Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a statement. Yesterday in the Main Committee there was a robust debate and very many robust interjections with both the member for Indi and me.
Honourable members interjecting—
Thank you for your assistance. The member much later in the debate interrupted another speaker and asked for some comments I had made to be withdrawn and I did not do so. I have had time to reflect on the incident and, though the comments were not completely accurate, I do unreservedly withdraw any remarks that may have caused offence to the member.
by leave—I move:
That this House censures the Prime Minister and his Government for deceiving Australians and letting them down over record high petrol prices by:
This censure is against the Prime Minister and is against his government because, in the space of six months, the Australian people have been severely let down. A week ago today the Prime Minister in Adelaide declared, ‘There is nothing more that we can phy-si-cally do to provide additional support to the family budget.’ We then had the extraordinary statement in this House earlier this week when the Treasurer of Australia, that nervous man who is desperately trying to fill the very large shoes of the member for Higgins, declared that Australians are happy. We are now in the extraordinary situation also where one of the most senior and respected ministers of the government, the Minis-ter for Resources and Energy, in a letter to his own Prime Minister and his own cabinet colleagues, has argued that FuelWatch will most hurt the people for whom it is allegedly intended and that is low-income families, particularly in areas like the outer suburbs of Western Sydney. He further argued that it would increase regulation on business, that it would be anticompetitive and that it would also importantly undermine the so-called government’s reform credentials, whatever is left of them.
Not only did we learn last night from Channel 9 and the highly respected political journalist Mr Laurie Oakes that the Minister for Resources and Energy wrote to his own Prime Minister and his own relevant ministers, including the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, saying that FuelWatch was actually going to hurt vulnerable low-income Australian families but also, confirmed by the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer at an extraordinary nine-minute press conference held last night at 6.30, we now know the content of that material from the four key economic departments of the government is accurate. We are in a situation now where the Prime Minister of this country—having run around Australia last year as the Leader of the Opposition, picking up apples and bananas in fruit shops and supermarkets throughout the country, making Australians falsely believe that he would do something to bring grocery prices down, occasionally dropping into the family kitchen of an everyday Australian household and making them falsely believe he would be doing something about their cost of living pressures, he would help them with their rent and make sure their interest rates were going to be more affordable in some way, wandering past service stations and making the right kinds of noises on popular television, whether it was Sunrise or Todaymade Australians believe that, if he became the Prime Minister of Australia, in some way petrol prices would come down.
What has happened here is a great parody—a great summary—of what this Prime Minister and this government is about because, having under a false pretext gotten himself elected as the Prime Minister of Australia, he then turned around to his spin merchants, who normally sit in here in the parliament, and said: ‘I have actually told Australians petrol is going to come down. What on earth am I going to do about it?’ So he has gone to the book and said, ‘What do I do?’ And what he has done is come up with this thing called FuelWatch.
FuelWatch is nothing more than a fraud being perpetrated upon the most vulnerable Australians. That is not only the view of the opposition; it is the view of one of the government’s most senior ministers, the Minister for Resources and Energy, but we also now know that it is the considered view of the four major economic departments in the government.
What happened then was that the Prime Minister said, ‘Well, I have come up with this stunt; I need to make Australians think that FuelWatch—watching petrol—is actually going to bring the price down.’ He said to his advisers, ‘Well, I need some evidence to support it.’ So he turned around to his own department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—and the Prime Minister himself has said ‘all of the Public Service departments need to come to the centre of government decision making’—and his own department said: ‘Well, Prime Minister, with FuelWatch there is actually no evidence that it is going to work. In fact, it is possible that it will increase the price of fuel.’ So the Prime Minister’s own department actually said that the ACCC modelling indicates a small overall price increase cannot be ruled out. In other words, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet said, ‘We cannot guarantee that this will not increase the price of petrol; in fact, we think it will.’
Then he went to the Department of Finance and Deregulation. That department said: ‘Well, in fact, it is likely to create a de facto floor price. It will increase the regulatory burden on business of over $20 million a year.’ So he went to the second pigeonhole to get a solution—the department of finance—and they said that it will actually create a de facto floor price. In plain language, that means that the current lowest price for petrol will be higher than it is. So the second department said it is going to increase the price of petrol.
He then went to Resources and Energy and, as we know from the Minister for Resources and Energy, that department said, ‘It is actually going to hurt the people who need the cheapest petrol.’ And that is those people who were lining up on Tuesday night down the eastern seaboard of the country. Prime Minister, the people who are going to be hurt according to your own minister and your own departments are the people who are most vulnerable—the people who are most sensitive to the price of petrol—and they are the people who are capitalising on the cheapest price in the cycle on a Tuesday night.
He then went to the industry department and that department, amongst other things, said: ‘It is actually going to be bad for small business. It is going to take independent retailers out of the sector. It would cost them an additional $4,000 a year.’ So here we are with major oil giants effectively controlling much of the petrol retailing in this country, aided and abetted by Woolworths and Coles, and then we have got a significant and very important part of the sector—the independent small business part of it—and the government’s own department is saying that it is going to increase the cost of business for them by $4,000 a year.
So what does the Prime Minister do? He then goes to the ACCC report and selectively pulls out bits that he thinks are consistent with the stunt that he has already confected and then tries to tell Australians that watching the price of fuel is going to bring it down.
The other very important thing is this: if the Prime Minister wants to listen to people, he should get out of his white car and go down on a Tuesday night to the queues of people lined up outside petrol stations trying to maximise the lowest price in the cycle and, firstly, he should ask them whether they think a cut in the excise of 5c a litre would actually help and, secondly, he should explain to them how FuelWatch is actually going to make prices cheaper—because it is not. The one thing that the Prime Minister would not guarantee was that the introduction of FuelWatch would not increase the price of petrol by a single cent.
The RACV, which represents motorists in the state of Victoria, has as its slogan: ‘We are here for you.’ They are there for you, but the Prime Minister of Australia is not. The RACV, in writing to me on 22 May this year, said:
The RACV does not support the FuelWatch system in its current format as we believe Melbourne motorists would be denied access to weekly discounted fuel.
It further said:
The most recent report by the ACCC into petrol prices states that in Melbourne 65 per cent of petrol was sold on the four days when prices were at their lowest, whereas in Perth, where FuelWatch operates, 60 per cent of petrol was sold on the four days where prices were above the average weekly price cycle.
The RACV, in quoting the ACCC report, further said that there is increased potential for anticompetitive effects in rural and regional areas due to the more concentrated nature of the market in these areas, the potential for reduction in the predictability of price cycles for consumers who have adapted to them, a significant dependence on the media if any of the proposed benefits are to be realised and the administration costs of such a scheme are likely to be large—all of which has now been confirmed by the four major economic departments that advise the government. It also said in conclusion that the RACV will continue to oppose the introduction of FuelWatch:
... as we consider Melbourne motorists will on average pay more for their fuel under this scheme.
Similarly, the RAA, which represents motorists in South Australia, wrote to me several days ago. The letter states, in part:
The RAA has long opposed the introduction of FuelWatch and continues to remain opposed, because we consider South Australian motorists will be no better off under the scheme and indeed may be distinctly disadvantaged.
The letter then states:
Please note the RAA has indicated that it is willing to change its position if the federal government or the ACCC can furnish the data that is said to demonstrate that their concerns are unfounded.
Pointedly, it concludes:
However, no data has been provided.
I suspect the data provided by the four key economic departments advising the government is quite to the contrary. But as to the bigger issue, even though the government describes $1.64 a litre for petrol as ‘a little problem’, there is an even bigger problem now for Australians.
This country deserves better than it is getting from this government. Australians have been let down. Australians have been deceived by the man who is now the Prime Minister of this country and the government that he leads. Every Australian should see the front page of today’s Melbourne Age, which has the headline ‘Cabinet leak leaves Rudd petrol strategy in tatters’. It is not only the Rudd government’s petrol strategy that is in tatters; it is the government itself. There are millions of Australians for whom this is not a game, for whom the government of this country is not about factional people fighting one another, for whom it is not about people getting into positions by virtue of fraudulent, misleading hopes held out to Australians. For millions of people in this country, it is about survival. It is about paying your mortgage. It is about trying to find the money for your rent. It is about deciding what food you can afford to buy this week. It is about meeting your credit card payments. It is about clothing your children. It is about being able to go about your business—to run a small family business, to survive on a farm. That is what it is about.
I ask the Prime Minister: Prime Minister, how can Australians have trust in your government if your key ministers cannot trust one another, let alone their own departments? How can they further trust a government in which now the Prime Minister of that government himself cannot trust his own ministers and wilfully ignores the considered advice of his four key economic departments? These four departments—the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—all had the opportunity to read the ACCC report. These are departments headed and populated not by fools. These are departments which are headed and populated by people who really understand economic argument.
I say to the Prime Minister that there may not be a silver bullet in relation to petrol, but Australians deserve much better than a government that is firing blanks. We need a government in this country that is orderly, where ministers have confidence in one another, where they can have confidence in their Prime Minister and where they can have confidence in the advice that is given to them by their key government departments. We are now in a situation in Australia where the Prime Minister of the country—who is more concerned for his own image, his own popularity and currying favour with cheap headlines than actually making decisive decisions to deliver cheaper petrol—has chosen a stunt and then desperately distorted the advice from the ACCC to find the advice which actually suits the stunt of the day, as evidenced by the Australian newspaper, and ignored the advice of the four key economic departments.
This is the Prime Minister who goes to one audience and says one thing and then goes to another and says something else. This is the same Prime Minister who said he would be evidence based. This is the same Prime Minister who said that he would bring the government departments to the centre of the policy-setting agenda. On 29 November last year he said:
The driving agenda for Commonwealth-State relations is located within both the Prime Minister’s portfolio and the Treasury portfolio—
and that government departments would be brought to the centre of government decision making.
Opposition members interjecting—
In one sense, it is a joke, but I say to Australians—to those of us who have mortgages, who have car loans, who have petrol that we have to buy to put in them, who have groceries that have to be bought, who have kids that need clothes, who are trying to put a roof over their heads—as busy as they are: have a look at the pathetic nine-minute press conference from the Treasurer last night. Australians have to trust and have faith in their government and their ministers. We are in a situation where we have a stunt driven Prime Minister who ignores the advice of the key government departments, a nervous Treasurer who is simply not across his brief, and ministers who will not trust one another—let alone their own departments. We are in a situation where this country deserves better. With petrol at $1.60 a litre and rising, Prime Minister: cut the excise; pull no more stunts—we need real leadership, we need decisive action. We will not allow everyday Australians in particular to be punished by this stunt driven government, and we will oppose FuelWatch.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House censures the Leader of the Opposition for:
Mr Robert interjecting
Order! The member for Fadden is warned.
What we have today on the part of the Liberal Party is something very straightforward and very simple—two propositions: the absolute failure to stand up for the interests of Australian motorists and, secondly, the absolute capitulation of the Liberal Party to the interests of big oil. This is what it is all about. For 12 years in office, those opposite had an opportunity to stand up for the interests of Australian motorists. They had an opportunity to stand up against the interests of big oil. They had an opportunity to do something about the structure of the Australian petroleum industry. They had an opportunity to deliver a decent outcome for Australian motorists, and they have failed to do so—after 12 years. Secondly, in the course of the last six months what they have concluded is that all problems associated with oil and petrol prices in this country have uniquely arisen as a result of the last six months that we have been in office, as opposed to the 12 years they were in office.
The reality is that we are dealing, right across the world, with governments which are challenged with the problem of global oil prices. Global oil prices have risen, and risen extensively. Every government in the world is trying to deal right now with the flow-through consequences to their consumers. This is a massive challenge. We have had oil price riots in Indonesia. We have also had protests throughout the United Kingdom. We have had statements in Canada about the impact it has had on Canadian motorists. This is a factor which is occurring right across the world and, therefore, we are faced with very simple alternatives: do you deal with this responsibly and intelligently in a long-term fashion, or do you simply, in your first budget reply, reach up to the old cookie jar and say, ‘Here is a bucket of money we can pull down to buy a few cheap votes’? That is exactly what those opposite have sought to do. When you look across the country and try to find any substantive support for those opposite in their proposal through the budget reply, it is very difficult to find.
The core challenge that we have in this debate is whether you are going to take a decision on behalf of the interests of motorists or whether you are going to tap the mat and simply concede the ground to the interests of big oil. What we have had on the part of those opposite is something pretty clear. Their argument, prima facie, in this censure motion is this: every minister in the government should simply blindly follow every piece of departmental advice that they get. That is the proposition. That is the core proposition being advanced. The model of Westminster which those opposite are advancing is this: whenever a public servant comes up to you with a piece of advice, you are duty bound to implement that—lock, stock and barrel. That is the view which those opposite have. In other words, as members of the executive, as ministers of the cabinet and as members of the government, your job is simply to be here as puppets on a string—with a public servant here and, in the case of their most recent response to our policy, the big oil companies over there, pulling the other strings. In other words, there is no independent capacity for making a decision. We actually take a different view. In the Westminster model, when departments put forward, as they should, their own comments and views in terms of coordination comments, that is helpful to inform the overall public policy debate. But are those opposite who have previously been ministers or cabinet ministers saying to me that they have always responded, to the letter, to every piece of advice in the coordination comments and every piece of advice that they have received from their department?
Mr Morrison interjecting
The member for Cook is warned!
My point is: are those who have been ministers—including the minister who was formerly responsible for Work Choices, ministers responsible for education, ministers responsible for defence, ministers responsible for every portfolio in the government—seriously saying to us that every time the department provided a piece of advice this was therefore their bounden duty, and it would lead to a collapse of the Westminster system if the minister said, ‘Actually, I have a different point of view’?
In fact, the reverse model of government, which those opposite are advancing, is this: the responsibility of ministers is to stand up here simply as the mouthpiece for government departments, simply as the mouthpiece for public servants. This government has a different view: not only do we welcome advice from public servants but we will engage in debate with the Public Service. We will not always agree with the Public Service and, as I have said repeatedly, we will take advice from beyond the Public Service. In terms of the advice that is available to government on this matter, we go back to this weighty tome delivered by the ACCC. The ACCC says, on page 247 of the document:
The main finding from this econometric analysis is that the average of the price margin reduced by a statistically significant amount for Perth relative to the eastern capitals in the time since the introduction of FuelWatch. The relevant weekly average price margin was around 1.9 cpl less on average for the period from January 2001 to June 2007 than for the period from August 1998 to December 2000.
This is econometric analysis provided by the ACCC. The member for Higgins, the former Treasurer, who has not graced the chamber yet, said that this outfit—the ACCC, headed by Graeme Samuel, appointed by the previous government—was in fact the most competent to make analysis on these matters. The former Treasurer, who was adulated yesterday by the current Leader of the Opposition as the bee’s knees of economic policy, stated publicly at the time this report was commissioned that his view was that the ACCC was the most competent body to examine these matters. That is the first proposition. The second proposition is this: this ‘competent body’, so named by the former Treasurer, Mr Costello, produces its report, which contains this econometric analysis and contains that information in the conclusion. Then those opposite are saying: ‘This is the authoritative body. This is the responsible report. Here is the evidence it contains. And you, the government, should ignore it.’
That is essentially the proposition of those opposite. Therefore, the argument in public policy development is: as ministers of the government you are therefore bound and obligated to ensure that you take every single piece of Public Service advice and ignore every other piece of advice which exists and when there is a conflict of advice, say, ‘I have got to stick to what one particular department may say.’
We have a distinctly different view. We welcome the contribution of the Public Service to the debate. The contribution of the Public Service is absolutely critical. What we have said to public servants since forming a government—and we have not changed any departmental heads—is that we do not mind if you contest our views. We welcome a debate; we welcome an argument; we welcome a discussion, in contrast to those opposite who, when they went in, had a quite different view. Remember the debate with Mick Keelty over the question of al-Qaeda and the question about what happened at the train station in Madrid? What did Mr Downer say in response to Mick Keelty when he offered a contrary view to the government? What did he say to him? Downer said, ‘I think that he is just expressing a view that reflects a lot of the propaganda we are getting from al-Qaeda.’ That is the view which you took to your public officials when it came to any public servant who had a contrary view to the policy decisions of the government—in other words, to attack them, to ridicule them and, even worse in this particular statement by the former foreign minister, say that they were acting in cahoots with terrorist organisations.
We have a different view of public policy. We take our advice from the Public Service and from agencies such as the ACCC, which exists within the Treasurer’s portfolio. We take advice from a range of sources and we make a decision. The core argument which has been put forward here is that, because individual government departments had a different view from the decision that was taken by the government, there is something inherently wrong in that as a model for public policy decision making. That of itself is a fraudulent proposition.
That deals with the process matters. If you go to the substance of the matters which are being advanced by those opposite in this debate, it goes down to the question of whether in fact the FuelWatch scheme is capable of providing a useful guide to prices in the future. Again I go back to the substance of the econometric analysis and its conclusion about 1.9c a litre—and that is contained on page 247. Therefore, based on that, we have also had subsequent statements by the chairman of the ACCC who, I am advised, again today on national radio has confirmed that the advice is robust and that it is the econometric analysis which is available, and he is prepared to state his support for FuelWatch on that basis. So you have the competition watchdog up there saying that this is the best thing for motorists. You have the substance of the econometric analysis saying the same thing. On top of that you have a number of motoring organisations across the country saying the same thing. But those opposite are saying that their responsibility is to simply be there at the beck and call of the large oil companies.
Let us go to the second proposition which is contained in the substance of this debate: the impost on business. On the question of the impost on business, which is referred to in one of the other sets of coordination comments referred to in the media today, there is reference to that possible impost on business. There are two points to make about this. Currently, petrol station owners across the country, by virtue of the arrangements which many of them have with the price collection data systems which exist often in conjunction with the larger petrol companies, are themselves often paying fees to that data collection company. That is the first point. There is already, if you like, a compliance cost to those individual service stations operators in terms of their current arrangements.
The second point is this: when the cabinet considered this matter its decision was that businesses would not have a net cost disadvantage to themselves in the implementation of this regime. This is a core element of cabinet’s decision on the day, entirely mindful of the advice which was coming forward about the possible impact on small businesses, entirely mindful of the costs currently being borne by small businesses in the implementation of current arrangements and entirely mindful that government would not allow any of those small businesses and service station operators in any way to be financially penalised by the arrangements which were going to be introduced by the government. That goes to the two core propositions which are being advanced.
