engaged with the benefits that are available.
I know the member for Canning, representing the great state of Western Australia, would also understand that even for remote communities that have a member of the veterans community within them, my department funds that person’s health needs directly. These are additional resources on top of what may be already available in the community through the Indigenous health or community health programs. So you can see that there is an opportunity there to do more. We recognise that. The benefits are as they are for non-Indigenous veterans, but what we do recognise is that there needs to be a different method of engagement and outreach to contact them, and to develop trust and good working relationships as part of our effort. I would be more than happy to get the name of the individual you have mentioned and make sure he is part of that work.
Just to help the minister—who, in answer to my previous question, seemed to mix his metaphors and confuse his concern—perhaps he could at least acknowledge this. Labor are going to bring the assistance program formally under the control of the veterans and the veterans’ families counselling service, the VVCS, and we will also provide new and additional funding of $1 million over the four years. There would be other costs that would be absorbed. The proposal that we put forward keeps the control of the service with the ex-service community while relieving them of the responsibility of resourcing it. That was the point I was trying to make. I think the minister agrees and we can perhaps move on.
Could the minister answer as to whether he would join with Labor and index the whole of the special rate, the TPI and TTI, the immediate rate and extreme disablement pensions, to movements in the MTAWE—male total average weekly earnings—or CPI, whichever is the greater? If not, why not? Can the minister also explain the comments he made in the House on 23 May when, in relation to our policy, he said:
… what is understood by thinking members of the broader veterans community is that the policy he is bringing forward is discriminatory, it is unprincipled and it vandalises and undermines some of the key principles and key foundations that allow governments—successive governments—to implement a pro-veteran beneficial system that is characterised as being responsive, sound and principled against the veterans’ experience.
Will he join with Labor on the indexation—the whole of the special rate issue that I raised—and explain what he actually meant by those comments?
I thank the member for Oxley for his second question. I am more than happy to talk about this subject. My point is, no, I will not join the Labor Party in their cobbled together, hastily put together, media stunt on the eve of the budget. I made those points quite clearly. What we have seen right throughout my time as minister, and ministers beforehand, is that the Labor Party do not come forward with the hard work. They do not put in the effort to get policy proposals right. As was just mentioned regarding the ASIST program, a simple Labor sticker has been stuck on top of a memo that I also received via email. I have emphasised—and perhaps the member for Oxley overlooked the point—that our support for the ASIST program is part of a comprehensive strategy.
There is no single solution to self-harm. Veterans, serving men and women of the Defence Force and the broader veterans community all live full lives. There are other influences on their wellness and emotional wellbeing, and that is why a comprehensive strategy is required, not simply putting more money into a program that is currently unconstrained by the budget that supports it—that is, more people want to participate. We have more resources to accommodate that. The simple reality is that in the last financial year there were 56 people. With the support of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the major ex-service communities promoting the program, it would be simply naive, superficial and lazy to suggest that that is all that is needed to tackle the mental health issues of the veterans community.
I go to the second question that was asked of me. In terms of the indexation of payments that are made to the veterans community, the indexation principles are very sound. They are entirely defensible. They recognise the special place of our veterans community and take account of the basis upon which the payment is made. The cobbled together, hastily put together, announcement that Labor made was the same announcement that the shadow minister, at the Queensland RSL congress, fessed up about when he said that smarter minds than his had put this idea together. It emphasised his lack of understanding about the program. He was quite open about his own confusion.
Labor are actually proposing a method of indexation that is not used for any other payment within the Commonwealth. He and the Labor Party have confused the methods that are used for service pensions, where payments are adjusted against either a benchmark of 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings or movements in CPI. What that says is that if the CPI movements over time do not maintain that 25 per cent benchmark then the adjustment is made back to the benchmark. The Labor Party, not understanding this, have said they will have an indexation method—a cobbled together, either/or, whichever is greater, method—that does not exist anywhere in the Commonwealth system. It again emphasises the lack of work that the Labor Party constantly display in just badging someone else’s idea, and then, when it is highlighted to be unprincipled, unsustainable and unsubstantiated, they say, ‘Brighter minds than mine came up with this idea.’