Then we come to the other one which is advanced by the opposition, I presume, as its most recent element of policy on this, which is that you can have a notification system but there is no requirement for the price to be held the following day. Has the Leader of the Opposition thought this through? Have you thought through how this would work in practice? You would have a system whereby mum and dad sitting in their house, say, in a suburb in Melbourne, would go onto FuelWatch and see at 8 am on a given morning, when they were about to take off and take the kids to school, that service stations had notified at that particular time of day that their price was X. They jump in the car, drive to the service station and find the price has changed. They have spent 20 minutes driving to the service station thinking that it is a place where they were going to get a cheaper price, and in fact it has changed. That is the model which you have advanced. Have you thought it through in terms of what happens to consumers on the ground? I do not think that the opposition has thought this through at all.
Then you go to the absolute absence of any policy on the part of those opposite. As of yesterday, let us go to the core elements of their position on FuelWatch. You had a WA Liberal senator out there yesterday saying that she thought it was a fantastic thing—and I do not know what you have done with her overnight but I presume that she has been put in the can. Then on top of that you have the position on the part of the member for Wentworth saying that he supports part of our proposition, not all of it. He opposes but is not necessarily not supporting the arrangement. That is his position.
The Leader of the Opposition I notice for the first time today actually said that the Liberal Party is voting against this. Here we are with a policy introduced and made public by the Assistant Treasurer on 15 April and here we are at the end of May and finally we discover the resolve to take a position. You have had no position consistently on FuelWatch and no position consistently on excise, where the shadow Treasurer says that he is not going to implement it anyway when he replaces the Leader of the Opposition in that position. And beyond that again there is a model of Public Service management which says that your job as ministers is to blindly take the advice of any public servant who comes up to you with a piece of advice, as opposed to exercising the discretion which you have as ministers. This government intends to govern differently for Australia’s interests and the interests of motorists. We will stand up for the interests of Australian motorists. We will not stand idly by while those opposite are happy to simply act in the interests of big oil companies. We stand up for the consumer. We stand up for the motorist and we will resolutely maintain our position in support of their interests. (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery the Secretary of State for Defence from the United Kingdom, the Right Hon. Des Browne. On behalf of the House I wish him a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
Debate resumed.
Nothing better illustrates the shamelessness of this Prime Minister than the remarks we have just endured. Here is a man who says, ‘FuelWatch is designed to take on big oil.’ Of course, while the Leader of the Opposition was focusing on what matters most, the price of petrol paid for by motorists at the bowser, what did we hear from Lord Albanese opposite? ‘Populist nonsense,’ he said. Really! He should be with the visiting Secretary of State in the UK in the House of Lords. He is wasted here in the House of Representatives. ‘Populist nonsense,’ says his lordship. Let me tell his lordship, it is not populist nonsense to talk about the price of petrol that people are paying.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing orders people must be referred to by their correct name. I will not cop being called an elitist by Malcolm Turnbull!
The member for Wentworth will refer to members by their titles in this place.
That is right; absolutely! Any peer in this House has to be referred to by his ministry or his constituency and not his noble title, however recently acquired. What we have is a plan that has been opposed by every single expert department in this government. Each and every one of them giving fearless, independent advice to the government has said that FuelWatch will reduce competition and it will put prices up. In other words, the entire expertise of the Commonwealth Public Service—independent, expert and informed—supported the criticism of the member for Batman, the Minister for Resources and Energy, when he condemned this plan. So why is it being proceeded with? What is the argument?
The only case—the only justification—for FuelWatch that the government could make, the only argument for this extraordinary exercise in price fixing, this extraordinary exercise in market manipulation, could be that it will reduce petrol prices. But will it reduce petrol prices? We know what the departments say; they say that it will put them up. We know what the member for Batman said; he said that it will put them up. What did the Treasurer say? Karl Stefanovic asked:
A guarantee from you, if you don’t mind this morning, FuelWatch will categorically lead to lower fuel prices?
The Treasurer: I can’t give that guarantee. That’s a silly guarantee.
I am amazed that he did not throw in ‘populist nonsense’ but then he is probably only a baronet; he has not got into the peerage yet. And then, look at the shamelessness that goes right through this government—their preparedness to look the people of Australia in the eye and say that black is white—to say the exact reverse of the truth. On 16 April the Assistant Treasurer wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, and he said:
There is simply no independent analysis that has reached the conclusion that there is any upward pressure on petrol prices through FuelWatch.
No independent analysis other than the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. Weren’t they independent? Was the Assistant Treasurer telling the truth when he wrote to the Leader of the Opposition? Clearly not. The Assistant Treasurer has written to the Leader of the Opposition and told a clear falsehood that has now been found out. He said that there is ‘no independent analysis’ and in fact there was a truckload of it and the Leader of the Opposition has been misled.
One of the most remarkable efforts in spin and shamelessness that we have seen here was the claim from the Prime Minister that this measure was designed to take on big oil. Oh, yeah! He is a real champion for the battler is the Prime Minister.
An opposition member—He’s more a champion for the butler!
That’s right. He’s a champion for the butler! Let us have a look at what big oil says. Michael Luscombe is the CEO of Woolworths. That is a big oil retailer. Remember, chief executives of public listed companies are under enormous legal regulation about what they say about the affairs of their companies. If they say things that are wrong the consequences are huge—penal, incredibly damaging to them, their companies and their reputations. So they choose their words very carefully, much more carefully than the Prime Minister chooses his. This is what Mr Luscombe said:
Look, we provided the government with some information that showed quite frankly the inability to actually match the lowest price in the market place in Western Australia during the day has meant that our margins in Western Australia are stronger than most, if not all, other states.
So, thanks to FuelWatch, Woolworths make more money in Western Australia than in any other state.
Mr Bowen interjecting
Chris Bowen says that if you believe that you will believe anything. That is charming! The member for Prospect is accusing the chief executive of Woolworths of lying. That is the level of desperation; he will say anything. I have quoted what he said. The government will say anything. Day after day we have had this report from the ACCC misrepresented by this government. Yesterday I gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to highlight the passages that recommended the introduction of FuelWatch. There are none. He froze. He was not able to do anything because he knew that on pages 17 and 18, right at the beginning—he did not have to get into the depth; he could just read the executive summary—all that the ACCC said was that there are big issues surrounding FuelWatch, big issues about prices and about competition and that a great deal more detailed assessment has to be done before a government could confidently embark upon it. That assessment has not been done. The only assessment that has been done by the government, by its own departments—the departments which the Prime Minister said he would put front and centre in his new style government; he said he would take notice of public servants, give them credibility and listen to their views—was to conclude that FuelWatch was a dud. As the member for Batman said, in words that were so heartfelt, this will punish people on lower incomes, people who need to buy petrol at the lowest price.
Remember that the member for Batman comes from an old Labor family. I remember his father, Jack Ferguson. He was a good, old trade unionist, Labor politician and Deputy Premier of New South Wales, and he was full of very commonsense wisdom. Some of that wisdom is in his son Martin. He knew that this ambitious, arrogant Assistant Treasurer, so keen to get into the cabinet, so keen to run over the top of his colleagues, was going to trample not just on the integrity of the Public Service, not just on his colleagues, but on the interests of the people he represents. So when Martin Ferguson, born in the western suburbs of Sydney, representing a Melbourne seat, writes to the member for Prospect and says, ‘This will hurt the people of Western Sydney the most,’ he is saying—and he did not need put that in the letter because it is implicit—‘Western Sydney are the people you represent, you dope.’ That is what he is saying, and that is what the member for Prospect has forgotten.
The ACCC has done a so-called econometric analysis. It has been done by an economist called Stephen King. We met with him last night, as we did with Mr Samuel and Mr Cassidy, the chief executive. The ACCC does not argue for the adoption of FuelWatch in this report. That much is plain. Subsequently, it is true that Mr Samuel has been rather more supportive since December, and Mr Ferguson was very critical about that in his letter. But the fact is that not even Mr Samuel is prepared to say that Fuel Watch will result in lower prices. The most that Mr King, the economist, could say was that, on their analysis, they felt that prices in Perth would have been 0.7 of a cent lower were it not for FuelWatch. That is on their analysis. Their analysis has not been published, not been analysed by others and not been peer reviewed, and nobody has been able to assess it. It has not been published in the report—and we all know that different analyses can come up with different results. There are serious flaws in the analysis which the ACCC acknowledges. For example, it compares prices and calculates the average price by looking at the prices charged by every petrol station and then averaging that over the number of petrol stations. Of course, nobody pays the average petrol price, as my colleague the member for Cowper very wisely observed—nobody gets the average rainfall either. The real issue with averages is: what is the distribution? What is the spread between the lowest and the highest price?
The member for Batman was smart enough to work this out. Even if the average is the same between one market and another, if the distribution around that average—the range from the lowest to the highest—is greater, it means that, for those people who are really focused on saving a few cents a litre, there is more opportunity for them to get that lowest price. And, inevitably, a price-fixing mechanism like this will compress the range of prices. That is completely overlooked in the analysis.
The other factor is that a price that is averaged over the number of petrol stations is meaningless because petrol stations do not all sell the same amount of petrol. The only average that matters is volumetric, and the ACCC say, ‘We don’t know that data; we can only work with what we’ve got.’ Just because their data is the best they have got does not mean it is any good. This is a government of shameless spin. I have often wondered about the difference between the Prime Minister and his predecessor but one, Mr Latham. I have realised today what it is: the only difference is that this leader of the Labor Party got found out after the election.
On 24 November, we were elected to make a difference. On 24 November, we were elected to take charge. On 24 November, we were elected because we listened to Australians on cost-of-living pressures.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Assistant Treasurer has the call. It is not an invitation for those on my left to make comments.
Dr Southcott interjecting
Mr Keenan interjecting
The member for Boothby and the member for Stirling!
On 24 November, the Australian people elected a government which did not believe that they had never been better off and which asked them to do something about cost-of-living pressures. The Australian people elected a government to take action on fuel prices. They did not elect a government to sit in Canberra and be cloistered from the real world like you had become after 11 years. They elected a government to hold retailers to account and to give motorists a fair go. That is what happened on 24 November, and we know you are having trouble coming to terms with it—but that is the reality, and it will continue to be so.
The opposition is talking about process. Let us have a little talk about process. Let us have a talk about the cabinet process. Let us have a talk about a robust cabinet debate where views get tested. Let us talk about a robust cabinet debate where people’s analysis is put to a rigorous test. And let us talk about when that does not happen. Let us talk about when you take a $10 billion water plan and do not put it to cabinet. You will not find any coordination comments on a $10 billion water plan, because it did not even go to cabinet. Let us talk about what the coordination comments from cabinet would look like on a little policy to spend $2 billion a year cutting petrol tax with no offsetting savings. Let us have a talk about what the Treasury, what the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and what the Department of Finance and Deregulation would think about that. Let us have a talk about real rigour and real process. We will not go around the cabinet process—we have a debate in cabinet and views are tested. What happened in this process? I brought forward a policy proposal—
Mr Keenan interjecting
The member for Stirling!
on the advice of the ACCC. The ACCC’s views were tested. The Chairman of the ACCC came to the Expenditure Review Committee of the cabinet. The petrol commissioner came to the Expenditure Review Committee of the cabinet.
Mr Keenan interjecting
The member for Stirling is warned.
One of the most respected competition economists in the country, Professor Stephen King, came to the Expenditure Review Committee of the cabinet, and the views of departments were put to them—and they satisfied those concerns. When you look at the concerns of some of the departments, you will see they said, ‘We think that more work needs to be done on and more rigour needs to be put into the initial ACCC report,’ and the ACCC agreed and did that further work, and it came up as being robust.
We were elected to make a difference. We were elected to make the tough decisions. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet did not appear on a ballot paper on 24 November. The department of finance did not appear on a ballot paper on 24 November. An Australian Labor Party which believed in making a difference for the Australian people appeared on a ballot paper on 24 November. We said when we announced FuelWatch that this would be controversial. We said when we announced FuelWatch that this would draw criticism. But we said, ‘This is a bold step, and we do not walk away from tough decisions; we do not walk away from bold decisions.’ We knew that vested interests would rail against FuelWatch. We knew that people whose business was to share information on a secretive website would rail against FuelWatch. What we did not expect was that the opposition would be brought into their arguments hook, line and sinker. We do not outsource our policy development to people with a vested interest. If you choose to, that is your interest. If you choose to, that is your right. We will never outsource our policy development to people with vested interests.
We, on the other hand, give the ACCC some teeth. We, on the other hand, went to the election with a policy of saying that the ACCC is the people’s watchdog. The ACCC was neutered by the Howard government. The ACCC has asked for increased powers, and those were denied to them by the honourable members who sat opposite. The ACCC begged for increased powers and begged for the law to be improved. The opposition when in government would not do it, and we are doing it. We appointed a petrol commissioner to hold oil companies to account and to ensure transparency in the marketplace. We then said to the ACCC and to the petrol commissioner, ‘What more powers do you need?’ The ACCC said, ‘We are very concerned about the way the fuel market operates. We are very concerned that there is a situation in place which is conducive to anticompetitive coordination. We are very concerned that there is a website on which retailers are sharing information and the motorist is locked out.’ The ACCC said, We want to do something about that, and we think FuelWatch is the right answer.’ And what is the opposition’s response? To say no to the regulator, to say no to the petrol commissioner—to neuter the people’s watchdog. That is what they do and, and I suspect that is why they are sitting over there. They are sitting over there because they sat in Canberra and they lost touch with the Australian people—something we will not do.
They did not go around and hold cabinet meetings in Penrith to hear about the cost-of-living pressures. They did not go around and hold cabinet meetings in Mackay to hear about the cost-of-living pressures, because they were out of touch. Well we are not and we never will be! We know what concerns the Australian people and we will always consider any policy proposal which helps them. We will put it through a rigorous analysis and we will not skirt around the cabinet process. We will not say, ‘This is a $10 billion plan, but you can’t tell Treasury and we won’t take it to cabinet.’ We will not say, ‘We’ll just secretly work this up in the Prime Minister’s office.’ We will go through the process, but at the end of the day we will make the decisions. We will decide, based on the evidence and based on what the Australian people tell us is concerning them, what the appropriate policy response is. They say, ‘Ignore the ACCC, ignore the Australian people.’ But we say, ‘No, we have a different approach.’
We hear a lot from the Leader of the Opposition, a lot of crocodile tears about real people. We heard it the other day. The Leader of the Opposition loves the fuel price cycle. Based on his comments, he loves the fact that fuel prices can spike on a Thursday or a Friday before a long weekend or a normal weekend and the Australian people have no notice. I am the member of the government who, on behalf of the government, gets the emails on petrol prices. I am the member of the government who responds to the concerns of the Australian people, and I can tell you what the real people think about your plans. Let me share a few with the House. Listen to this, from a real person from the electorate of Cunningham:
I’m really angry that profiteering isn’t being stamped out. To change the cost of petrol from $1.35 a litre to $1.47 a litre, a jump of 12c between 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock, just after children are getting out of school and just before the workers from BlueScope Steel change shift at 4pm, is indeed profiteering, and anybody who says it isn’t is obviously getting a bonus from such practices. Prices should not be allowed to change during the day.
That is from a real person, saying to us, ‘Please do something.’ There has been a very interesting debate on news.com over the last couple of days about this—real people telling their views. Well the House should hear from some real people. Brad from Perth says:
Wake up Dr Nelson! FuelWatch works extremely well in Western Australia. Also, think outside the square too. If it even breaks the discount cycle, people can fill up any time they want. It’s good for the environment!
Todd from the Sydney says:
A 24-hour notice for fuel prices is a good step. It will further assist us to manage our already stretched budgets.
Jules from WA says:
It works fine here in Perth. You know the day before when prices are going up so you can go and fill up with the cheapest petrol. Stop complaining about nothing.
What about Kev from Treasury!
Peter says:
Well the only people complaining about the idea are service stations who claim it will close them down.
What about Martin from Batman!
Sparky from Melbourne says:
One of the biggest issues for petrol prices is the lack of information for consumers. Give a little power to the people.
Mr Anthony Smith interjecting
They do not like hearing from real people, do they? Mick from Sutherland says:
One of the big benefits of FuelWatch here in Western Australia is that we no longer have the situation of you being in a queue to fill up because it is discounted and then the price suddenly goes back up before you turn up at the browser.
JoJo of Perth says:
Living in Western Australia, I often use FuelWatch. Prices are still lower in the middle of the week here, but by using FuelWatch, I can often find prices later in the week and on weekends at the same low rates as Tuesday.
And they go on. This is from a woman who emailed me at Easter:
Dear Minister,
I am concerned about the price rises in petrol. Just before Easter, when I was taking my family away on holidays, I lined up at the service station and as I was lining up the price went up 15c a litre while I was in the queue.
Mr Speaker, I have to confess my life is a lot easier now. Now, whenever I get an email, I am going to press the forward button and I am going to type in Brendan.Nelson.MP@aph.gov.au and say Mr Nelson is stopping FuelWatch, and I am sure he would be happy to explain himself to you. I am sure he would be happy to explain why you should not have information about the cheapest place to buy petrol. I am sure he would be able to explain to you why, when petrol prices are about to go up 10c or 15c a litre before a weekend, you get no notice. I am sure he would be able to explain to you that the difference between the cheapest and the most expensive petrol in any city could range from 15c to 30c a litre but he does not want you to know. He would be happy to explain it, and so now the forward button on my keyboard is going to get a real workout as I forward it to Brendan.Nelson.MP@aph.gov.au, because they are the ones standing in the way of more information for Australian motorists. They are the ones saying, ‘We can shrug our shoulders and do nothing to help you.’ They are the ones saying, ‘We don’t care about volatility in fuel prices and we don’t care about giving you more information to manage it.’ They are the ones saying, ‘We don’t care what the consumer watchdog thinks. We don’t care what Graeme Samuel thinks. We will ignore him, like we did in government, because we don’t care about consumers.’ That is the message from the opposition today. That is what they say. They say, ‘We’re going to sit in Canberra and we’re not going to listen to the people who stand up for Australian consumers and we’re not going to listen to the Australian consumers themselves!’
There is a reason why they are sitting where they are, and that is because, after 11 years in office, they lost touch. They did not listen to the Australian people about cost-of-living pressures. They have a shadow Treasurer who waltzed into this building and said: ‘Interest rate increases are overdramatised. It’s not such a problem.’ He probably thinks fuel prices were overdramatised as well when he was in office. He probably thought grocery prices were overdramatised when he was in office. And I can understand why he would think that, but the Australian people do not think that.
The Australian people are looking to a government to say: ‘There are cost-of-living pressures and they are not easy to fix. There are worldwide trends, which are not easy to fix. But we can make a difference, we can give you more information, we can put you back in charge, we can give you an even break and we can give you a chance to drive your dollar further.’ This government believes it. We will continue stand by it, we will continue to pursue it and we will continue to pursue you for your policy bankruptcy.