I am highlighting—and the member for Oxley may be very interested to know this—that 100,000 veterans receive injury compensation payments and, in fact, may have exactly the same condition as the people that the announcement of the Labor Party was focusing on, and they will potentially have exactly the same condition indexed differently for no other reason than it is a political stunt of the Labor Party. What you saw in the budget is real money payable now, not some promise on the never-never, not some idea that the Labor Party have brought forward, where they will come up with some entirely new method of indexation and think about implementing it in late 2008 that may produce a benefit in 2012.
You see local members of parliament running around saying, ‘Labor promises to increase benefits.’ That is not accurate. It is unprincipled. It does not reflect the quality of the work that the coalition puts in place and it also does not address the simple fact that, when you are putting in place a repatriation system that recognises the special status and the particular needs of our veterans community, you do not junk those principles. The last time I stood in this place the member for Banks said, ‘Why are veterans different from pensioners?’ They are very different from pensioners. We need to understand why that is the case and not junk the principles that have seen our system develop and evolve over many years and many governments. That is why I made those remarks.
If the member for Oxley and particularly the shadow minister who has fessed up to his ignorance about them wants to have this explained to them again, I am more than happy to do that, because their vandalism of the veterans’ affairs system will stand as one of the great negative contributions Labor has made to veterans’ affairs. At least up until recently they just did not care; now they just do not bother doing the work and they are indifferent to the consequences of that recklessness.
When I said ‘smarter than me,’ I also meant smarter than the minister. But, in the context of that, could he briefly explain which other indexation system that is used now and which other payment by the Commonwealth is indexed in the same way that they currently do special rate pensions—not the formula; the split rate, the whole system.
Again the member for Bruce is asking me to explain Labor’s policy. One of the things that is very clear is that, for those people that are receiving special rate benefits, there are two elements to that benefit. One relates to the injury compensation—that is for the pain and suffering of the service related condition for which they have been recognised and they are receiving compensation payments. This is where the people in part of the general rate table of injury compensation receive those payments, and they are indexed against CPI. That is consistent, that is principled, that is the manner that is used in civil awards for injuries of this kind and in other fields where people are being compensated for injury, pain and suffering, such as elements of workers compensation. The special rate pension reflects the fact that, as a result of those injuries, someone has been denied the opportunity to participate in the workforce. That is why there is a very special provision made for those people who, as a result of their service, are injured or impaired or have an illness that denies them the possibility to be engaged in the workforce.
What the Howard government has done is recognise that where you see a buoyant labour market with real growth in income—and it is an issue the Labor Party has never had to contend with—it is appropriate to reflect that real growth in income in a payment that reflects the fact that an injured, impaired or ill veteran cannot participate in the workforce and is being compensated for it. So it takes account of that very particular characteristic of the payment. It is sound; it is principled.
If I could actually interject in the context of this: so you are maintaining that it is a unique system used only for this particular benefit and not used elsewhere in the Commonwealth?
This is not a debate; this is a matter of questions and answers.
That is another example of where the opposition tries to verbal anybody who might have a different view. I was quite amazed and it is still happening now. Interjection, interjection, grievance, grievance, grievance, looking at life through a straw—that is all you can expect from the Labor Party. They are an absolutely appalling disappointment to so many people in the veterans community. What you are seeing today is another example of it—like at the Queensland congress where the opposition gets up and verbals the RSL as if they somehow endorse their proposal. The RSL said nothing of the kind, but never let honesty and integrity get in the way of a claim.
When the opposition jump up and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got this indexation sort of slippery, slimy plan that doesn’t actually start until 2008 and might amount to $30 by 2012,’ they then run around saying that there will be a big increase in income.
The minister will come back to the question and answer the question.
We have another example here where, with a very clear, measured, principled answer to a question, the opposition wants to rumble it together and run off and make it something it is not. The basis of these indexation methodologies is sound, it is principled and it is understood by the veterans community. But, above all, when we are taking $11 billion from other taxpayers to make special payments and special provisions for those for whom we have a special duty then we need to be clear on why we are taking that money, the basis on which it is being made available and why the veterans community is entirely justified in having these special provisions available for them.
I have explained the indexation methodologies. A number of people have explained them to the member for Bruce but, as he said at the Queensland RSL, he is not quite sure what is going on here because wiser minds than his have put forward this proposal. Perhaps he should come to terms with the foundation principles that have seen our system evolve over many generations to be world class and admired by many. Those who are not in the veteran community wish they were, because it is so admired. The benefits that are provided are principled, entirely justified and can be explained soundly and with a measure of integrity to those who are providing the money. That is what the Labor Party should address, rather than just putting its dodgy Labor sticker on whatever email comes through.
This is a debate where we just want questions and answers.
Could the minister, on a yes or no basis, instead of verballing people, confirm whether the system that is currently underway and being used is unique.
The member for Bruce will resume his seat. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the defence portfolio be agreed to.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
I would like to make a special mention of an issue which I raised earlier here today, in the consideration in detail, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer: the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing and its report The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding. Submissions to this inquiry are concerned with the problems experienced by certain health service providers and aged-care facilities in attracting and retaining staff as a direct result of being labelled by the ATO as non-public benevolent institutions. The experience of South Australia’s Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science is highly worthy of consideration. The petition from 1,021 citizens, which I presented to this parliament on 21 May this year, directly concerns the issue. It will come as no surprise that by far the majority of petitioners are employees of South Australia’s IMVS.
The ATO’s ruling concerning public benevolent institution status, or the lack thereof, gives or denies organisations the ability to offer fringe benefits tax-exempt salary packages. The cost of these sweeteners or packages is effectively picked up by the taxpayer. Potential health service employees are offered substantial dissimilar incentives to work for PBI versus non-PBI organisations in order to aid certain service providers, and providers of recruitment of staff. You would ordinarily expect health organisations with delivery centres in regional South Australia, for instance, to be a targeted beneficiary of the public benevolent institution tax regime so as to better attract suitably qualified personnel in sufficient numbers. One such organisation, the IMVS, is actively penalised by the ATO’s ruling on PBI status. I will quote the IMVS directly and give you a sense of their frustration. They said:
The IMVS operates laboratories in all major regional centres in South Australia. Attraction and retention of qualified and experienced staff in rural areas is problematic across a number of professions. It is exacerbated in pathology by the fact that a qualified scientist can receive a higher rate of pay for essentially the same level of work by working for another metropolitan employer and this has exacerbated the drain of staff from rural and regional laboratories for the metropolitan area.
The impact on staff replacement in regional areas from the loss of its PBI status is that the IMVS has severely damaged its ability to attract staff to rural areas as the hospitals in both rural and metropolitan settings offer a higher salary package for undertaking identical duties and classifications. This has a significant potential to reduce services to those rural services and it has impacted on the ability to provide the services to the Indigenous communities, which the IMVS serves through its northern laboratory network.
Another consequence of the current PBI tax regime is the current situation where one health service provider located within a hospital setting and responsible for many of the same functions as hospital units, including diagnostic laboratories, pathology and in-patient and outpatient clinical services, is treated differently by the ATO and whose staff are consequently unable to offer salaries comparable with staff doing identical duties within the same hospital setting.
The Royal Adelaide Hospital utilises medical registrars to undertake their training program incorporating treating inpatients, undertaking outpatient clinics and laboratory work. Some of these staff are employed directly by the RAH and some are employed by the IMVS. The Royal Adelaide Hospital enjoys classification as a public benevolent institution while the IMVS does not. So we have health professionals with the same credentials working side by side on the same patients in the same wards but receiving substantially different packages. You can imagine what this does for the recruitment and retention of IMVS staff—hence the petition from approximately 1,000 employees of the IMVS which asked the House to:
Amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 so that:
I ask that this petition be taken into consideration by the parliament and that the objective of both the petition and the recommendation of the report on the inquiry into health funding be made a matter of urgent government business.
I am indebted to the Courier-Mail newspaper for finding, buried in the Queensland government’s recent budget, the fact that the government is increasing tax on south-side residents. It seems to typify Labor governments that they want to increase tax and increase debt. There is, around Australia, $58 billion of increased government debt at the state level, at a time when we are building a Future Fund of $50 billion over the forward estimates.
Labor governments are not good at these things. Fuel prices are bad enough, but local residents and motorists in my electorate have the only toll road in the entire state of Queensland—the Logan Motorway and the Gateway Motorway extension. Tolls are going to go up by 10c at each tollbooth, and that means you will pay 20c for a trip starting at the Ipswich Motorway and completing at the Gateway Motorway at Wishart. You might think 20c is not much; that is what the Queensland government are hoping. But add it all up: given that the Gateway and Logan motorways actually have more cars on them than the Gateway Bridge, which is also putting up the toll by 10c a trip each way, with 33,000 motorists travelling along those motorways every day, if you do the simple maths you will see it is $1.1 million a day extra that the Queensland government are going to rip off south-side residents—$1.1 million extra a day.