I rise to speak in this debate. It is a very important debate, a very substantial debate, a debate that demonstrates the complete difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. The difference between us and them is very simple. We sit around the cabinet table working out how we look after working families. That is what this side of the House does. We sit around the cabinet table having a debate about how we can help working families with cost-of-living pressures. What did they do through their period in government, around the cabinet table? They sat around working out how they could rip away their wages and working conditions. That is the difference.
The difference is that we, on this side of the House, understand what life is like around the kitchen table and those on that side do not. Most particularly, the shadow Treasurer does not have a clue what life is like around the kitchen table in this country. He is so out of touch he is in outer space. This man said that inflation was a fairy story. When inflation is at a 16-year high, anybody who could say that it is a fairy story is just completely out of touch. He has lost contact with planet Earth. Is it any wonder, when people look at the way he is stalking the Leader of the Opposition, they think back to the 1980s? And what picture do they get in their mind? They see it very clearly. It was on display at the Press Club the other week. They thought: Andrew Peacock; Andrew Peacock without the suntan—absolutely no substance, all front. For him to get up in this debate and accuse members of the government of being shameless is just extraordinary. He knows no shame. Only a few years ago he was trying to join the Labor Party. He does not have any conviction. He has no conviction or any values that go to the core of this debate—none whatsoever. For him it is all about his slick debating tactics. That is it. It is not about cost-of-living pressures for Australian families.
The proposition being put here today by the opposition is a simple one, and everybody is expected to believe it because he thinks he is so brilliant. What he wants people to believe is that suddenly at 9am on Monday morning, 26 November last year, everything in the economy went bad. What he wants people to believe is that suddenly the cost of living went up. Suddenly, on the very first day that the change of government took place, the cost of living went up. That is what it wants everybody to believe—it did not happen under their 12 years. Working Australians had never had it so good, according to everyone over there. He sat in the cabinet, along with the Leader of the Opposition, and said working Australians had never been better off. The hide of them to have done that, at a time when inflation, as we now know in retrospect, hit a 16-year high! They sat across there when inflation was at a 16-year high and told working Australians they had never been better off. What gall! The pretender from Point Piper is out there pretending he understands cost-of-living pressures.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am really concerned about the Treasurer’s unhealthy obsession with the member for Wentworth. I would ask that he come back to petrol and not the member of the Wentworth.
There is no point of order.
I certainly am speaking to the motion and most particularly to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister because of the failure of the opposition to put forward costed budget proposals. This is where it all leads to. They now want the Australian people to believe that somehow they have got some solution to petrol prices—but we know that the member for Wentworth does not support the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. And we know that because emails can be powerful, can’t they? We know what he said in his email to the Leader of the Opposition. Yes, we do! We certainly do. We know he does not support it: it is unfunded, uncosted and undeliverable. And they know it. Every one of them knows it. It is absolutely undeliverable, because it is uncosted. They are happy to sit back and blow a $22 billion hole in the surplus, which is essentially the surplus this country needs to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates.
It was their neglect, their reckless spending, that gave Australians eight interest rate rises in three years on the back of rising inflation. Shame on you! How could you have the gall to come into this House and talk about cost-of-living pressures, when that is your record? How could you have the gall to do it? But how could you have the gall to say this, at the Press Club, about the Leader of the Opposition’s policy on excise? This is what the shadow Treasurer said when he was asked what would be the Liberal Party policy at the next election. He said, ‘If I am, er—if Brendan, er—if that is our policy, er, then I will argue for it as eloquently, or not, as I can.’ End of story. How do they expect people to take them seriously? This is what the shadow Treasurer said at the Press Club. There was not one line in that speech—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a really unhealthy obsession that the Treasurer—
Order! There is no point of order. The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
Mr Speaker, that is the second time that the member for North Sydney has done that during the Treasurer’s speech.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney should be very careful about the way he approaches the chair seeking the chair’s indulgence about spurious points of order. I think enough is enough. The Treasurer has the call.
For 12 long years they did sit around the cabinet table, but did they talk about cost of living pressures?
No!
Did they talk about doing anything about what is going on in petrol retailing? No. What did they talk about?
Themselves.
Themselves, that’s right. There was a lot of talk about themselves, because they had their eye on each other. They did not have their eye on the Australian people. Otherwise they would have known and they would have acted, and they did not choose to act at any stage in those 12 long years. In contrast, what have we done in just six months? Let us just run through it—it is quite worth while. We have agreed to a $4.4 billion education tax refund—they never did. We have agreed to a $1.3 billion childcare tax rebate—they never did. We have agreed to a $1.2 billion first home saver account—they never did. We have got the runs on the board when it comes to delivering for working families under financial pressure and for seniors. For 12 years they neglected them.
We understand that when it comes to the price of petrol, when it comes petrol retailing, we do need a new approach—an approach that you could not manage to come to in 12 long years. The Manager of Opposition Business over there spent his last 12 months in government ripping away at the wages and working conditions of average Australians. Shame on him! We make no apology for supporting FuelWatch. This is an important initiative. It just shows how much contempt those opposite have for the Australian consumer, because this proposal at its very core gives knowledge to all consumers in a way in which nothing has been put in place in this vein before. What it does is give every motorist who wants to look for the best price on any given day the potential to get there and achieve it—that is what it does. What it does is to take the sale of petrol and democratises it so that consumers can find the cheapest price. At the moment it is a racket. The way in which the fuel price cycle works works to the disadvantage of most consumers. Some are lucky to take advantage of it. Some may get it on Tuesday. Our proposal gives consumers the capacity to get the benefit every single day. We are up against powerful vested interests who do not like this proposal, because this proposal does empower consumers. Knowledge is power. FuelWatch will put before motorists the essential pricing information they require to get the best price on any given day. You treat Australian consumers with such contempt that you do not even understand the very basis of this proposal.
There has been some comment about how there is differing bureaucratic advice coming forward to the government. We welcome differing advice as part of a very healthy policy debate that this government is having, because we have set a new direction in this country. It is a direction which will deliver benefits to working families in a way in which you never, ever contemplated. That is why FuelWatch is so important. And we did follow the evidence. We followed the evidence from the ACCC, and this is very important, because the ACCC is the body with the expertise to do the necessary evaluation of what is required. It has done that. The chairman, Mr Samuel, will be placing that before all of you to see. You will not have a leg to stand on, because the work is in. The consumers in Western Australia know it, the ACCC knows it. The only people who do not understand these issues are those opposite, who are so out of touch they are simply incapable of analysing this issue.
Essentially the current arrangement has removed competitive risk from the marketplace. FuelWatch is going to empower consumers to get the best price. Where does this all fit in to the approach of the opposition? Where it all fits in is that this opposition is so bereft of ideas and so out of touch, all we have is short-term political opportunism. What we do not have is a fundamental framework that meets the needs of the economy, that tackles the inflationary challenge, that does something about putting downward pressure on interest rates and that sets this country up for the future.
But what do we get in the face of responsible proposals from this government? We bring down a responsible budget to try and clean up the mess that they left us. Did we accept responsibility for cleaning up their mess? We accepted responsibility for cleaning up their mess on day one. I just wish they would accept some responsibility for creating it—the 16-year high in inflation and zero productivity growth. This is the legacy of those opposite. And they are so embarrassed about it that all we get is a flood of short-term, opportunistic stunts in this parliament. But I tell you what: we have been over there for a while and we understand—they do not work. We have tried a few in our time, and I tell you what, they do not work—and they are not working for you. They are not working for you because what you are doing simply does not add up. You are not credible on economic policy. It does not matter how many speeches you have at the National Press Club, you will not be allowed to get away with the fraud of pretending you had a budget response. There was not one costed alternative proposal in 4,365 words at the Press Club—not one.
I do not think in the last decade or so there has been a shadow Treasurer who has had the gall to go to the Press Club and not present an alternative budget reply. But this guy did. It was not a budget in reply, it was a Brendan in reply. That is what it was—out there stalking his leader because he does not actually have the time or the desire or the understanding to come to grips with the fundamental policy challenges this country has to tackle. What are they? Tackling inflation, lifting productivity, investing in the future—all of those things are at the heart of a credible economic policy. Those opposite have become utterly irresponsible and it has taken this shadow Treasurer just six months to shred their remaining cred when it comes to economic policy, just six months to completely shred their economic credibility. They should be censured.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate because for a whole year we heard the Prime Minister and the Treasurer hold a conversation with the Australian people during the 2007 election campaign. They came into this parliament and they have been trying ever since to match up with the rhetoric that they put in place during the election campaign. During the election campaign they held a conversation with the Australian people. Every night on the TV screens they came into people’s homes and they claimed that they were going to put downward pressure on the cost of living, they claimed that they were going to put downward pressure on petrol prices and they claimed that they were going to put downward pressure on grocery prices. What do they do when they get into government? They give up. They throw up their hands after only six months and admit they do not have a solution to the problems that people face. I think that the people out there are absolutely disappointed.
We heard the shadow Treasurer talk about the issue of the ACCC analysis, which is based on averages, not based on a volumetric average. So averages can create a very curious outcome and sometimes a very inaccurate outcome. The ACCC did not seem to be aware of the relative volume sold across the price cycle in a range of places. But I can help. I can tell this House that in Sydney in a sample month 34.5 per cent of motorists were purchasing fuel in the lowest 10 per cent of the fuel cycle. So 34.5 per cent of motorists were able to take advantage of discounts that were available on the day. In the next 10 per cent percentile band, 14.9 per cent of motorists were able to take account of the next 10 per cent of the percentile band. Then between 20 and 29 per cent, the lowest 30 per cent of the range in the price cycle, some 65.3 per cent of motorists purchased their fuel. No FuelWatch—this is the market at work.
What happened in Perth, where allegedly there is all this extra information that is going to allow motorists to make an informed choice, that is going to put power in the hands of the consumer, that is going to make the world an allegedly better place? What happened? Let us look at the situation over the same time period in Perth. In the lowest 10 percentile band only 18.1 per cent of consumers bought fuel compared to 34.5 per cent in Sydney. What happened to FuelWatch? They should have been all down there queued up ready to take advantage of these allegedly low prices because of all of this extra information. Let us look at the next percentile band. In Sydney it was 14.9 per cent; only an additional 8.5 per cent of motorists purchased in the 10 to 20 per cent percentile band. The third percentile band, which I mentioned, between 20 and 30, in Perth only 9.8 per cent of motorists purchased in that band. So in the rough and tumble of the marketplace in Sydney we have 65 per cent of motorists being able to purchase in the lowest 30 per cent of the fuel cycle; in Perth we have 36.4 per cent. What happened to all this extra information? What is it doing? Is it empowering consumers to get the very best price and buy at the bottom of the cycle? Apparently not.
But let us look at the other end, at the highest end of the cycle. What was happening there? It is an interesting observation. In Perth 11.7 per cent of motorists paid the top price, paid in the top percentage of the percentile band. What was the figure in Sydney? Was it eight per cent? No, it was not. Was it five per cent? No, it was not. It was 3.1 per cent of motorists in Sydney who paid the top price, when 11.7 per cent of motorists in Perth paid the top price. It seems absolutely amazing that members of the government can come into this House and can crow about ignoring the advice of four government departments and about alleging to be working on behalf of the consumer. And the figures are stark, that under a conventional market operating in a conventional way we have more people taking advantage of the low point in the cycle and fewer people paying at the top of the cycle, whereas in Perth it is a completely different result. We have an overwhelming shift up the price cycle in the Perth market. That is allegedly good for motorists, just as it is allegedly good for motorists to fine fuel stations for reducing their price. Will the Prime Minister come into this House and explain as clearly as he can how it is in the best interests of the motorist to fine a fuel station for providing motorists with cheaper petrol? It is clearly absurd.
When we look at the issue of FuelWatch, we see a range of commentators around the country concerned about its implementation. We have heard about the RACV, we have heard about the RAA in South Australian, we have heard of the concerns of the RACQ. These motoring organisations are very concerned about it. They are very concerned about the impact of competition. They are very concerned about the potential to lose independents from the market. We hear a range of commentators and departments commenting on the anticompetitive effect of this measure. Yet this government comes into this House and extols the virtue of a scheme which is nothing more than a fraud. It is nothing more than a cruel hoax on Australian motorists by a government which has given up, which does not have a solution to the problems that people face. It is all about providing a lower level of pressure on the Prime Minister rather than a lower level of pressure on working families. We see a Prime Minister who is more concerned with his own personal situation. We see a Prime Minister who is more concerned about taking the heat off, so much so that he is willing to perpetrate a fraud on the Australian people, a fraud which will push up the price for motorists, a fraud which cannot be justified, a fraud which is not supported by the evidence and a fraud which they are all too keen to come on board with.
I really think that the members of the backbench of this parliament should put some pressure on the Prime Minister to let him know very clearly that people want access to cheap Tuesday. The only reason there are motorists in long queues at service stations is not for some imperial edict from the Prime Minister but that they believe that in the marketplace it is worth their time to actually queue up and get the savings that are available at the particular service station. That is the only reason they queue up. They are not drafted and forced to go down there and take their places in a queue. They queue up because they have made a commercial decision of their own volition that it is worth it for them to queue up and get the benefit of that discount. They do not need to be told that. They actually make their own decision on that basis.
What we have now is Big Brother saying: ‘We are going to take that all away. We are going to take away the opportunity to buy on Tuesday and absorb those savings. We are going to replace it with a flat price structure that is good for you. Believe me, I am from the government, I know what is good for you. I will take away cheap Tuesday. I will get everyone paying up the price cycle because it is in my best interests as Prime Minister of this country to get fuel off the headlines and to get fuel out of the limelight. That is what I need. It is not what you need as motorists. It is what I need because I have come into your lounge room everyday, through an entire election campaign, promising cheap petrol. I am delivering nothing. I am under pressure, so I perpetrate a fraud so that you will all believe that I am actually doing something when in fact I am doing nothing.’ The Prime Minister’s logic is that FuelWatch is a system that you have when you are doing nothing about the price of fuel except pushing it up. FuelWatch is a system that will create a higher cost to the motorists of Australia.
You only have to look at the prices in Perth yesterday. We saw a price in Brisbane of $1.40. We saw an average price in Melbourne of $1.49, in Sydney of $1.50 and in Adelaide of $1.51. It increased in Perth yesterday to $1.55. Perth has not been performing favourably compared to other capitals. The ACCC inquiry did not result in an overwhelming endorsement for FuelWatch—far from it. It did not result in a recommendation for FuelWatch at all, yet this government persists with a misrepresentation and persists with this fraud. The people of Australia will not wear it. The media today is full of stories calling the bluff of this government. They are awake to your fraud. They are awake to your misrepresentation. They are awake to the fact that you have rejected the advice of four government departments. Whatever happened to the use of frank and fearless advice? I am afraid frank and fearless have left the building. What we have is the perpetration of an elaborate hoax—a hoax that is going to result in motorists paying more right around the country. I would like to reflect a moment on the words of Mr Luscombe of Woolworths. He said:
We provided the Government with some info that showed that quite frankly our inability to match the lowest price in the marketplace in WA during the day has meant margins in WA were stronger than most if not all states.
Mr Sullivan interjecting
The member for the Planet of the Apes interjects.
The member for Cowper will refer to the honourable member by his seat.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I take offence to the electorate of Longman being called the Planet of the Apes.
It will assist the House if the member for Cowper withdraws his remark.
I will withdraw that remark. I was not reflecting on the people of Longman. The people of Longman were not interjecting. Mr Luscombe said the margins in Western Australia were higher than in other areas. The interviewer said:
I was interested in the comments on FuelWatch and you said that the analyst’s call that you tend to get a better profit margin in the west than you do elsewhere because you do not have to take prices down.
Mr Luscombe’s comments were:
That is not because we want to. It is illegal to take prices down during the day.
He goes on to say:
If you put in a price but someone is a cent cheaper than you down the road then you do not have the opportunity to match that price.
If someone down the road has put in a cheaper price you do not have the opportunity to match it. I put that to the ACCC in a briefing yesterday. I asked, ‘Can the ACCC advise: is the tender effect of service stations putting their price in the day before greater than the market effect of service stations competing during the day?’ I asked whether they had any information on it. They said no. Part of the basis for FuelWatch is that service stations put in a price the day ahead and are prevented from competing during the day. But the ACCC, who the government are alleging are so strongly in support of FuelWatch despite there not being a recommendation in the report, were unable to comment on whether motorists would be better off having service stations tendering the day before as opposed to having service stations competing in the market, matching the competition down the road and matching the competition in the next suburb. I put another proposition to members that were present at the briefing. Mr King made the comment that information was useless with regard to the pricing of petrol in an information regime if it was not fixed for 24 hours. He made the statement that information was useless to consumers if it was not fixed for 24 hours. I said, ‘Why is that?’ He made the same statement as I think the Prime Minister that the price could change before you get down to the service station. That is an unsubstantiated value judgement.
We have markets right around the country that fluctuate during the day. We have markets where people will become aware of a price and take advantage of that price in a range of ways. They do not have to be fixed for 24 hours. Yet the representative of the ACCC was putting forward an absolutely unsubstantiated value judgement that, by somehow not fixing a particular price for 24 hours—if that was not so fixed—then the information would be absolutely useless.
I sit here in amazement that the only measure that this government has entertained of any note in relation to fuel is the introduction of this fraudulent scheme. The opposition on the other hand put forward a proposal that will reduce the costs to motorists by 5c a litre; it is a proposal that will provide a real reduction in the price of motoring; and it is a proposal that would be welcomed by many consumers around the country. It is a proposal that the other side decries. There is a stark contrast between a 5c reduction in excise, which would provide real reductions for motorists and real savings for families who are struggling to fill their cars, and the scheme the government is perpetrating, which is merely a fraud.
Today we are seeing an opposition in disarray—hysterical and in disarray. Walking into the parliament and moving a censure motion on the Prime Minister is supposed to be an important thing to do. In terms of the weaponry given to an opposition, censure motions, particularly those on the Prime Minister, are the biggest weapon they have. And here we have an opposition that has walked into the parliament using the biggest weapon at their disposal, and they do not have enough speakers ready to talk to it. They missed the jump. We have been treated to a speech by the member for Cowper, who was clearly unprepared, and none of the senior leadership team, with the exception of the shadow Treasurer, is even in the parliament. These people are asking the Australian people to treat them seriously when they cannot even organise themselves to get an opposition tactic ready on a Thursday morning. This is a laughable display from an opposition that is in disarray.
And why are they in disarray? It is because they have not come to terms with the fact that they lost the last election. Even more than that, they are trying to perpetuate a collective fraud and get the Australian people to believe it. The collective fraud that they are trying to get the Australian people to believe is that somehow they fell out of the sky on 25 November and fell into the seats on the opposition front bench. They want the Australian people to believe that none of them ever had a moment in politics before 25 November—that somehow they were all born new on 25 November and turned up on the opposition front bench.