They are never afraid to take money in stamp duty for new homes and new land and so forth, projects that are very evident in my area; but, when it comes to getting rid of the only toll road in Queensland, what do they do? They increase the toll. Residents are writing to me—I have had hundreds of letters in the last couple of days—
Mr Gibbons interjecting
I have. The member for Bendigo can scoff, but I have. Wayne from Sunnybank has written and said that he is a courier and he uses both toll roads every day. Marjorie from Runcorn has written and said that trucks and other heavy vehicles are using Warrigal Road in increasing numbers; they are going around the tollbooth at Persse Road in Runcorn. John from Calamvale says: ‘For years I have complained about the unfair treatment to south-side residents who have always been hit by tolls; north-side road projects never attract a toll—example, the Nundah bypass and the northern city bypass. It’s totally unfair.’ Terry from Eight Mile Plains said: ‘The trucks speed up Padstow Road doing 80 kilometres plus in a 60 zone. People live in that street—trying to get in and out of driveways.’ There is MacGregor primary school, the biggest primary school in the state of Queensland. These sorts of local roads are suffering as people go around the Beattie government’s toll.
The Beattie government’s toll on the Gateway extension and the Logan Motorway, the southern Brisbane bypass—a purpose-built road, a freeway standard road, the only toll road in Queensland—means that south-side residents are paying a regional tax that no-one else in Queensland is paying.
Disgraceful.
It is disgraceful, Member for Hinkler. There is no way on earth that they do that in Hinkler—I hope. But why are they doing it to the residents of Sunnybank, Sunnybank Hills, Runcorn, Calamvale, Stretton and Algester? Why are they confronting people with heavy vehicles, B-doubles, using these side streets? If it had not been for the Australian government’s $1.7 million vote of support to residents’ sleep patterns, which has taken 221,000 trucks off the road between 10 at night at five in the morning—a toll-free truck trial over the last couple of years—there would not have been any change. The only change under the Beattie government has been to increase tax.
Let me tell the Main Committee the names of the people on the board of directors of the quango—the quasi-autonomous non-government organisation—that the Beattie government hides behind when it comes to tolls. David Gray is the chairman. He used to be the managing director of Boeing—terrific. The deputy chairman is a bloke called Robert Grice. He is a former chair of the South East Queensland Water Corporation. What a complete disaster he has been. Peter Lynch has been the chair of a variety of legal organisations, including the HIA. Don Muir is a former deputy director-general of the Queensland Department of Main Roads. Alan Tesch is currently the director-general of Main Roads. Rob Wensley QC is a Brisbane barrister. There are two people from the private sector. Then there is Tim Spencer, a chap who is the deputy under-treasurer at Queensland Treasury. They are the ones rubbing their hands together with glee as the money flows in. I would like to be proved wrong, but I do not reckon even one of them lives anywhere near these toll roads. Not one of them lives in the electorate of Moreton, according to my records. If they want to put their hands up and tell me they are a local constituent and they are paying the toll then I will actually go a little softer on them. But, as it currently stands, they inflict on people in my area a toll no-one else in Queensland is paying, and the Beattie government stands condemned. (Time expired)
The systemic inequity in funding of some Jewish schools in my electorate is an issue that I wish to raise today. My colleague the member for Perth, the shadow minister for education and training, visited several schools with me in my electorate last month with a view to getting a first-hand appreciation of the differing needs of these schools, which have been disadvantaged by the prevailing socio-economic status, or SES, formula that is used by the education ministry to determine the funding to schools. Successive Howard government ministers of education have promised these schools in my electorate that this formula would be reviewed. The promise comes before each federal election. They were first made by education minister Kemp and then by education minister Nelson. And, of course, after each minister is re-elected they have failed to do anything about this inequitable funding. This issue transcends party politics in my electorate: improving access to quality education at these schools will affect the futures of a great many of my constituents long after the outcome of this election is decided.
The schools that the member for Perth and I visited were the Gandel Besen campus of Mount Scopus, Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah and Adass Israel School. They are subject to the same funding assessments by postcode as schools which are far better endowed, and yet those other schools do not provide substantial fee reductions or waivers for large families or have families of 14 or 15 kids attending, as with these particular schools.
It is to their credit that these schools and other schools adopt such an inclusive approach to education within their community, and nothing should happen to disadvantage them. Above all they should not be penalised for finding themselves cash-strapped because the present funding arrangements are predicated on the assumption that, being schools in wealthy postcodes, they must of course be wealthy.
The visits to these schools with the member for Perth resulted in a number of announcements reflective of my commitment and that of the Australian Labor Party to enhancing accessibility to education generally and, more specifically, to ensuring that parents are able to access the education they choose for their children. The member for Perth hit the nail on the head in an article on the front cover of last Thursday’s Australian Jewish News when he said:
“Because of historical factors determining the location of synagogues, there is often no relationship between the socio-economic status of the area in which a Jewish school is located and the financial capacity of parents whose children attend these schools …”
With the member for Perth, I met two little girls at one school and we asked them, ‘How many kids are there in your family?’ One had 14 kids in her family and the other had 15 siblings. As the member for Perth said in his media release, the tendency of these families to have large numbers of children often makes even modest school fees a financial burden, when they are multiplied by each child. This is particularly the case when they live in an area because of its proximity to a synagogue or to kosher food, not because they want to live in a wealthy postcode. It means that they are being disadvantaged by the formula that is a catch-all for that area and that does not effectively reflect their interests or means.
With the member for Perth, I visited all of these schools and we looked at another issue that disadvantages them, and that is the issue of security. As was established in a recent Sunday program that I participated in, these schools have a terrorist target rating equal to that of the US embassy in Canberra. This is the situation as presented to them by the relevant Australian government security agencies. Parents at these schools have to make substantial efforts to see that their children are protected. There are armed guards at practically all of these schools. The amount that is paid for security by individual parents is in addition to their school fees and often amounts to 10 or 15 per cent.
The member for Perth said that it was his aspiration to provide assistance to all schools so that expenses no longer have to be covered by a school budget that would be better put toward teaching and learning. I understand that this is a suggestion the shadow minister for education is going to be making to all Australian schools that have a similar problem with security. It is a non-partisan thing that will be done for any school from any background having that particular problem. Funding security is something that I strongly support.
In his short but highly productive stint as shadow minister for education and training, the member for Perth has grasped the need for the further funding arrangements for schools in my electorate for which I have long campaigned. (Time expired)
Members may recall just a little over a year ago a replica of the Duyfken or ‘Little Dove’ set sail on a 12,000-kilometre voyage around Australia to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first documented European contact with Australia.
And came to my electorate!
Yes. During that voyage the Duyfken visited many ports—including yours, Member for Hinkler—around southern and eastern Australia, including Fremantle, Cairns, Hobart and Sydney, sailed by a combined volunteer-professional crew of 16 people. One of those fortunate enough to have been selected for a leg of the voyage was Frances Clements, who hails from Gilmore, my part of our island continent. Frances is a ranger with the Marine Parks Authority at Jervis Bay Marine Park and I was lucky enough to have her share the story of her experiences with me, which I now want to share with this House.
Frances is a qualified coxswain and this enabled her to meet the requirement to have completed a mandatory sea safety course, which would have otherwise scuttled her chances to volunteer in the time frame available to her. She joined the Duyfken at Newcastle in late October last year and over the next week, until she disembarked at Wollongong, was busily involved in fast-tracking the skills needed to crew a square-rigged sailing ship.
The Duyfken is a very small craft, only some 24 metres long, with a shallow draft of 2.8 metres. Anyone who had first seen photographs and then viewed the real thing would have been very surprised at the real size. According to Frances, there were plenty of jobs to go around and if sails were involved then plenty of ropes as well. At sea, crews stood watches of four to six hours day and night and all took turns on the lookout duties and at the helm. Adjusting the sails was an exercise in coordination. The crew focused on working in unison and responding quickly to the captain’s and mate’s orders to ease this rope and haul that one to avoid damaging the rigging. Frances says she now understands how sea shanties originated—from the need to maintain a rhythm when drawing the anchor or doing other hard work requiring a team effort. Incidentally, it took all free hands to raise the anchor, using a wooden ratchet-and-pulley device. Each time the crew pulled on the anchor rope, a plank was wedged into the wooden ratchet, devised to stop it slipping back.