But of course that is not true, and because it is not true the Australian people can judge them by their record. It is a record that they are desperately trying to twist and turn and get away from, but the Australian people can judge them by their record. All of this emotional, hysterical, feigned concern about working families that they have engaged in since they lost the election stands in stark contrast to their complete indifference to the plight of working families before the election. These are not political novices; these are people who sat around a cabinet table and made decisions to the detriment of working families. There was no feigned concern about the plight of working families then. There was no feigned concern when they were sitting around the cabinet table.
Let’s go directly to the performance of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. He has been in here in question time highly emotional about people queued in cars at petrol stations with kids in the back and dogs in the back—highly emotional. And let’s reflect: this is the same man who sat around a cabinet table for six years, and during those six years what did he do on petrol? Absolutely nothing. Six years around a cabinet table—apparently highly emotional about the state of working families and petrol prices—and he did absolutely nothing.
Of course, we are going to see more hysteria and more cover-ups by the opposition of their past. They do not want people remembering their past. All those years around the cabinet table: six years for the Leader of the Opposition, two years for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and around the same time for the shadow Treasurer. They are all interested in petrol prices now, but when they were sitting in the chairs that would have enabled them to do something about it, what did they do? Absolutely nothing.
And at the same time that they were sitting in those chairs with all this feigned concern about working families, what did they do? They brought Work Choices to working Australians. All this feigned concern about working families and what did they do around that cabinet table when the evidence came in that working families were getting ripped off by Work Choices? What did they do—squeal with delight, laugh, backslap each other, do a couple of high fives and say: ‘Exactly what we wanted. We wanted working families to have their penalty rates ripped off. Good on us’? Is that what was happening around the Howard cabinet table? The people who now feign concern for working families delivered that to working people.
So let’s get away from all of this cant, this hypocrisy, this fraud, these feigned emotions and this fake concern. This opposition is so phoney. I have seen knock-off Chinese Rolexes that are more genuine than the members of the opposition. At least you can say that a knock-off Chinese Rolex does the job, which is more than you can say about this lot.
Amongst the things we have seen them emote about and be concerned about was Bonnie Babes. Do we remember that? The Leader of the Opposition was so paralysed with emotion he could hardly move, on Bonnie Babes. He is the same man who sat around a cabinet table for six years and, when it came to deciding what to do with $121 million, did he say, ‘Let’s put that into Bonnie Babes,’ or did he say, ‘Let’s put that into Work Choices propaganda’? We know what he said. He made a choice when sitting around that cabinet table. Fund Bonnie Babes or fund Work Choices propaganda? He chose Work Choices propaganda. That is what these people did when they sat around cabinet tables. That is what they will be judged by.
And of course we have had an insight through this motion into the dying days of the Howard government and how they must have conducted themselves. Gee, it must have been easy to be a Howard government minister in those dying days, because apparently, according to those who sit opposite, the responsibility of a minister is to come in—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This censure motion is about fuel prices and the inability of the government to deliver on the promise it made to the Australian people. The Deputy Prime Minister should return to the subject of the motion.
There is no point of order.
That was another of the opposition’s hysterical tactics. They do not like government speakers, so they seek to interrupt them day after day. It truly is pathetic.
In relation to the Howard government cabinet ministers—and one is sitting at the table now, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—in the government’s dying days there must have been some good times, mustn’t there, just sitting there taking public service advice, driving up in the big white car at 9 o’clock, having a cup of coffee and a little bit of a look at the newspapers, having public servants come in with a brief? Presumably they always accepted public service advice. Presumably the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Oh, I do not even need to read that; I’ll just sign it. It’s public service advice; I’ve got to sign that.’ So you would do that until elevenses, presumably, and then a couple more briefs would come in and it would be: ‘Oh, it’s public service advice. I am absolutely going to sign that; I will not even read it.’ Then at about one o’clock you would be looking to have lunch with Alexander Downer. That would have been a day’s work in the Howard government when they were stale, out of touch with working families and making sure that working families were bearing the burden of Work Choices. That is what they were doing.
This is ridiculous behaviour by the opposition. We were elected to govern. We were elected to make decisions in the interests of working families and we are doing it—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting
I warn the honourable member for Mackellar!
Their hysteria does not worry me, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an example of how irrelevant they are. Their points of order, their interjections, have complete irrelevancy.
Let us come to the question of FuelWatch. What we can say about the Howard government is that there was a period when the Australian public believed that the Howard government was competent to manage the economy; I absolutely concede that. There was a period when the Australian people believed that. What has happened since the last election is that the Liberal Party has destroyed any reputation it ever had for economic responsibility. It has completely destroyed it. It destroyed it on budget reply night with its smash-and-grab raid on the surplus of $22 billion, inevitably putting upward pressure on interest rates and inflation—and high interest rates and high inflation are simply enemies of working families, the people they feign concern about now.
In relation to FuelWatch, the opposition also seem to have forgotten even the most basic principles of economics. Let us have a little recap of those basic principles. What economics tells you is that markets are tremendously efficient mechanisms for delivering supply and low prices if participants in the markets have perfect information. That is why, when you are at the open stalls of a fruit and veg market and you have people competing in front of you for your business and all the prices are known then you will get the best price. What was happening in our petrol market and what is still happening today is that the suppliers of petrol and diesel have great information because of a service called Informed Sources, which they subscribe to and which means that they can track petrol prices in their region and indeed across the nation.
Suppliers of petrol and diesel have all of that information at their disposal. But the other participants in this market, the consumers, do not have access to that information. We want to get this market to work properly by ensuring that consumers also have access to that information. And we want to do that through FuelWatch. It is a very simple concept, even though the opposition seems unable to grapple with it—a very simple concept. What I know from my electorate on Melbourne’s urban fringe is that people need to buy petrol and they are highly price sensitive. They understand that petrol prices and diesel prices in this country relate to world factors. They understand that, but what absolutely drives them to distraction is the sense that they are being treated like muppets by the oil companies through price manipulation. That is what they hate. They hate the Friday spike before the long weekend. They hate it, and they feel misused by it.
We are trying to make sure that those price sensitive consumers who need petrol and who need diesel have good information. What FuelWatch would enable them to do is, in the evening, log on—or even do it through their mobile phone—and check what petrol prices are going to be in their locality, at the petrol stations on their drive to work or to school or to the childcare centre the next day. Because all the petrol stations need to file their price at the same time they do not know what others are going to be pricing, so they are putting in their best price to sustain their sales on the next day, and people can then survey across the petrol stations in their locality or along the routes that they commonly drive and assess which one they want to go and get their petrol from.
What FuelWatch in Perth tells us is that variability in prices between petrol stations on a given day can be 10c, 15c or 20c a litre. If you are a highly price sensitive consumer, if you drive perhaps from Werribee to the city every day—a very common journey for people from my electorate; it is more than 30 kilometres—you would be able to identify which petrol station you would want to stop off and buy at. You would, of course, buy from the one that on that day was 10c or 15c cheaper than the other ones. Why would the opposition want to deny consumers access to a system like that? They have not explained it. They have not explained it because they cannot explain it. The amendment moved by the government talks about how the opposition are playing the game of big oil in relation to the stance they are taking. It is certainly not a stance in the interest of working families. It is a stance in which they are being manipulated by big oil.
I want to take members of parliament to a very interesting article by Steve Lewis that was published earlier this year in the Courier Mail. It relates to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is here in the chamber. It talks about how she made up her mind about Australian workplace agreements. It talks about how she went to an opera, hosted by mining companies, in the Margaret River area. At the opera, she consulted on what to do about industrial relations. Well, I am not opposed to the opera. And I talk to mining companies. But, when you are making a decision, you should also talk to working families. The one thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not do, that the opposition have never done on industrial relations, is talk to working families. They are not in this parliament today representing the interests of working families with this flawed motion that even they have not taken seriously in their performance.
The events of this week have revealed that this is a government that will be defined by its lack of belief in the policies which it seeks to espouse. This is a government that will be characterised by its focus on spin over substance. This is a government that does not care whether a policy is right or wrong, does not care whether it is economically sound or economically weak and does not care whether, in this instance, the policy will drive up the price of petrol and hurt families living in Western Sydney and outer suburbs. This is a government which does not care whether its policy is right or wrong but only whether it can get a cheap headline, a five-second grab on the nightly news. We have never seen a government so driven by spin as the government that occupies the treasury bench today. We have never seen a government that disregards the advice of the four most significant economic advisers in the Public Service. It ignores that advice, all for the sake of a cheap headline—another symbol—as if it is doing something.
What an extraordinary revelation there was this week: we have a government that is prepared to ignore the advice of the experts in government—its own economic advisers, its own experts—for the sake of covering its position, which it took to the last election, that it could do something about petrol prices, when it knew it had no policy to do any such thing. It is extraordinary that after just six months the government has been revealed as a sham. It is in disarray; it is in denial that it is promoting a fundamentally flawed policy. Why should the Australian people listen to the novice Treasurer, a man who is still on probation? Why should the Australian people listen to the Treasurer when the economic experts in the government say that this FuelWatch scheme is fundamentally flawed? We know that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet advised that the scheme might result in a small price increase. Why should the Australian people listen to the Treasurer, who is still on training wheels, rather than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who advised that the scheme might result in a small price increase?
The Prime Minister went around the country before the election promising that he would do something about petrol prices. He spent six to eight months telling the Australian people, ‘Put me into office and I will do something about petrol prices.’ And they believed him. They took him at his word. They gave him the benefit of the doubt. We now know his own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says that the quick fix that the Prime Minister has happened upon—a national FuelWatch scheme—in fact might result in an increase in petrol prices. Why should the Australian public listen to a Prime Minister who has no background—no experience, not even a passing acquaintance—with economics? Why should they listen to him when Treasury estimated that the scheme would result in ongoing increased operating costs of around $4,000 per annum to affected small businesses?
Small businesses are the lifeblood of this nation. They are the backbone of the economy. And you have advice from Treasury that estimates that this fundamentally flawed scheme would result in ongoing increased operating costs of around $4,000 per annum to affected small businesses. Don’t small businesses come within the definition of ‘working families’? Isn’t this government concerned about putting an extra $4,000 a year on small businesses? What impact will that have on small businesses around the country? Does the Treasurer even care what would happen to the small businesses that would have an increase of at least $4,000 as a result of this madcap scheme? Why should the Australian people listen to a Treasurer and a Prime Minister who have only been in the job for six months, when their Department of Finance and Deregulation advised that under this national FuelWatch scheme the price commitment rule might result in higher average petrol prices? The department of finance has advised that the price commitment rule might result in higher average petrol prices. Why would you introduce a scheme that may result in higher average petrol prices? You have got Treasury advising that it would result in ongoing costs of $4,000 per annum for small businesses; you have got Prime Minister and Cabinet advising that the scheme would result in a price increase; you have got Finance advising that the scheme would result in higher average petrol prices. Why would the government introduce a scheme that will result in higher petrol prices?
Finance went on to say that it would add over $20 million to business costs in the first year, with the impact likely to fall disproportionately on independent retailers. We know the government’s attitude to independent retailers. We heard the member for Leichhardt yesterday saying that he does not care about the impact on independent retailers. Why won’t the Prime Minister and the Treasurer admit that this scheme would result in higher average petrol prices and add $20 million to business costs in the first year and that the impact is going to fall disproportionately on independent retailers?
Independent retailers are family businesses as well. Don’t independent retailers come within the definition of ‘working families’? Are these another group to be excluded because of this government’s ideological fix on trying to get an answer to cover the spin that it so misleadingly put to the Australian people at the last election? They promised people—and this is what they believed—that the government would do something about fuel prices. We assume they were not promising to drive fuel prices up, but that is exactly what this national FuelWatch scheme will do. This is the advice from no less than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury and the department of finance.
Then we turn to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, and we know that this department is supported by its minister, the member for Batman. The department of resources and energy is concerned that the scheme will reduce competition and market flexibility, increase compliance costs and has more potential to increase prices. So now you have another department saying that the scheme will reduce competition and market flexibility and increase compliance costs on small business and on independent retailers and has more potential to increase prices. So you have got Prime Minister and Cabinet saying that it will increase prices. You have got Treasury estimating $4,000 in increased costs on small business. You have got Finance advising that it will result in higher average petrol prices and $20 million in the first year of increased costs on independent retailers. And you have got Resources and Energy concerned that the scheme is reducing competition and market flexibility and increasing compliance costs, with the potential to increase prices.
With this mounting evidence against the scheme we then get the department of industry describing it as ‘anticompetitive’ and saying that it will ‘increase petrol price coordination amongst retailers’. In other words, it will have the very opposite effect from that which the government tries to tell the Australian public it will have. This is breathtaking hypocrisy, when it has received advice from the economic heart of the government, from the people who actually know what they are talking about—not a prime minister who has not even a passing knowledge of economics, not a Treasurer who is still on probation and still on trainer wheels. This advice comes from the heart of the economic advice within this government and it is being wilfully and blatantly disregarded.
What has happened since the election? Why has this government become so arrogant that it believes it can dismiss the views of the Australian Public Service that are experts in the very field that the government is seeking to ignore? Not 12 months ago the Labor Party, when in opposition, was referring to Treasury and Finance as the Commonwealth’s top economic advisers. Before the election they were ‘highly regarded by the opposition as the Commonwealth’s advisers’. The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, said in March 2007, ‘If you are serious about national economic reform, if you are serious about it, you ask the Treasury for advice.’ So back in March 2007 if you were serious about economic reform you asked Treasury for the advice. So we take it that when you are not serious about reforms you disregard Treasury advice. Is that what we take from what has happened this week? When you are not serious about economic reform, when you just come up with a madcap scheme like a national FuelWatch, you ignore Treasury advice.
What about the WA Liberal Party scheme?
I will come to that. Then the Treasurer said that he wanted to quote an ‘eminent authority’ on this, and he was talking about an eminent authority on economic reform. Who was he talking about—himself? No, not at that time. Was he talking about the Prime Minister? Certainly not. In May 2007 he said that the eminent authority was the Secretary of the Treasury. What has happened in 12 months? Why is Ken Henry no longer the ‘eminent authority’? The Treasurer, then the opposition Treasurer, said that the government’s pre-eminent economic adviser was the Secretary of the Treasury. Now he has been relegated to the back bench and is no longer the pre-eminent authority for economic advice.
It is capped off by a piece written by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, when before the election he described the role of Treasury in the heart of government. He said:
The commonwealth Treasury is no ordinary agency of state . . .
And then he went on to say:
As a former Commonwealth public servant, I know—
this is the Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister—
from experience that the Treasury is staffed with the most competent policy elite that can be attracted to the Australian Public Service.
The only thing that the Prime Minister knows about economics is that the best economic advisers in the country are within the Treasury. He said that it is ‘no ordinary agency of state’. It is not advice that you take when you feel like it and you disregard it when you have got a cheap stunt that has to grab the evening news and the next headline. The Prime Minister said that he knew ‘from experience’—the only experience that he has got in this area—that the Treasury is ‘staffed with the most competent policy elite that can be attracted to the Australian Public Service’. And now he is trashing their reputation, ignoring their advice, wilfully disregarding Treasury and the other economic advisers within government.
In this article the Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, went on to say that Treasury:
... are part of a tradition that sees their role as the continuing custodians of the nation’s long-term economic wellbeing, providing robust advice to the government of the day, irrespective of the political complexion of that government.
That is what they said before the election. Now when they are in a jam and their national FuelWatch scheme is unravelling before our very eyes, they start trashing the Public Service. The minister for finance dismissed them the other day as ‘fat cats’. Don’t think that didn’t get around the Public Service! The Treasurer has dismissed their advice as ‘academic’ and then today—this was a doozy—we had the Assistant Treasurer revealing that the four departments that advised the government against the implementation of the fundamentally flawed FuelWatch had been ‘captured’ by the vested interests of the big oil companies. What is the Prime Minister going to do about his four departments that the Assistant Treasurer says have been captured by the vested interests of big oil companies? This is what the government is saying: anybody who disagrees with their fundamentally flawed FuelWatch scheme has been captured by the vested interests of big oil.
That means Ken Henry and the Treasury; Terry Moran and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; and all those people in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. They are all captured by the vested interests of big oil companies. This is how silly the government are appearing now. This is how ridiculous their argument has become. Why do they not just admit that the evidence is overwhelmingly against FuelWatch and that their own departments have pointed out the fundamental flaws?
The Treasurer used to have on his website the statement that the coalition would ignore Treasury advice at the economy’s peril. That is what he used to think—that you would ignore Treasury advice at the economy’s peril. And now this government, in its quest for cheap populism, for the five-second grab, for a cheap headline instead of cheap petrol, is ignoring the very advice that it says puts the economy at its peril. This scheme is fundamentally flawed and should not be introduced nationally. (Time expired)
I want to speak in support of the amendment moved by the Prime Minister to censure the Leader of the Opposition for:
In their last budget the Howard-Costello government shovelled a record $40 billion out the door in new spending—$40 billion in just one budget. It is no wonder that inflation hit a 16-year high. They denied in government that inflation was a problem even though there were 20 separate warnings from the Reserve Bank, and they are still in denial. Now they want to punch a $22 billion hole in the surplus that we need to fight inflation. We delivered a budget that was economically responsible but that addressed the long-term task of dealing with the infrastructure bottlenecks and the skills shortages that were in the economy.
The shadow Treasurer, of course, is still in denial that inflation is an issue—they say it is a fairytale—but of course this is the same shadow Treasurer who thinks that a 25 basis points increase in interest rates is overdramatised in terms of the impact it has on working families. They were out of touch in the lead-up to the last election, which is why they lost office, and they remain absolutely out of touch. The fact is that the opposition, when they put forward their budget response, put forward a grab bag of unfunded, uncosted and undeliverable promises. It was all about appealing to their backbench rather than the broader community. The community knows that without economic responsibility you cannot deliver on social programs and on long-term economic needs.
Indeed, the opposition have even gone so far as to criticise the Building Australia Fund. In his National Press Club speech the shadow Treasurer criticised the BAF for having no rules and no investment benchmarks. But it took them 20 months to issue an investment mandate for the Future Fund. They announced the Higher Education Endowment Fund in the 2007-08 budget but six months later at the election there was still no mandate. But they think that you can just make promises, more promises and then make some more promises without saying where the money is coming from.
They have blocked in the Senate the heavy vehicle charges that they called for, that were initiated by the white paper of 2004. That was supported by COAG in April 2007. On 28 June 2007 the then transport minister, the member for Lyne, said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008. The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
That was initiated by them in government but opposed by them now that they are the opposition. And they speak about advice from the Treasury! This is what Ken Henry, the Secretary of the Treasury, had to say about this issue. On 21 May he said:
The road user charge for heavy vehicles is not the most important structural policy matter likely to confront the nation’s parliaments this year. But it would be one of the easiest ... and it is a pre-condition for other, more important, land transport reforms.