Living on board, one gets absorbed in the sense of the history of the Duyfken and what it must have been like for those living on board. In keeping with the atmosphere, the use of mobile phones was discouraged and limited to offshore opportunities or moments when there was the least intrusion into the atmosphere of the ship. Frances slept in a hammock, which she found surprisingly comfortable, but she did say that when it rained or the deck was awash, the water leaked through the deck, dripping onto anyone sleeping below. Her head space on the hammock was only about 18 inches and the upper part of the hull became warm and humid overnight. So, whilst her trip in spring was relatively comfortable, a journey through the tropics such as the original voyagers took would have been an entirely different proposition. But there was a comforting feeling at the same time, no doubt encouraged by the cosiness below decks and the timber and rope that formed the world of the crew.
I hasten to add that she described below decks as small but not claustrophobic, and the creaking of the ship was a comforting, pleasant sound. Speaking of rope, Frances described how waste rope would have been recycled into functional pieces of equipment such as mats to buffer against surfaces that rubbed together. Washing up was done in a wooden bucket using a fat, frayed rope end as a scrubbing brush. Of course there were some mod cons, such as safety equipment, but overall the presentation stayed fairly true to the period, with hand-sewn flax cloth sails and tarred hemp and manila ropes.
Much of the journey involved stays in various ports and engaging in promotional activities—typically spanning a weekend, with a further two days for visits by school groups. It has to be appreciated that the volunteer crew constantly changed during the nine months of the voyage as people came and went. This was a challenging dynamic to the full-time crew, who virtually had to retrain people on a constant basis. It must have been very much like groundhog day for them.
Frances describes the lure of the sea as seductive and said that, if the opportunity was again offered, she would jump at it, particularly for a longer voyage. Despite some trying moments, her experience was memorable, enjoyable and a personal challenge. She felt as if she participated in living history and was enriched by the experience.
I am grateful for the funding provided by the federal government because it allowed the cost of volunteering to be kept down, thereby making the experience accessible to far more people than would otherwise have been the case. I urge any young or older Australian to consider the experience, if offered to them, for it illustrates a path of history like no other way. I endorse Frances’ words to encourage any young person or older person from the electorate of Gilmore to apply for this experience.
My electorate of Gorton does not have a Medicare office. It did have a Medicare office in Deer Park but that was closed down by the Howard government. In February this year I wrote to the minister requesting he consider locating a Medicare office in Gorton. On 22 May the minister wrote in response to my letter that he did not believe there was a need for a Medicare office and explained there was new software that would provide access to a rebate if constituents in my electorate had expended moneys that went beyond the normal costs that would be covered by bulk-billing.
In the consideration in detail stage of the budget bills this week, I inquired of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who was representing Senator Ellison, why there was no need for a Medicare office in my electorate. He indicated and stressed that, because of this software, there would be no need at all for a Medicare office in my electorate. I have two ministers now on the record indicating there is no need for a Medicare office in Gorton. Indeed, he suggested that the software now would make Medicare offices obsolete.
I then asked: if that is the case, is it the government’s intention to close every Medicare office in Australia? If because of the software there is no additional benefit in having a Medicare office, wouldn’t it be a waste of taxpayers’ money to have Medicare offices across Australia? First of all, he indicated to me that he was not aware of any intention to close any Medicare offices and then he was advised by the army of staff sitting behind him that the government was not looking to close down any offices. So I have to conclude from the comments made by the minister that either he believes that taxpayers’ money is being wasted on Medicare offices or he believes that there is a use for Medicare offices, except for in Gorton.
I consider the government’s response to my request for a Medicare office in the fastest-growing area in Melbourne to be contemptuous. This government has to consider looking at the marginalised—not just the marginals—people who are in need. A large number of residents in my electorate have lower levels of income and lower levels of assets, and they find it very difficult not to be able to receive their rebate instantly after outlaying money on medical costs. I accept the view—and I have said this to the ministers—that the software should assist. But the minister did indicate to me that all doctors’ surgeries would have this facility, the Easyclaim facility. That is not true. There are only two participating doctors or pharmacies in my electorate that are looking to use this system. There is still some mistrust about the system and whether in fact people will want to use EFTPOS or credit cards to have payments rebated to them. So I have to conclude, based on the government’s answers to my request, that there is no real concern for the constituents of Gorton or that the offices across the country are unnecessary. I do not believe it is the latter. I do not consider that constituents want to see closures of Medicare offices.