A ‘precondition’ is what the Secretary of the Treasury said about this important reform. Of course, when we announced it this is what industry had to say; we sat down with them. The headline on their 29 February press release by Stuart St Clair of the Australian Trucking Association was ‘Rudd government listens to the trucking industry’. I spoke to the ATA yesterday. This is the Australian Trucking Association, the industry body—
That Hockey thinks is a union.
that the member for North Sydney thought was a union. I spoke to 600 of them yesterday, and I addressed their dinner last night. It was terrific to spend time with these Australians who do so much to contribute to national productivity. This is what Trevor Martyn, Chairman of the ATA, had to say yesterday:
Of course it has been suggested the Australian government could reduce fuel excise but it would be just a gesture. The price of diesel has already gone up by 48 cents and it is likely to rise by an extra 20 cents. A tax cut of even 10 cents per litre would hardly be noticeable. Instead the best approach the Australian government can take is to focus on the long-term and fix the road transport laws that are stopping us from using the latest and most fuel efficient truck designs.
I say to the opposition: listen to the Treasury, listen to the industry, listen to all those who recognise that this is an important reform. If you cannot listen to any of that, listen to yourselves of fewer than 12 months ago and get out of the way of this important reform.
We heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say that she was going to outline in her speech the issues of why the operation of FuelWatch was a problem in Perth, and then she said nothing. This weekend is a long weekend in Perth, and consumers will be watching their TV news tonight to see what the lowest cost petrol in their area will be. It is on every commercial news channel, just before the weather every day. I want the good people of Marrickville, the people of Parramatta, the people of the Central Coast, the people of Launceston, the people of Melbourne and indeed the people of Hurstville to have that opportunity as well.
What FuelWatch does is pretty simple. The oil companies now collect the information and then the information is made available to consumers. It is simple. How could you possibly object? That is why the ACCC found in their econometric modelling that it will put a downward pressure on prices. I listened to the ACCC chairman very carefully this morning reinforcing that advice. But of course the opposition were offered briefings weeks ago but they were not taken up, because they do not want to be informed about this issue.
We have had a lot of talk from those opposite about the importance of advice. They know that governments receive a range of advice and the cabinet processes are there. They have referred to some media reports about the cabinet advice of some departments—one would suggest because it is inappropriate to talk about cabinet advice. There are other departments as well that provided advice that clearly does not suit their particular argument. When you have conflicting advice you make a judgement of what is in the national interest, and that is what the Rudd Labor government has done. The sanctimonious nonsense from those opposite about departmental advice is extraordinary.
Mr Keenan interjecting
The nong opposite asks: which departmental advice asked me to breach cabinet confidence? He asks me to break the law, which says a lot about where they are coming from. We know that when it comes to departmental advice there is one section in my department in particular—the Regional Development Section—that stands out as a hallmark of what their attitude was to departmental advice. The Australian National Audit Office found, in volume 1, page 20, that the manner in which the program had been administered over the three-year period to 30 June 2006, examined by ANAO, had fallen short of an acceptable standard of public administration. On pages 35 and 36 they said:
A feature of the program’s administration ... was the frequency with which practices departed from the published program guidelines and documented internal procedures. This was reflected in funding being approved for projects notwithstanding the absence of a completed Regional Partnerships application or a departmental assessment against the program criteria, and departmental assessments being truncated or fast tracked or assessment procedures not being rigorously applied such that DOTARS did not adequately scrutinise applications before providing advice to ministers; projects being approved for funding notwithstanding that one or more criteria had not been satisfied; ministerial funding decisions being taken or advisory processes other than those provided for in the program guidelines in procedures advice to applicants.
Listen to this:
Of particular note in these respects was the significantly higher tempo of funding appli-cations, project approvals and announcements that occurred in the eight months leading up to the calling of the 2004 federal election compared to the remainder of the three years examined by the ANAO. A surge in grant approvals and announcements occurred during this period notwithstanding that many of the projects recommended and approved for funding were underdeveloped such as they did not demonstrably satisfied the program assessment criteria.
On 2 February 2004 the former Prime Minister announced his government would commit $845,000 to the Peel Region Tourist Railway. Funding was to be provided from the Regional Partnerships program. The only problem was that no application had even been submitted. They did not get around to signing a contract until 24 January 2007. It was an absolute farce. The first payment of $517,000 was made on 2 February 2007, exactly three years after Mr Howard’s announce-ment, except that only four days later the rail line burnt down. Did the Commonwealth get back its money? No. But we know that is consistent with the 51-minute spending spree before the 2004 caretaker election mode. Former parliamentary secretary De-Anne Kelly approved 16 projects worth $3.3 million.
But it is not just that. With regard to the ARTC, the Audit Office found that the government managed hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds just before June each year. They made three special grant payments: $450 million in June 2004, $100 million in June 2005 and $270 million in June 2006. The Audit Office says the payments were ‘in the context of assisting to reduce higher than expected budget surpluses’. So if they think there is going to be a surplus they just shovel the money out the door. Note: there was no proper departmental advice, there were no contracts, there were no funding arrangements or documented governance arrangements that required the ARTC to use the $820 million on any particular projects or in any particular time frame. That is what the Audit Office found about the way that they dealt with public funds. We on this side of the House have produced an economically irresponsible budget—I should have said res-ponsible budget: an economically responsible budget. Those opposite stand condemned for the fact that they have thrown out any economic credibility whatsoever. (Time expired)
We have just heard out of the mouth of the Leader of the House opposite that the government had brought in an irresponsible budget, and I have to say we all agree with that—totally irresponsible. That has to be perhaps one of the best Freudian slips that we have heard in this parliament—an admission by the manager of government business that the government brought in an irresponsible budget. This FuelWatch scheme is also irresponsible. It has grown out of the fact that, prior to the election, we had the now government, the then opposition, going around and promising to the Australian people that they would bring down the price of petrol, the price of groceries and interest rates. That was the promise that they made to the Australian people. Since they have come to government—in the six months that they have been here—we have seen a rise in petrol prices, a rise in grocery prices and a rise in interest rates.
We are in the situation where they thought they must be seen to be doing something—anything—so they have grabbed onto this concept of FuelWatch. It can probably best be described as the streaker’s defence—it seemed like a good idea at the time. Quite clearly, what FuelWatch is designed to do is to level out the bumps in the peaks and troughs of petrol over the cycle. It will get rid of the top peaks, the top price, over the cycle but will also get rid of the most discounted price, the bottom peak. That means that, if you are interested in paying an averaged price, you will say the average price will be less. But, as was pointed out by speakers earlier today, none of us buys at the average price. We buy at a point in the cycle where we can get the most effective price for ourselves.
There are great differences between motorists—great differences between the people who are buying fuel. You have those people who are up at the top end of the scale and do not really care what the price of fuel is—they will simply buy it. It might be put onto an expense account, it might be part of their contract price or they might think their time is more valuable than to be spent in queuing to get cheaper petrol. They really do not care at what point in the cycle they are going to be buying. They certainly do not care whether the price would be frozen for 24 hours. But there are an enormous number of people—retired people, veterans, people who are on fixed incomes, people with a disability who have a car adapted so they can drive it—a whole army of people, who need to buy petrol at the cheapest price they can get it. That is why, in Sydney in particular, if you are driving in the left-hand lane of the road and come across a petrol station, you will inevitably find you have to get out of that lane because there will be a queue waiting to get into that petrol station, usually on a Tuesday evening, in order that they can buy their fuel at the cheapest end of the cycle.
For the government to come in here and say that they are relying totally and utterly on Graeme Samuel’s view of the ACCC report really says a lot about the structure of their scheme and the paucity of their arguments. The fact of the matter is that the inquiry that the ACCC did began in June 2007 and was supposed to report in October but then reported in December. When it did report, it said some quite significant things. One of those most important things is on page 257 of the report, where it says:
Assessing any system in the style of FuelWatch that incorporates increased price information and price commitment requires great care due to the potential for anti-competitive as well as pro-competitive benefits. Although the inquiry gained a preliminary assessment of the impacts in Perth from the scheme, it is clear that a case-by-case approach is required to assess the potential impacts on competition of any similar scheme. In particular the ACCC has not analysed the application of such a scheme to rural and regional areas. Apparent extra considerations here include the increased potential for anticompetitive effects due to the more concentrated nature of the market, the extra cost in initialisation, administra-tion and compliance and how to decide which areas to cover.
In other words, this report posed more questions than it ever answered; yet the government have seized upon this like a man drowning in the ocean.
The fact of the matter is that once that report was made available the government departments which are central to any decision-making process in government—the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Prime Minister’s own department; the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism; the Department of Finance and Deregulation; and the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—all said that this was not a scheme that should go forward. Indeed, it would be anticompetitive and it would not deliver the benefits that the government says it would deliver.
Now the government has chosen to ignore its own departments. The one minister who did not ignore his department was the member for Batman, who wrote to the Prime Minister and told him that they should not go ahead with this scheme because it was anticompetitive and it would punish people. You can well ask the question: why has the government chosen deliberately to penalise those people—veterans, pensioners, a variety of pension holders, people to whom every cent counts—by ensuring that the cheapest petrol that is now on the market will disappear, forcing them to pay more? One could be kind and say that perhaps they announced the scheme and did not under-stand the implications of it. One could be less kind and say, ‘Oh well, it means people who are earning more money, who are in the Prime Minister’s definition of working families, can afford to pay a bit more.’ It does bring to mind this whole focus on the rhetoric of the Prime Minister about only being interested in working families—that is, people in the paid workforce. He seems to have no care at all for people who are retired or outside the workforce. Whether they are on pensions or are self-funded retirees or disabled or single parents, they obviously fall outside his definition of care, which is only for this narrow group of working families.
This is totally inequitable, totally against the interests of the Australian people and totally against the idea that this government put out when it was in opposition that it was going to care for those people and bring in policies that would not only not penalise them, but somehow would assist them. The censure motion that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition this morning states that the Prime Minister and the government should be censured because they were letting down the Australian people and deceiving them over record high petrol prices by:
ignoring the Prime Minister’s own depart-ment and the departments of other ministers that advised that this scheme should not go ahead and refusing to immediately lower petrol prices, which is the only way in which government can have an actual effect on what price is paid at the browser, by cutting the 38c a litre in tax on $1.60 a litre.
We have said, quite sensibly and rationally, that we would reduce the excise by 5c a litre. The government then put out a little thought that it might perhaps remove the GST from the bowser price. But then we have the situation where the leaders of the Labor Party governments in the states would have to agree to that before it could be changed, and of course they would not agree unless they received compensation and so that would result in a reduction in price of about 3.7c per litre. So the bottom line is that in trying to catch up to the sensible proposal of the opposition to lower the petrol price by reducing excise tax, it came up with a scheme that would in fact deliver less and would be more inefficient. But that seems to have gone by the board also, and we are back to FuelWatch.
When one reads further into the report of the ACCC, which the government have chosen as the be-all and end-all basis for this policy, one sees the government have not taken the advice of the ACCC, set out on page 17, that says that the government should conduct a detailed assessment of important issues raised by FuelWatch, including whether it had anticompetitive effects, reduction of predictability of prices and costs. Again and again, when they say they rely on the ACCC report, they are ignoring the major findings of it, which is to say that it is at least imprecise in the sense that it has more information it must gather. I go back to that quote relating to the fact that there has been no work done by the ACCC relating to rural and regional areas.
So we have the situation now where people are being excluded from consideration because this government is only focusing on people who are in the paid workforce; pensioners, veterans, disabled people, single parents are all outside the purview of this government. People who live in rural and regional Australia are also outside consideration in this report, and I repeat: the ACCC has not analysed the applica-tion of such a scheme—that is, FuelWatch—to rural and regional areas. Extra considerations here include the increased potential for anticompetitive effects due to the more concentrated nature of the market and the extra cost of initialisation, administration and compliance, and how to decide which areas to cover. It is a very big agenda that is being put by the ACCC to be considered subsequently before any decision was taken. But I would again point out that four government departments, whose advice would normally be heeded, have said that this scheme should not go ahead. These four government departments have had the advantage of studying the ACCC report and making their comments and remarks after having studied that report.
The net result of pursuing this FuelWatch scheme—or should we call it a ‘foolwatch’ scheme?—is that those people who rely now on getting cheaper petrol by being able to go to the lowest peak in the cycle and buy cheaper petrol are the people who are going to be disadvantaged. Those are the people who now queue on a Tuesday night in Sydney and on whatever the day in the other states is where the lowest price in the cycle is being charged. They are the people who fill up then. They are the people who are then able to maintain their purchasing power through the grocery prices which the government said it would bring down and has not. They are being penalised on all counts.
This government said it would lower petrol prices, lower grocery prices and lower interest rates. It has done none of those. (Time expired)
When you are in opposition for a prolonged period of time you go through some difficult periods, and often you have some serious discussions about how you can get yourself back into the political contest and how you can improve your performance. I would have to say that, having spent 11 or so years in opposition, we had a few of those discussions in the Labor Party from time to time. But, equally, over the past few weeks the performance of the Liberal Party on the key economic issues of the day has brought back some interesting memories for me—one in particular.
I vividly recall a debate some years ago in our caucus about our economic positioning, which ended up being reported in the media. The contribution I made in that debate was to argue that you cannot sign up to economic credibility; you cannot simply stand up and assert that you are economically credible; you have to earn it. You have to build econ-omic credibility. It is the accumulated outcome of decisions and positioning over an ex-tended period of time. It is particularly difficult to build credibility but it is very easy to lose it.
Over the past three or four weeks, the opposition have been engaged in a mad venture to try to destroy what is left of the lingering economic credibility that the Liberal Party has. They have been seen to take every conceivable position that is designed to play for cheap cheers and for short-term popularity but not in the long-term interests of this nation’s economic standing and not in the long-term interests of working people in this country.
The underlying inflation rate in Australia is 4.2 per cent. That is above the Reserve Bank’s target zone, as we all know, and, as a result of that inflation pressure, the Reserve Bank has in recent times been putting up interest rates. That pattern has been occurr-ing for an extended period of time—we have had 12 rate increases in a row—but it particularly gathered momentum in the latter half of last year. That momentum, of course, has continued on into the beginning of this year.
There has been one important area, amongst the various factors involved in those interest rate increases, where the former government had direct control over, negligently failed to deal with and, as a result, has contributed very significantly to the increase in inflation and the increase in interest rates, and that is government spending. Government spending has been increasing at over five per cent in real terms per annum. In the middle of a mining boom—a situation where the world is paying ever-increasing prices for our mineral exports—which is pushing more and money into our economy, government spending has been growing at an unsustainably fast rate. In particular, that spending has largely not been directed to building economic capacity to enable Australia to increase its productive capability and therefore to absorb the additional spending. As a result, the Rudd government has inherited a budget which was set in a very wasteful, inefficient and loose fiscal position, a budget that was pushing upwards on inflation and interest rates.
We had no choice but to take action to drastically slow the rate of government spending in order to push back against rising interest rates and rising prices. That is why the government have delivered a surplus of almost $22 billion, or 1.8 per cent of gross domestic product, for the forthcoming financial year. That is why we have slowed the rate of growth in government spending from over five to 1.1 per cent in real terms. That is why we have cut government spending as a proportion of the total economy by around one percentage point of GDP. That is actually a very substantial reduction in government spending as a proportion of the total economy and, in fact, it is the smallest that government spending as a proportion of our total economy has been for almost 20 years.
There have been some commentators who have argued that we have not gone hard enough, that we should have tightened even further. There are many who have argued that we have roughly got it about right. But there are hardly any serious economic commentators that I have seen who have suggested that the government have tightened the fiscal settings too much and that we should be spending more. The only significant players in public debate—the only significant contributors to political and economic debate in this country—who have been arguing that spending should be increased more rapidly, that we should loosen the purse strings, have been the Liberal opposition. In doing so, they are in the process of completely trashing their economic credibility.
The opposition want to go soft on inflation. The opposition want to go soft on the battle to keep interest rates as low as possible. They are the only significant group in Australian public debate who are calling for softer fiscal policy, who are calling for more government spending. They want to restore various tax lurks. They want to revive the notorious Regional Partnerships program. In spite of all the holes in the proposal, they want to bring back the access card that was going to cost over $1 billion. They want to hand out various tax reductions. We saw in the budget reply speech by the Leader of the Opposition that they had a variety of tax reductions they were offering, including one that was not even costed: a change in the capital gains tax treatment for small business owners where there was not even an attempt made to identify what cost that would be to the budget.
In all of this there has not been a single cent in savings, not a dollar, not a cent—no attempt whatsoever to identify where the money is going to come from. Having been in opposition, having been a shadow finance minister for a total of 5½ years, I know only too well how tough it is. But in opposition we did identify savings. Over a year ago we were putting out savings packages of $3 billion—and copping flak and criticism for a number of the proposals in it. But Labor tried to do the hard stuff in opposition, tried to ensure that when we were putting forward spending proposals we were also advocating savings.
The so-called party of economic responsibility, the party that sees itself as Australia’s economic managers, is standing before the Australian people today advocating higher spending, advocating a huge hole in the budget surplus—around $4 billion in the forthcoming financial year and $22 billion over the course of the next four years—and not identifying any offsetting savings at all. It is admitting that the spending, this loosening of the settings of the budget, would actually come from reducing the surplus. That is simply a recipe for higher inflation, higher prices in the supermarket and higher interest rates. That is all that that means. You will not find a serious economic commentator who will dispute that proposition. If you ask serious economic commentators, ‘If there is to be a substantial loosening of fiscal policy from where the government has set it in the budget that has just been handed down, what effect would that have on inflation and interest rates?’ they will tell you that the effect would be upward pressure—it would increase inflation and increase interest rates.
It is not that long ago that the key players in the opposition who are now proposing a cut in fuel excise were part of the Howard cabinet, part of the Howard government, which refused to cut fuel excise and rejected that proposal. It is extraordinary how the opposition has suddenly discovered the merits of cutting the excise on fuel without any kind of offsetting saving and therefore putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. It is extraordinary how it has suddenly discovered the merits of this proposition, after having rejected it when it was actually in charge of the nation’s government literally only months ago. Even the wasteful, spendthrift, lazy former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, did not support this proposal when he was in government, and to his credit it is clear that he does not support it now—as a number of key players in the opposition do not support it. The opposition’s approach on petrol, on other issues and on the wider economic front is simple—spend, spend and spend again. More spending, a lower surplus, let inflation rip and therefore allow interest rates to be pushed up even further. This has all been put forward in the context of a very appealing grab bag of giveaways. But that is not an economic policy.
I will turn to the competing positions that we have in the public debate on the issue in a more specific sense—that is, on the one hand the opposition’s position with respect to fuel excise and on the other the government’s FuelWatch proposal. The opposition, as I said, discovered the merits of this position relatively late in life after having had many years in government and many long months of opportunity to actually put it in place. They finally discovered the merits of taking 5c off the fuel excise, having found themselves in opposition. The taxes on fuel actually consist of two separate things: the excise levied by the Commonwealth; and the GST, which is levied by the Commonwealth and passed on to the states. The excise, of course, is fixed at a set sum and is not indexed, so it is falling in real terms and will continue to fall in real terms. That means that over time it gradually becomes smaller and smaller relative to wages and prices and everything else in the wider economy. It only falls very slightly each year but it is slowly eroding in real terms. The GST, of course, was imposed by the former Liberal government, and the issue that arises from its interaction with the excise is a consequence of decisions taken by the former Liberal government. At the time of the inauguration of the Ken Henry-led commission into Australia’s tax and transfer payment systems, we did indicate that one of the many issues that was in play was that specific question of the GST and the excise interconnection.
In reality all we are dealing with here on the part of the opposition is a desperate attempt to shore up the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and to ward off the shadow Treasurer, who famously sent an email saying that the policy was wrong. The Leader of the Opposition has shredded the Liberal Party’s remaining credibility by in effect standing up and saying, ‘The surplus should be $4 billion less than it otherwise would be and the Liberal Party is quite happy to carry the impact on inflation, on prices, on interest rates that that inevitably involves.’
Finally I will turn to the government’s policy on FuelWatch. Much has been made of the fact that coordination comments for the cabinet discussion from several departments actually criticised the proposal in various ways. There is one really important thing that we have to emphasise here. Those coordination comments were all about one page long—and in 1½ spacing, from memory. So they were all a few hundred words each. On the one side we have a routine process where individual departments, without being approved by their ministers, routinely put comments attached to cabinet submissions giving their views. Ministers in some cases disagree with their department’s comments. In many cases the comments that come from different departments will actually be in conflict. Some departments will support a proposal, some will oppose it. There will be differing angles. Some will only pursue the specific matters that are relevant to their area and so forth. So it is hardly unusual that you get differing points of view from government departments as part of a process of cabinet discussion of an issue, and in some cases—as in this one—the view being put by an individual department was not the same as the view being expressed by their minister. I refer to my own situation.
The key difference is that on the one hand you had four pages in 1½ spacing, about 1,000 or maybe 1,500 words, and on the other hand you had hundreds of pages, economic modelling, serious research, serious analysis by the competition watchdog—the key pool of expertise in the government that is designed to advise the government on these matters: the ACCC with serious research and analysis of this issue. The conclusion they have reached, and the position the government has adopted on their advice, is that FuelWatch has been successful in Western Australia, that it has had the effect of pushing petrol prices lower than they otherwise would have been by somewhere between 1c and 2c per litre and that that can be replicated across the rest of Australia.
It is important to note that divergent views in the government and the bureaucracy about these issues are actually symptomatic of a wider situation. There are divergent views in the Liberal Party, there are divergent views across the states and there are divergent views within motoring organisations, because this is a complex issue. You are dealing with a complex phenomenon, petrol pricing, which is affected by a wide variety of factors. You are dealing with a complex market; you are dealing with consumer behaviour and information. This is a complex issue. It is hardly surprising that you get different views. We know the Liberal Party in Western Australia introduced FuelWatch, we know Senator Adams supports it and we know the leader of the Liberal opposition in New South Wales supports it. So there are different views. But we stand by the position that we have taken. We are going to pursue FuelWatch. We do not claim that it is some kind of magic wand or silver bullet that will solve petrol price issues overnight. There are no guarantees, nor were there guarantees given about petrol prices by the then opposition when we were in opposition prior to the election. On numerous occasions the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were asked, ‘Can you guaran-tee?’ and they said: ‘No, we can’t guarantee. All we can guarantee is that we will make an effort to do the things within our power to have an effect.’ And that is precisely what we are doing. This problem is occurring in developed countries all around the world. (Time expired)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. The debate that is taking place at the moment is a censure motion on the Prime Minister and then the mirror image censure back on the Leader of the Opposition. I will be supporting neither because I think both individuals and both parties have got something of small significance to say on this particular issue. I would like to firstly address the FuelWatch issue. I do not think it will make a lot of difference, and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation alluded to the fact that they did not think it will make a lot of difference either. But I do not think it is going to do any harm and I do not think some degree of scrutiny of the fuel companies will do any harm. It will probably make, at best, 1c or 2c a litre difference at some periods throughout the year. If that happens, that is a positive. It is not worth wasting the last three or four days on, but let us suggest that it is not a negative.
On the other hand, we have the Leader of the Opposition proposing a 5c reduction in excise. Most people would be aware that currently the excise is 38c a litre. It is fixed, it is not indexed anymore. Over and above that we have the goods and services tax, which would be running at about 15c. So there is about 50c to 53c in every litre we buy in terms of some form of taxation. The Leader of the Opposition is proposing to reduce the excise by 5c a litre. The tax-on-a-tax proportion of the 38c excise with the GST interaction is 3.8c, which the opposition, the then government, put into place, so the double taxation effect was taking place under that particular regime. So we have this proposal to reduce fuel tax by 5c. I do not think that is a bad thing and I would support that, so I will not be censuring the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting it. Many members of the public question why we have a regime in this country that actually uses fuel as a cash cow, why that has lasted so long. I am pleased to see that the government is going to have a review into taxation, but it has to have this fuel debacle on the table and it has to have the goods and services tax on the table. It is an extraordinary anomaly where fuel users in this country are paying 33 per cent fuel tax at least. That is an extraordinary thing. For people to suggest, as some from the government do from time to time, that it would be economically and politically irresponsible to reduce that magnitude of taxation on the means of production, the energy that drives the nation, I find quite extraordinary. So I support the Leader of the Opposition on the 5c, given that there is the double taxation of 3.8c in there anyway. It is not much but it is in a sense a positive.
From today’s wasted hours we have probably got two minor positives that ignore the elephant in the room, which is the 33 per cent taxation that all Australians are paying. We have the argument, and the finance minister put it again, and I understand his logic, and the Prime Minister has been putting it and a number of others have been putting it: ‘If you move on that cash cow, what does it do to the budget surplus? How do you come to grips with that? The opposi-tion is being irresponsible by suggesting that a $2 billion hole in the budget suddenly appears.’ I think the present government made a serious error when it me-tooed the Howard government tax cuts. It was a very clever political strategy by John Howard. It actually drained the Labor Party of opportunity to create a new future in how it addressed things. It removed those opportunities in relation to fuel taxation and some of the other taxation anomalies that it will be reviewing in 18 months or two years time. So it took away in one fell swoop a lot of opportunities in terms of the budgetary process. But I think the taxation review that the government is going to embark on really does have to include fuel.
Years ago Malcolm Fraser articulated the idea that we need to have a regime of taxation on fuel to try and dampen down people using it. Some others in the last weeks have argued the same thing again, and I imagine the Greens would do the same. How long is that logic going to prop up this tax on energy? V8 cars are put forward as the bane of society in terms of fuel consumption. The suggested solution for dealing with these V8s is to apply a tax that impacts on everybody to try and reduce the impact of these gas guzzlers. I think that is a fairly ridiculous reason for justifying this tax regime, particularly on top of yesterday’s luxury car tax debate. Yesterday we had an absurd proposition put by the government and agreed to by the opposition. People in the country who need to pay more than $57,000 for a basic model four-wheel drive were sent the message that they could avoid the luxury car tax. Four-wheel drive vehicles in the country are a necessity as a result of the roads because out of the $14 billion that we raise only $2.6 billion gets returned to roads—and the other argument for fuel excise originally was that we needed road maintenance and construction. Well, only about 16 per cent of it is remotely connected to road maintenance and construction. We had this absurd position yesterday where we sent a message in the opposite direction: if you do not want to pay, or you want to pay very little of, the luxury fuel tax for a vehicle that is a necessity, buy a gas-guzzling V8. What are the messages that the government is trying to convey in relation to all these issues?
Overlaying that we have this overarching climate change agenda where, we are told, we have got emissions trouble. We are told that we have carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and a range of other global warming gases that we have to try and come to grips with. We have got an energy crisis, and some people suggest that there is a global food crisis. Of course if the price of energy goes up the price of food is going to go up. If we assume that we are moving to a different level of energy prices, what can we do about it here? I would suggest that we can do a bit with excise; a third of the cost of petroleum and mobile fuels is tax. Obviously we can do something about that. Maybe we have to look at the goods and services tax provisions and include fuel in that. That would be uncomfortable for some—probably for everybody in here—but maybe that debate has to be on the table. If we are moving to a new plateau of energy prices, we are going to tax ourselves into a comparative disadvantage globally. We will quite deliberately put ourselves into a disadvantageous position. Then in the next breath the farm sector—and I am pleased the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is here—will be told that they are needed to produce food for the starving millions.
Then we have the climate change agenda. We are told that transport movements and production—and there is one member here who heard this last night—are going to have some sort of carbon footprint. I will use my example again for the minister for agriculture because I think it is important. We have our Walgett wheat farmer. He has a footprint on his own land. He will have a footprint getting his wheat to the Walgett silo. He will have another footprint getting it to the port by train—or truck, perhaps, in New South Wales fairly soon. Then the boat from the port—Newcastle to Egypt or wherever it goes—will have some sort of carbon footprint. The grain that it carries contains starch, which is carbon, and that will have a significant footprint. Who pays for that? I do not know. We have not developed the emissions-trading arrangements yet, but it is something we should know. We export 80 per cent of what we produce; in fact, we overproduce. The transaction is then made. The wheat is cashed in and maybe the odd bribe is paid to sell it to acceptable markets. Then we move into another corrupt market and bring a boat load of oil back from the Middle East. It has a carbon footprint, I would imagine, as it is a fossil fuel. We do not cart oil on trains anymore, so it will be on a truck back to the Walgett farmer so he can go around in a circle and produce grain to send to Egypt to buy oil.
Maybe there are ways we can avoid some of these things, not just with excise and dependency on international factors but maybe internally. The minister for agriculture and others are well aware of the potential for biofuels. Rather than continuing with the ridiculous convoluted energy chase that we are on, surely we should be looking at cutting that corner and looking at local options. We could value-add to what we do well and have an impact on the energy market locally. If we are starting to say that shifting all these things all over the world—a baked bean tin travelling to 17 different countries before it gets to its eventual destination—and having a carbon footprint is problematic, then what are we going to do about it?
One of the things I was pleased to see in the recent budget was some money for research into cellulosic ethanol—biomass. There are techniques out there now. They are in their infancy but they are working in Canada, in the States and in other parts of the world. If people are afraid of using grain for fuel because it has got to feed the starving millions then why don’t we move to biomass? I think the government has got to encourage that. But we cannot keep the tax system the current government has—it has taken on board the previous government’s tax system—where, if you are a renewable energy producer in this country, in 2011 you will start to pay a fossil fuel tax. How is all that going to fit within this so-called emissions-trading and carbon debate? I do not know the answer to that but I think a lot of people do want this tax system, because we have got an absurd debate going on at the moment about little things at the margin when there are big things that need to be addressed, not the least of which is the solar debate.
That was another mixed message in the budget. We means tested it. We have been trying to encourage people to get into solar energy, and what do we do? We turn the sun off in terms of their capacity to access the incentives. Either we have got to have some incentives to do these things in this country or we have got to tell them not to bother: ‘We are not going to have a climate change debate,’ or ‘We don’t believe in emissions trading anymore because it is all too hard.’ We cannot keep running these mixed messages that are out there at the moment.
A document came into my hands this very morning about a pilot cellulosic ethanol plant being developed in New South Wales. The point I would like to make from this document—it relates to this debate quite well—is this:
If the commercialisation program is successful, and research is being undertaken by the govern-ment, production time could be slashed from days to minutes—
That is the issue with cellulosic ethanol—trying to ferment the starch in a reduced period of time so that you can get the unit costs down. With grain it can be done now; with cellulose it is around the corner but close. The document continues:
... and fuel ethanol production costs dramatically reduced. Feasibility studies have concluded that fuel ethanol produced through this process will have a crude oil equivalent cost in the range of US$36 to US$50 per barrel.
If we are serious about having an impact locally, centrally and cutting down on a whole range of transportation issues, we have to start to get serious about renewable energy and do the hard yards, and not exclude it because of this ridiculous food-fuel debate. If we are serious about food in the world, why aren’t we encouraging and helping the Sudan, which has the potential to produce six times the grain production that Australia will ever have? The soils are there. We should be doing those things rather than having this ridiculous debate. (Time expired)
I want to acknowledge up front the importance of renewable fuels and a number of the issues that have been raised by the member for New England. Both the member for New England and the member for Kennedy have been at the forefront of making representations to both me and to the Minister for Resources and Energy to make sure that the government are well apprised of, and to make sure that we are taking seriously, the issues surrounding energy security and, in particular, the opportunities that may well be there with respect to the different possible uses of biofuels into the future.
There is no more serious motion that a Leader of the Opposition can move than the one that the Leader of the Opposition moved today. When the debate began members opposite were all calling out, ‘Why hasn’t the Prime Minister arrived yet?’ not understanding of course that when a debate is to be held first thing in the morning, and not by a suspension of standing orders, it will regularly appear on the blue and on the Notice Paper for the morning. They chose not to do that.
Oh, you always put it on the blue!
When this sort of motion is moved it frequently can come out of the back of what happens in question time.
In 15 years, I have never seen a censure motion—
It is interesting that members opposite interject about what has happened in the last 15 years. I would like to know when the last time was that a Leader of the Opposition thought it was so important for them to move a censure motion that they did not remain in the chamber for the conclusion of the debate. I cannot think of any other occasion on which a Leader of the Opposition has played the most serious card that is open to them and they have known that the motion is going to be moved—but, obviously, when it does not appear on the Notice Paper, the Prime Minister does not know it is going to be moved. I would certainly hope that it had occurred to the Leader of the Opposition that he was going to move the motion, that he had decided to play the most serious card open to a Leader of the Opposition, yet for some reason could not be bothered remaining in the chamber for the duration of the debate.
What is at the core of what the opposition have said today and of the arguments that they have put forward, what is at the core of this entire debate, is whether or not it is right and proper for a government to act independently, having received advice from their departments to form a different conclusion. We know from the speech made earlier by the Leader of the House that when those opposite were in government they would frequently depart from the advice of their departments. But what were the sorts of programs for which they would do it? They would do it for some pork-barrelling exercise here or there with respect to the Regional Partnerships program. That is an example of where they thought the public policy parameters were so high. But if those opposite have so quickly changed their position that they believe the proper thing for a government to do is for ministers to just match everything that comes forward in departmental advice, I am not sure what they think the point of having cabinet meetings is.
For the millions and millions of Australians who do not get the opportunity to be public servants and who do not get the opportunity to contribute to coordination comments, surely there is some role for ministers to listen to them. But apparently not, from what those opposite say. When we hold community cabinets, when we conduct consultation and when I spend day after day going through regional Australia and listening to people on their own properties, apparently, the moment I walk into the cabinet room, I am meant to put all of that to one side and say, ‘Okay, what are the departments telling me to do?’ because that is the policy outcome I am meant to get to. That is the core of the objection from those opposite. Essentially, every argument they have wanted to run is about the concept of whether or not it is right and proper for a cabinet to ever depart from the advice that is brought to it.
We do need to consider the advice that comes from departments; we do need to consider the advice that comes from other agencies, such as the ACCC; and we certainly need to consider the rights and the interests of the millions of Australian motorists and the millions of Australians who rely on petrol and other forms of fuel—most notably diesel, certainly in my portfolio—and to look at how we can, in different ways, provide downward pressure for the difficulties that they currently face. The cost-of-living pressures are real—there is no doubt about that. As the Prime Minister has said continually, this is not a silver bullet and we have never pretended for it to be more than what it is.
Mr Anthony Smith interjecting
I think the member for Casey can look at plenty of transcripts before the election. It is an extraordinary misrepresentation to claim that that was not said prior to the election—extraordinary. There have been quotations made from this very dispatch box, in transcript after transcript, where the position before the election was made patently clear. The difference is that, while we do not believe that there is a silver bullet on this, where we can help we will—where we believe we can provide some sort of assistance for the pressures that motorists face.
It is not just petrol. They just keep hearing: ‘Petrol, petrol, petrol.’ They need to understand that diesel prices matter too. Get out of the capital cities and talk to someone reliant on diesel. Talk to the fishermen at the moment—the fishing industry—and the pressures they face with respect to diesel. Talk to the people who are trying to run a tractor and look at the pressures that they face with respect to diesel. This is a FuelWatch debate. This is a critical problem with respect to the different difficulties that people are facing.
There are global pressures—of course there are global pressures—but that is not an excuse for doing nothing. That is not an excuse for the previous government’s neglect year after year and simply coming back with the view that working Australians have never been better off, ignoring all the pressures that come to bear on the cost of living. The cost-of-living pressures come from both directions: they come from the need to make sure that the market is as competitive as it can possibly be, and they also come from making sure that people have the financial resources to be able to pay. The previous government took them out at both ends. They decided to do nothing on cost-of-living pressures, they decided not to give extra powers to the competition regulator and, at the same time, they introduced Work Choices so that people had a diminishing capacity to pay in the first place.
When it comes to the balance of what you do for people’s entitlements and the industrial relations debate, we say, ‘Give them fairness in the workplace’; those opposite say, ‘Give them Work Choices.’ When it comes to the cost-of-living pressures at the other end of how the family budget gets squeezed, we say, ‘Give the competition regulator every extra power that we possibly can and introduce schemes like FuelWatch so that you can transfer the power from the oil companies to the consumers’; they say, ‘Do nothing.’
Let us not pretend for a moment that the information is not made available at the moment. At the moment, through Informed Sources, the oil companies get the information. The oil companies and the petrol stations can log on and find out what the price of fuel is at different stations around the country, and yet, at the same time, those opposite do not want to give that same power to motorists. They took a long time to make up their minds and decide. Finally, they decided whether the information should be available to the petrol stations and the consumers or whether it should only be available to the petrol stations. They decided to keep a system that locks consumers out of the information equation. That is the path that the opposition have gone down. Of course, it is the opposition in this place that has that view, but it is certainly not the view of the Liberal Party around the country. You only have to look at the comments made by Barry O’Farrell to see the view of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. They quite sensibly came to a view and said: ‘This won’t be a be-all and end-all, but we should help where we can.’