The fact is that I have the fastest-growing electorate in Victoria. There are two transport spines in my electorate. One is the Calder that goes all the way through McEwen to Bendigo, as the member for Bendigo knows. There is an enormous amount of growth in that particular area; there is exponential growth in those communities. There is rapid growth along the Ballarat Highway towards the seat of Lalor and towards Ballarat, and there is a greater need for Commonwealth services. In fact, I know that my electorate is the fastest-growing area.
The state of Victoria has more than 60 Medicare offices; we have 39 seats. You would think that there was a chance for the fastest-growing area of Victoria to be in receipt of the next Medicare office. Indeed, the departmental staff did indicate that to me earlier this year. I would hope the government reconsiders its position, realises that Gorton constituents are as important as anybody else and provides the Commonwealth services that they need so they can have their Medicare costs rebated as quickly as possible.
I rise this afternoon to speak on the 2007 budget and its strong, positive impact on regional Australia. My region of Braddon, as with other regional areas, has received considerable benefit from the 2007 budget. From an Australian economic, social and business perspective, this budget has been a winner for all sectors. The financial outlook includes a strong cash surplus of some $10.6 billion, the 10th consecutive surplus. This is accompanied by a forecast of continued economic growth and by a 30-year low in unemployment.
The opposition has repeatedly said that our entire economic wellbeing is a result of the mining boom and not of good government and economic and social management. I challenge this. For example, in my own state of Tasmania, economic growth averaged some 3.7 per cent between 2004 and 2006. Nationally, industry grew from 2.7 to 2.9 per cent between 2004 and 2006, while the exports of particular note from my region of Braddon—those of agriculture—nationally have grown an average 23.7 per cent over the two-year period 2004-06. I argue that such growth is not based on a mining boom but on a well-managed economy that allows all sectors to grow. For regional Australia this support will continue during 2007-08 due to the initiatives announced in the budget, not just with the new programs launched but also with those continuing to drive benefits into regional Australia.
Very close to all of my constituents’ hearts is the issue of personal income tax reform. The Australian government has delivered to Australia some $31.5 billion in tax cuts which go directly into the pockets of all Australians, including my local constituents. Other personal relevant initiatives such as superannuation bonuses, increases in pensions and the one-off payment for our aged and less economic sector are all possible due to good governance and good economic management. If a good budget only required placing additional cash in an individual’s pocket then producing a budget would be very easy. However, it is far more complex than that.
In regional Australia alone there have been specialised initiatives developed and delivered in such key areas as agriculture, business, industry, communications and society, culture and heritage, economics and finance, education and training, employment, environment and nature, government, health and safety, information and communications, law and justice, science and technology and transport.
Regional Australia has been tremendously supported by this budget. The Australian government have also committed an additional $314 million in exceptional circumstances assistance, which brings it to a total since 2002-05 of $1.6 billion, some $342 million for improved rural services and $205 million to help primary producers through extending the Agriculture Advancing Australia initiative. From Braddon’s perspective, such programs add to the total investment in my region, contributing significantly towards sustainability and a strong economic advantage for Braddon.
That builds on, over the last two years, over $70 million in road infrastructure funding to duplicate the Bass Highway between Penguin and Ulverstone and some $15 million for the upgrading of the notorious Sisters Hills section between Wynyard and the Circular Head region. The Circular Head region is well renowned for its great agriculture, producing close to 40 per cent of Tasmania’s milk. It has great abalone-processing facilities. It has a flourishing forestry industry. It is one of those areas that certainly has and is in the process of having very good road infrastructure.
From Braddon’s perspective, such programs are important to the growth and development of the community. They demonstrate the balance in this budget, in which there are also substantial initiatives to assist our environment. Braddon has secured substantial projects which will assist our community enormously with this precious resource. There has also been significant assistance nationally to our most vulnerable and ill, with $772 million for improved detection and treatment of chronic and complex conditions and $1.6 billion for aged-care initiatives. Our youth have also been well supported with initiatives assisting obesity and childhood illnesses that increase the uptake of sports activities by our young during after-school activities programs. There are programs for youth diabetes and, especially important for our region, there is over $1.2 million for the treatment of youth with mental and social issues. This budget has delivered tremendously well—(Time expired)