The most telling point about how this scheme could work was when we asked the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make clear how her views differed from those of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. She responded across the dispatch box: ‘Oh, I’ll get to that later.’ Well, we did not realise that she meant she would get to it later—as in not during her speech, not during that day, not during that week. She did not get there at all, and the reason the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not get there at all is that when she goes home to Perth she gets to watch the news. She gets to watch the news and find out that consumers get told where the cheapest petrol prices will be the next day. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition gets provided with that information. Instead—
Mr Keenan interjecting
The great example now is that we have the member for Stirling interjecting across the table and wanting to offer the arguments that his deputy leader decided were not worth advancing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition gave a guarantee to the chamber that it will be explained to us why the position of the Liberal Party in this place is different from the position of the Liberal Party in WA, but she never told us how much later. I am looking forward to one day getting an explanation from the Western Australian members. We have had an explanation from one of the senators, who was very happy to provide that explanation, but certainly the deputy leader decided that at no point would that happen.
On all of those cost-of-living pressures that families are facing—that working families face, that Australians doing it tough face—the key issue remains: making sure that government policy does not contribute to the problems with respect to inflation. It is extraordinary to see how quickly they have been willing to throw their economic credibility away. What is left of the group that had previously wanted to claim economic credibility—and yet handed us the highest inflation rate for 16 years—now wants to blow a $22 billion hole in the surplus. People know exactly what that means. People know what a $22 billion hole in the surplus means. It is clear: the $22 billion hole in the surplus puts upward pressure on inflation, and that is what those opposite want to deliver. When it comes to it, they do not care about being able to provide downward pressure on inflation. When it comes to it, they have no interest in trying to provide power to consumers. When it comes to it, they still do not get the cost-of-living pressures and understand the cost-of-living pressures that families are facing in all parts of this nation, because their attitude is to still be the party of Work Choices. Their attitude is to still be a party that says, ‘You should earn less and, when it comes to cost-of-living pressures, we won’t care what gets done about it.’
You can tell that their hearts have not been in it from the moment the Leader of the Opposition decided to play his biggest card and then leave the room. He left the room. I challenge anyone to let me know when the last time was—
Opposition members interjecting—
that a Leader of the Opposition moved a censure motion and then left the chamber.
Mr Ciobo interjecting
Mr Pyne interjecting
There is going to be a vote. If they think their censure motion has disappeared from the debate entirely then they just do not understand it.
Mr Ciobo interjecting
Mr Pyne interjecting
Order! The member for Moncrieff and the member for Sturt are warned!
Now we hear those opposite desperately calling across the chamber asking for this debate to be brought to an end. At the end of a debate on a censure motion, they are actually calling for the debate to be brought to an end. They are calling and interjecting across the chamber now, saying, ‘It’s all over; let’s just end the debate.’ Those are the catcalls that are coming across the chamber right now. I can now see why the Leader of the Opposition decided to leave. The people here, his alleged frontbench, do not have any interest in the motion that he moved. He decided to leave. They are asking for the debate to be ended. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition decided to tell us what was in her speech and then make sure that she ran out of time before she got to defend any of it.
We have got a system here at the moment where the government are making sure that, where we can help, we do; where we can provide power to consumers, we will. The alternative from the members opposite is an agenda to blow a $22 million hole in the surplus.
The Labor Party conned the Australian people at the last election that they would establish a new culture of transparency—
Would the honourable member for Sturt resume his seat.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question put.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Rudd’s amendment) stand part of the question.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be inserted, be so inserted.
Question put:
That the motion (Dr Nelson’s), as amended, be agreed to.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to rise to speak to the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill 2008 because this bill really epitomises the Labor Party’s plans on how it is going to completely or virtually destroy private health insurance in this country. We know that the Labor Party has an ideological bent, and that is its profound belief in public health at the expense of all else. We know—and I notice that the Minister for Health and Ageing is in the chamber—that the Labor Party’s view is that, when it comes to health in Australia, the only system that should be embraced is the public health system. In many respects this particular bill underscores that ideological belief that drives the Labor Party.
Ms Roxon interjecting
I hear the minister for health interjecting about whether I am interested in health on the Gold Coast. Let me put on the record some very specific and pertinent facts about the Gold Coast for the minister for health. We are a city of 600,000 people that have a public health system groaning under the weight of that population. We have been the fastest-growing city for the last 25 years and we are anticipated to be the fastest-growing city for the next 30 years. I am happy to explain to the minister for health the situation on the ground on the Gold Coast. Only one week ago there was a lady who was forced to give birth on the floor in a storeroom in the Gold Coast Hospital. The minister for health will look at the Australian people and say that the proposal before the House today to drive one million extra people from private health into public health is going to fix that system.
I have a few more home truths for the minister for health. In this city of 600,000 the former coalition government had a very strong emphasis on making sure that there were opportunities for people to access health services, both privately and through the public system. One of the key measures that we introduced to make sure that people in the community had access to medical health was direct government assistance for after-hours medical care. We recognised that people do not always get sick between 9 am and 5 pm. People look to access health care outside of normal business hours. That is why the coalition had, as a very strong and key part of its focus, the desire to fund private GP clinics with additional funding so that members of the Gold Coast community could access those health centres.
The after-hours clinics, and in particular I would name but one GP clinic called Medcall, actually used those Commonwealth funds to provide after-hours care where the doctor would actually visit the patient. How is that for a health revolution? The doctor would visit the patient. I thought that this system was working well. It built on the coalition’s commitment in my own electorate, as well as my neighbouring electorates of Fadden and McPherson, to build two new medical schools on the Gold Coast. We were starting to make progress. Two new medical schools were being built to help solve the doctor shortage in a very meaningful and long-term way and additional funding was available to make sure that there was after-hours care available to Gold Coast residents.
Then the Labor Party came along and said, ‘We want to end the blame game.’ It was as though the Prime Minister had a piece of string coming out of his chest and when you pulled it he would say, ‘I believe in ending the blame game,’ and then you would pull it again: ‘I believe in ending the blame game.’ That was the sum total of Labor’s contribution, at the lead-up to the last federal election, on what they were proposing with health. They never unmasked their true plans, which the Minister for Health and Ageing has now done and which are encapsulated in the bill before the House today.
We know that only two weeks ago when a woman in my city was giving birth on the floor of a storeroom in the public hospital—where the public hospital is on bypass virtually more often than it is actually accepting patients through the emergency ward—we had the Labor Party stand up and say, ‘We believe the way to help solve this problem is through GP superclinics.’ How interesting that, with the rollout of 31 GP superclinics across Australia, not a single one was delivered for the Gold Coast—a city of 600,000 people did not receive a single GP superclinic. The GP superclinics, I remind the House, were Labor’s solution for people being able to access health care.
To compound the problem, not only did the Labor Party not fund a GP superclinic on the Gold Coast but they cut funding of after-hours medical care, and now public patients on the Gold Coast who are, for example, injured in the workplace or a car accident or require medical care no longer have the option of seeking after-hours medical care. They no longer have any chance of realising a GP superclinic, as the Labor Party promised. To make matters worse, they now have to fall back on the public health system, which, thanks to the bill that is before the House today, will have an extra million people from the private system pushed onto it. That is Labor’s brilliant plan.
The Minister for Health and Ageing dares to challenge me about whether or not I will support public patients on the Gold Coast. The minister dares to question my commitment to Gold Coasters by asking why I do not want to see them being forced to use the Gold Coast public hospital. It is because the social engineers that sit on the government front bench, who are completely and profoundly blind and driven by ideology, are so focused on their so-called public health utopia that they fail to recognise that they are destroying public health in this country with their ideological obsession. It just so happens that perhaps the clearest case in point is the city of 600,000 people that I represent.
I say to the minister for health: ‘Don’t you come in here and lecture me about public health.’ I say to the Rudd Labor government: ‘Don’t you dare lecture the 600,000 people on the Gold Coast about how your plans for health are going to be an improvement,’ when the only thing that they will be realising is that they will lose after-hours GP clinics, they will not get a GP superclinic and they will be forced to use the public hospital, which cannot cope with current demand let alone the million extra people who are going to be driven from the private system to the public system, thanks to the bill currently before this chamber.
I think it is time that the Labor Party seriously considered what it is doing. In its pursuit of ideology, it is clear that the inroads and the important steps that the coalition made over the last 11 years are being completely eroded. The coalition stand for one very clear principle: it is the right of all Australians to have choice when it comes to their healthcare needs. It is the right of all Australians to choose between whether they would like to use the public system or whether they would like to seek private medical insurance.
In many respects, it is interesting to have a look at the passage of time and the way in which social trends have been influenced by government policy. In the early 1970s about 90 per cent of the Australian population were covered in some form by private medical insurance. Then we had the great Labor icon Gough Whitlam. He decreed that public health should be universal so that millionaires could use the public health system and be subsidised by taxpayers. After that great Labor icon Gough Whitlam went about tinkering with Australia’s health system, we saw private health insurance rates plummet to basically an all-time low of about 33 per cent at the end of the Hawke-Keating era. So we went from about 90 per cent of people having private health coverage to about 33 per cent.
What was the consequence of that? We had so many Australians reliant on the public health system but it did not matter to the Labor Party whether they could pay their own way or not. It did not matter that you could have a millionaire lining up beside an Aussie battler on $30,000 a year, both seeking to use the same public health service. As a result, our public system started to collapse under the sheer weight of numbers. That is the reason why the former coalition government took the very considered and deliberate action of providing an incentive for Australians to utilise private health.
A key part of doing that was not just the 30 per cent rebate on private medical insurance and the introduction of community rating in private health insurance but also the fact that we introduced the Medicare levy surcharge. When the coalition introduced this policy, we took the view that if you earned over $50,000 you were in a situation where you could afford to make a contribution to your private health. And, in making that contribution, we wanted to make sure that people still had the choice of utilising it or not. If they chose not to take out private medical cover, they could remain in the public system but they would be charged an additional Medicare levy. We on this side of the House know—as much as the Labor Party is driven by and blinded by ideology to have one universal public health system, and that is it—that without that additional surcharge the public system will groan and strain under the sheer weight of numbers. That is why that policy was introduced.
With the bill that is before the House today, the Labor Party has now changed and moved the goalposts, so much so that on Treasury’s own forecasts, according to the budget, we are going to see 485,000 taxpayers—and I emphasise the word ‘taxpayers’—shift from private health back into the public system. I notice the parliamentary secretary at the table nodding in furious agreement. We now see that 485,000 taxpayers will move from the private system to the public system, and the Labor Party is happy about that. So now we will see—according to the private medical insurers, who have done their research—that those 485,000 taxpayers actually equate, when you start to take into account family units and so on, to nearly a million Australians making the transition from the private medical system to the public health system.
Mr Gray interjecting
I notice the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia saying that it is about exercising choice. Let us put this in another perspective. Is it fair for those who cannot afford to exercise choice to have to wait in a public hospital room for emergency treatment for seven or eight hours because they do not have a choice? Is it fair for someone who earns $30,000 a year and might have two kids to have to line up in a public hospital room and wait for seven or eight hours to get access to public services? Is that a fair choice? Or is it fairer that those who earn significantly higher incomes than the Australian average should be given incentive to take out private medical cover? That to me is a much more sane and logical public health policy than the bill that is before the House today.
What the Labor Party say is that they want to take away any incentive that exists, basically, for private medical cover. So I ask the parliamentary secretary: is it fair that someone who cannot afford private medical cover should have to give birth on the floor of a storeroom in a public hospital? Is that fair? Is it fair that a woman who is having a miscarriage should have to do that in a public toilet at the Royal North Shore Hospital because they are so understaffed that they do not have a situation in which they can tend to that woman’s miscarriage? Is that fair on that woman? Is it fair that they should have to suffer that kind of trauma?
The reality is that we have seen wholesale failure by the Labor Party when it comes to public health. Again, there is no clearer example of the kind of failure that we see by the Labor Party than what exists in the Queensland health system. The Labor Party has been in power in Queensland for over a decade. And what have we seen over that period? We have seen the Queensland public health system basically collapse. It is a disgrace that in a modern-day country like Australia we should be laboured with the kind of public health system that we see in Queensland or indeed in New South Wales. That is a reflection of a decade of state Labor government ideology, the same ideology that permeates the front bench of this government and that, I believe, is in the longer term basically going to destroy any public confidence that still exists in the public health system.
So I suggest to members opposite that they do not lecture us about choice. They might like to go out to their electorates in Western Sydney, western Melbourne, the south side of Brisbane and to places like Nerang on the Gold Coast and explain to those who cannot afford the luxury of choice why they should have to line up in a public hospital for five, six or seven hours alongside someone who could not only afford to be in the private system but should be given the incentive to be in the private system. I would also like the Labor Party, while they are at it, to explain why it is that, when the Labor Party solution is a GP superclinic, a city of 600,000 people is not getting one. To make it worse and to rub salt into the wound, not only are they denying 600,000 people a GP superclinic but they are cutting after-hours medical funding. That is what the Labor Party’s plan is for public health.
I cannot believe—and I find it galling—that the Minister for Health and Ageing came into this chamber at the start of this debate and questioned my commitment to public health on the Gold Coast. So I say to those Labor members opposite that they need to have a good long hard look at themselves. Do not stand up and say to the Australian people that this bill that drives a million people from the private system back into the public health system at a time when our public health system cannot cope with the demand that is already on it is in some way going to be beneficial. I am yet to hear a single speaker from the Labor Party stand up and explain how the public health system is going to cope with a million extra people.
When I hear a Labor member stand at the dispatch box or in their place and say that there is so much capacity in the public health system that they can accommodate a million extra people, then I will start to take them seriously. But none of them say it because they know the truth—that a woman having a miscarriage in a toilet in a public hospital foyer, a woman giving birth on the floor of a storeroom in the Gold Coast Hospital and emergency rooms being put on bypass basically as often as they are accepting patients are signs that our public health system is in crisis. Under the former government, when the coalition were in power, we were looking about doing something to improve that situation—
Mr Gray interjecting
We did a lot of things. We took policy initiatives to make sure that we did improve it. We did that by making sure there was incentive for those who could afford to pay to go into private medical insurance, and the proof is in the pudding, more importantly. When the former government took over in 1996 about 32 per cent of the population had private medical insurance. When the former government left office the figure was about 50 per cent of the population. So our policies had a real impact. What is more, under the Australian healthcare agreements that the former government negotiated with the state Labor governments, we saw record funding flying from the Commonwealth government to the state governments.
Under the coalition there was record health funding, a massively significant increase in the number of Australians who had private medical cover and increased incentive for those who were on the margin of whether they could afford private medical cover, by giving them a 30 per cent rebate. Now we have the new Rudd Labor government, and one of its first acts is to rip the carpet out from underneath all of those incentives and, in a perverse way, to proudly stand up and say, ‘Oh, yes, we know that the bill before the House, this policy initiative, is going to put even more strain back on the public system.’
It is extraordinary that such a short-sighted and ideologically driven policy would be implemented by a government at a time when our public health system is in crisis. And it is extraordinary that even in this debate I have had the minister for health and the parliamentary secretary at the table challenge assertions that are based on fact. They are not based on ideology and not based on a mistaken belief but based on fact: the fact that our public health system cannot cope at the moment—and they want to inject a million more people into it—and the fact that under the coalition private health insurance went from the low 30s to nearly 50 per cent of the population.
This Labor policy is now going to reverse that. The fact is that, at every state level, the state Labor governments, which have been in power for over a decade, have seen a revolving door of employment as doctors leave the private sector, come into the public system, work there for about six months, have enough of it and then leave it again. The state Labor governments say, ‘We don’t understand what’s wrong.’ Let me explain to the Labor Party what is wrong with their policies. Having massive numbers of patients, so that people wait six, seven or eight hours in public hospitals, is not great for doctors’ motivation. Having doctors, along with the auxiliary staff of nurses and others, work in a public system under so much pressure, faced with people who are angry—because not only are they sick but they have been forced to wait for seven hours—is not good for morale. That is the reason it is a revolving door of employment not only in Queensland but also in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Each of these state health systems is a reflection of a decade of state Labor administration. Now, because we have a pull-a-string Prime Minister—when you pull the string, he says, ‘I want to end the blame game,’ and that is the extent of it—we are faced with a situation where it is going to get even worse.
I rise to speak in favour of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill 2008. Labor has always accepted and supported a balance between public and private when it comes to delivering hospital services, GP services, specialist services and other services. It is a balance that traditionally has cut the cost of health care in our country by delivering excellent health care of a very high quality. Over the years, we have been able to lower the cost and deliver a better service than those generally available in countries to which we like to compare ourselves: the US, the UK and Canada. It is a great achievement. It is an achievement that has been arrived at through a system that blends public and private.
Let me put a bit of history on the record to provide a bit of context. In the early 1980s, Labor was elected to power on a promise to deliver Medicare. It was a promise which Labor delivered because we said we would do it. This is a concept foreign to those opposite, but it is what we do. A system was created that won not only massive support but also, inevitably, the opprobrium, the hatred, of those opposite. At the 1984 federal election, the Liberals opposed Medicare. Andrew Peacock campaigned up and down the country to oppose Medicare, to rub it out. At the 1987 election, the then leader, John Howard, did the same thing: he campaigned up and down the country to get rid of Medicare. At the 1990 election, we were back to Andrew Peacock. He campaigned up and down the country to get rid of Medicare. At the 1993 election, John Hewson campaigned to get rid of Medicare.
Suddenly, by 1996, the new leader of the Liberal Party—that is, the old leader of the Liberal Party—had achieved a status that those opposite have failed to understand. John Howard understood the importance of trial and error learning. By 1996 he made a commitment. Astonishingly for the Liberal Party, they funded radio ads in all markets across our country, telling us that the Liberals in 1996 would support Medicare, telling us that Medicare would not be changed and telling us that the position of the then opposition and the then government on Medicare was identical. Why did he do that? He did that because Medicare was held in high regard by the Australian community and by the OECD. By any international comparison, healthcare delivery costs in Australia were substantially lower than those in other comparable OECD economies—and they were not just lower cost; they were actually a better service.
Policy experts—Professor Deeble and Professor Swerissen—all argued for the integrity of the Medicare system. After 13 years of opposing Medicare in opposition, the then Leader of the Opposition sought to neutralise the issue by saying there was no difference between the then opposition and the government. But he planned to damage Medicare through insurance, through a tax. How? Through the surcharge. Let me explain. The surcharge was put in place to drive people, by tax, into private health insurance. In so doing, he also shifted funding from the public sector into the health insurance sector. It was not about healthcare delivery; it was actually about insurance companies.
Earlier today, we had hours of the parliament’s time taken up while those opposite argued for the big oil companies. Now we see the arguments for the big insurance companies. It is not an argument about health care; it is an argument about the health insurance companies. Let me tell you: they are big enough to look after themselves.
While you are in bed with the insurance companies, look at who else you are in bed with: the AMA. The last time the AMA engaged in political processes in my home state of Western Australia, it was under the guise of Liberals for Forests. They did that in the guise of Liberals for Forests because they did not like the then position of the coalition government. You need to pay more attention to the people you are in bed with: health insurance companies and the AMA. No wonder you all look tired. No wonder you cannot sleep.
This bill has been attacked by those opposite, but it is good public policy. It is policy to remove a tax trap that was catching hundreds of thousands of Australians, particularly many thousands of Australians who did not earn the average wage. We pursue a balance in public policy and health care—a mix between public and private.
Former health minister Michael Wooldridge had some very strong points. On medical research, he is simply outstanding. I believe he also understood when he introduced the surcharge that it should have been indexed to wage movements. But it was not because those opposite saw a cash cow that had to be driven into the hands of the private health insurance companies.
Let me explain how that works. Those opposite talk about a million people being driven into the public hospital system. You know full well that that million people are younger Australians. You know full well that that younger cohort generally has less need for high-cost healthcare measures. Some have specific needs, and they need to be looked after, but in general the younger, healthier cohort does not need the kind of health insurance which is offered at such high cost. So if they make the choice to opt out of that health insurance, they make that choice in an informed and understanding way. The problem with the tax, which those opposite support, is that it drives young people into private health insurance. Of course it will. We on our side of the House have always argued that human behaviours can be changed by tax. We would like them changed for the better. That is why we will introduce legislation and take measures to increase tax on highly alcoholic drinks that are drunk by younger people. Tax drives behaviours.
In this context those opposite want to use tax to drive healthy young people into a product which otherwise they do not need—private health insurance. They want to use healthy young Australians simply as cash cows. There will not be a tsunami of people descending into public hospitals. Those opposite know that. The healthy insured certainly know that because they are the cash cows. They do not use the system that they are being asked or forced to pay for under this ridiculous and punitive tax surcharge. In 1997 when it was introduced it was intended to get high-income earners into private insurance. It was to drive them into private insurance through the surcharge. The choice: insure or pay the tax.
You would have expected it to be indexed. It was not. We propose through this bill to effectively restore the intent that the former government had when it introduced the levy in 1997. So this bill will increase the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds for individuals and families. It will shift the threshold because that is the answer to bracket creep. The Medicare levy surcharge imposes a one per cent increase in Medicare levy liability on certain individuals who do not have appropriate private patient hospital cover. If we do nothing for the 2007-08 income year, individuals with taxable incomes over $50,000 and couples with a combined income of $100,000 may well be liable for that surcharge. Those opposite think that is fair. The government does not.
This bill increases the threshold to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples and families. It is reasonable. It is thoughtful. It is good public policy, and it is a reasonable threshold. The Medicare levy surcharge imposes an additional one per cent Medicare levy on taxpayers who do not have private patient hospital cover. When the Medicare levy surcharge was introduced the policy at the time was targeted at high-income earners. At the time the then health minister, Michael Wooldridge, said:
High-income earners will be asked to pay a Medicare levy surcharge if they do not have private health insurance. These are people who can afford to purchase health insurance.
Shortly afterwards, Australians paid hundreds of millions of dollars into private health insurance. The government at that time then launched a massive advertising campaign to back up the stick which it had introduced with advertising. So it was not just a carrot and a stick; it was all stick—a punitive tax measure matched up with a massive barrage of television advertising.
But the income thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge have not been increased since 1997, and since 1997 of course average weekly earnings have increased significantly. This measure simply increases the thresholds to an income level around that which originally applied in 1997. That is to say, if the original levels had been indexed, it is fair. In his address in reply to the budget the honourable Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, addressed a whole part of his budget speech to the issue of bracket creep. He said:
We know that, as incomes rise over time and workers move into higher tax brackets, the value of today’s tax cuts will be eroded in the future. Economists call it ‘bracket creep’. We call it tax increases on the sly.
Those opposite do not refer to their current measures to keep this tax in place as a ‘tax on the sly’. Of course they do not. They think that it is about standing up for people who need hospital care. It is not. It is standing up for the private health insurers in the same way as those opposite have been standing up for big oil companies.
What the honourable Leader of the Opposition has ignored in this debate is that more and more people on average wages have also been required to pay the Medicare surcharge. Bracket creep has done massive financial damage to Australian families who have been struggling under the burden of higher food prices, higher cost of living and interest rate increases and a former government which did not seem to understand that relieving pressure on the family budget was a reasonable and proper thing to do. To put this into perspective, around eight per cent of single taxpayers are estimated to have exceeded the Medicare levy surcharge threshold in 1997-98 when it was introduced. Under the changes announced in this budget, the proportion will be restored to around 8½ per cent. At the end of the forward estimates a single taxpayer is likely to exceed the new singles threshold in years 3 to 4, which is eight per cent in 1997 and eight per cent in 2008. If we did not act, the proportion would be much closer to 50 per cent. So by acting we make the proportion close to 8½ per cent; by not acting—by doing what those opposite wish us to do—it would be 50 per cent.
The increase in the threshold will help reduce financial pressure on many working families who have previously been subject to the Medicare levy surcharge. And yet we still support the public-private reality and the same relativity that has been established a decade ago.
We often hear that the Liberals are the party of choice. We heard that repeatedly from the previous speaker. I would have thought that the party of choice would support lifting a tax on people who are not high-income earners that is designed to force them into certain behaviour. People on $50,000 a year should have a choice about how they spend their money and not be taxed because of an ideological policy. Those on the government side have been accused of having ideology in this debate. Those opposite have the ideology and the baggage, and simply read from the script prepared by the AMA and the private health insurers. People should have a choice: there should be a choice as to whether they are insured or not and a choice between the insurers that they select. This measure does provide real choice. Taxpayers can choose whether to take out private health insurance without the imposition of higher penalty rates unless they are on high incomes.
The amendments that we propose today will apply to the years 2008 and 2009, and later income years. Full details of the measures are of course contained in the explanatory memorandum. But the detail of the bill is only part of the story. The real story is that those on the government side are acting to restore not just choice to families in Australia but to lift a financial burden from Australian families. Those opposite are acting in the interests of big insurance companies, the AMA and, frankly, themselves. A curious alignment has taken place in this House: after one debate that ran for the better part of four hours, where the interests of big oil companies were put front and centre, the next debate is a debate where those opposite put the interests of big insurance companies. It makes you wonder what will come next. Where stand the rights and interests of ordinary Australians in the face of an opposition that has not just lost its way but also its sense of decency? It is an opposition which does not care about the interests of a viable healthcare system, mixing a balance of public and private, delivering high levels of excellent service and delivering to ordinary Australian families. No, it is a debate which is actually about the interests of big insurers. I commend the bill to the House.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question put.
Original question put.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question put.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the First Home Saver Accounts Bill 2008 and associated bills and, in doing so, to make some remarks on the very important subject of housing affordability. The opposition will be supporting these bills, while placing on record our view that they will not be as effective as the government anticipates. In response to the housing affordability crisis, the Prime Minister has proposed three measures: a Housing Affordability Fund, a National Rental Affordability Scheme and this one, the first home saver account.
Both the Productivity Commission and the Reserve Bank of Australia have recognised the difference between the demand and supply sides of the housing equation. The danger with demand side policies is that they are likely to be capitalised into higher house prices, giving people more money to spend in an already tight market. So if you act on the demand side, you need to act very vigorously in the environment we are in on the supply side. Regarding the supply side, the Reserve Bank of Australia said that efforts to improve housing affordability should be focused on policies regarding land use and improving efficiency in the supply of land and housing. The Treasurer’s response reminds me of a story. The story is told of a local police force that was chasing a criminal who had fled into a large, disused building. Their first thought was to surround the building, but they soon realised that it was too large, with too many windows and doors, and they did not have enough police to cover the exits. Instead, they surrounded the building next door, which was much smaller and had fewer exits. The government is not doing the main thing that it needs to do to address the problem with housing affordability in this country today; something that would address the supply shortage would be the most effective. Instead, this measure that Mr Swan has proposed will in all likelihood increase demand if it does what the government tells us it will. It will send more young people into the housing market to compete with everyone else for the already constrained stock of houses.
Just on that point, it is disingenuous of the Treasurer to say in his second reading speech that, for example, a couple—each earning average incomes, both putting aside 10 per cent of their income et cetera—would be able to save more than $88,000 after five years. That may well be true, but it is the government contributing in a small way to that, it is not a government creating that $88,000. The main thing that would create that saving is a change in mentality and a change in the culture of saving. Because we need a change in the culture of savings, we are supporting the bill. Any small measure that will encourage young people to save is to be supported.
We are underbuilding in Australia by 30,000 dwellings a year. The evidence is that the cost of land on the fringe of cities is much higher than it should be. The price to enter the property market has increased from roughly four times the average wage to seven times the average wage over the past decade. Thousands of young Australians are now denied the chance of ever owning their own home. Menzies said one of the best instincts within us is to build a home and bequeath it to our children, to have a little piece of ground into which we can retreat that we can call our own. In Australia our heritage is very much tied to the quarter-acre block and government policies that allowed a small population in a big country earning a modest wage to own their own affordable home. Make no mistake, government ministers, people from overseas laugh at us: ‘What? You’ve got a country this size, you’ve got 20 million people and you can’t find enough room to build an entry-level home for a first home buyer? What is wrong with you!’ Do we really believe that half a generation of Australians will never be happy to own their own home, as we in the baby boomer generation sit here with our high records of home ownership? We have a responsibility to fix this. People are used to listening to governments and oppositions talk about the problem. Sometimes I think we get too good at describing the problem, and I am sure that the Minister for Housing would describe it in similar terms.
I now move to the details of this bill. The explanatory memorandum says that it is:
… a simple, tax effective way for Australians to save for the purchase of their first home … through a combination of low taxes and Government contributions.
A government contribution is applied for up to $5,000 of personal contributions into an account in a financial year, 17 per cent for all individuals and a total cap on accounts of $75,000. I congratulate the government for listening to the opposition when we said that the government contribution should certainly not be twice as much for high-income earners as was in the original proposal. But I do note that we are already three months late with this, and I call on the Treasurer to guarantee that these accounts will be open on 1 October and to release modelling and research indicating how well they are being taken up.
As I said, we approve of the savings culture. Anything that encourages young people to save must be applauded. But in order for this measure to have its intended effect, it must be taken up by those it is aimed at—first home buyers. It must be offered by sufficient financial institutions so as to give consumers opportunity and choice. It must not distort the housing market—in other words, making houses more expensive than they otherwise would be without this measure and without sufficient additions to the supply of housing. And it must be cost-effective in its implementation and administration. We need to be careful that we do not create armies of people with clipboards and blow out our public service salaries.
But if we look at the proposal from the perspective of first home buyers, accounts belong to individuals and it is the individual’s home ownership status that matters, not that of their spouse. So if your spouse owns a home in his or her name and you have never owned a home in your name, you are entitled to open a first home saver account. You are entitled to withdraw the money after four years, during which you contribute a total of $70,750 and the government contributes $4,250. You then need to live in the house for six months within the first 12 months of purchase. You may not be the struggling first home buyer that this bill is trying to help, but you have accessed $4,250 of taxpayers’ money to help you on your way. I think we could have tightened up the eligibility criteria in that area.
I sound this note of caution, not because I believe that people on higher incomes should not have the opportunity to access this account but to remind the government of who they are trying to help and who may not need the assistance of fellow taxpayers quite so much. Remember: the first home saver account will be transformed into a product by our friends in the financial services industry. It will form part of a range of investment strategies. It will be incorporated into tax planning, retirement planning and the best way to manage your money—all good up to a point, but I remind the Treasurer that the more people who are not struggling first home buyers who are assisted by this measure or who use this measure for tax planning purposes, the worse the policy is. If it acts by putting further pressure on an already frighteningly low stock of housing supply, it is failing the Australians who need its help.
Back to the operative provisions of the bill: I must make a contribution of $1,000 in four financial years. The government will provide a contribution of 17 per cent of what I pay in, up to a maximum of $5,000, which equates to a maximum government contribution in any year of $850. So that is 17 per cent; $850 a year. It is not an automatic government contribution. For example, if you only saved $1,000—and for some young people, my gosh, that is difficult!—you would get $150 from the government. You must wait a minimum of four years before you can access your money for a deposit on a first home. In fact, it will be longer, because you have to wait till the end of the financial year in which you make your final contribution and you lodge your tax return for that year, before the commissioner processes your tax return and is given 60 days after receiving both the income tax return and the first home saver account contribution statement from the account provider. It is a long way in. What if your plans change? How easily can you access your money? Not very easily at all. In fact, I cannot withdraw the money even with a penalty. I think it was the consumer organisation Choice who recommended that you be able to take your money out if you wanted to. Yes, you could give up the tax advantage that you have had, but you should be able to take your money out. Well, you cannot. The only thing you can do is transfer your balance to superannuation and then rely on the early release provisions, and we all know how complex and inflexible they are.
Payments can only be made to purchase a first home if personal contributions of at least $1,000 have been made in respect of the first home saver account holder in each of at least four financial years. I refer again to page 19 of the explanatory memorandum. But what if I am in a position to contribute $10,000 one year and zero the next? Maybe my job is one of the 134,000 Mr Rudd says will be lost over the next 18 months. It appears that I then do not meet the criteria. Do I forfeit the right to the money I have deposited, so that it gets rolled into superannuation and I have to battle with the trustee to get it out or wait until I retire? Make no mistake; there is considerable inflexibility surrounding these accounts. It is an area that I have concerns with. Also, I have not seen enough in there to indicate what happens if joint account holders separate. What happens in the case of family breakdown? I think there might be some nasty tax twists if that does happen.
The level of financial literacy among young people is low. ABACUS, in its submission to Treasury, raised this concern. They said it would be unfortunate if the standing of the First Home Saver Account policy came to be tarnished by evidence that large numbers of young Australians had stumbled unwittingly into these products that had gone backwards in capital value terms, exacerbating for them the very disadvantage that the First Home Saver Account policy was designed to address. This might happen if deposits are made into these accounts which cannot be withdrawn and which have low earnings. Remember that the bank is setting the earnings rate on the accounts. Through no fault of the depositor, they cannot keep up with this requirement of $1,000 for four years. The depositor struggles, the account stalls and the holder is left much worse off than if they had just used an ordinary savings account or had scraped together the money for a home deposit on day one. If the first home saver account is offered by a registrable superannuation entity—for example, a life insurer or a friendly society—and the product is investment linked, it is not capital guaranteed. I say to the Treasurer: these should not be a vehicle for the first home saver account. An ordinary, plain, simple deposit account, capital guaranteed in a financial institution, would work in the sense that you want it to work, but I do not think that superannuation entities with investment linked funds should be offering these accounts. We all know that your superannuation can go backwards. It is a long-term investment and this is a short-term exercise.
As I said, you may well be better off saving for your deposit, making the deposit and not putting your money into the account. The Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability has heard a great deal of evidence on this subject in the last few weeks, and the transcript makes very good reading. Organisations have expressed the view that the savings plan could be outstripped by price rises, so, by entering into a first home saver account, you are in fact worse off than if you had put the money up-front, because your house price would have increased by more than your earnings and the government co-contribution. In terms of those who would provide these accounts, I note that there has not been a stampede of financial institutions rushing forward and putting up their hands. I am sure there will be one or two by 1 October, three months after the due starting date, but there needs to be many providers in order to offer a robust product that competes well in the marketplace and gives the best value to consumers. On that subject, I will say that the portability between first home saver accounts needs to be sorted out, because, in line with the Treasurer’s statements about portability of your home mortgage account, this has not responded to consumer concerns. I make the point that, for any financial institution, there are quite a few hoops to jump through with this legislation. ADIs and life insurance companies must, of course, notify APRA before they offer first home saver accounts. They must obtain relevant licences and, in many cases, establish whole separate trusts. Financial institutions need to keep detailed records, because earnings are taxed to the account provider at 15 per cent, rather than to the individual account holder. This means more detailed reporting requirements, particularly to the Commissioner for Taxation, who administers the government co-contribution.
This leads me to the next point: to remind the House that this is a measure targeting the demand side of the housing equation. It does nothing for the supply side. What is the most popular consumer item for sale in Australia today? It is a plasma TV. In 2001, a plasma TV cost $16,000. By 2003, the cost of a plasma TV had gone down to between $12,000 and $14,000. Today, I ring up my local Harvey Norman and I can get the same plasma TV for $1,500. There is a very high demand for plasma TVs, but we have kept up with the supply and that has made the difference. It has not meant a tightening of demand whereby I cannot get my plasma TV. We also need to mention cost and compliance. The Commissioner of Taxation is required to undertake the compliance work. I think that might be considerable, given that you only need to live in the house for six months after its purchase or construction. I am not sure how that gets monitored and audited by the ATO, but we need to know what the cost will be to administer that part of the scheme.
I believe that serious concerns were raised during the public consultation process for the first home saver accounts and that these have not been addressed. If young people ignore this product, there is no harm done, but, as I said, if they are trapped into putting what little money they have into an account that does not help them save for their first home then this will be a tangible example of this government failing to make the tough decisions that would ease the mortgage pain for families. There will be no opposition to this bill for opposition’s sake, but I remind Mr Rudd that everything we do in connection with his announcements about reducing petrol, mortgage and grocery costs and easing the squeeze on the family budget will be aimed at one thing: to hold him to account for the false dawn he has promised Australian families. We do not want to give up on the great Australian dream of owning your own home, and we have a responsibility to future generations of Australians not to give up on that dream for them.
Order! It being approximately 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
On indulgence and for the benefit of honourable members: it is proposed that after question time the MPI debate will not be proceeded with. We will proceed with the introduction of the notices of motion for bills. There are 16 of those—15 with notice and one without notice. Parliament will continue to sit until such time as those bills have been introduced, but certainly it is the intention of the government to ensure that there are no votes held this afternoon because of the function for Stewart McArthur that a number of the opposition members have to attend. That is why the Medicare bill was brought forward for debate prior to question time. On behalf of the government, I pass on our best wishes to Stewie. Certainly we have attempted to cooperate in the interests of opposition members.
I also want to give members a bit of notice for next week. It is the government’s intention to ensure that all our budget bills are passed in this sitting fortnight, and it can be anticipated that the parliament will be sitting late on Tuesday night. We hope to sit late earlier in the week rather than later in the week, as people often have plans towards the end of the week. I will certainly update members as we go through. I thank all members of the House for their cooperation.
I inform the House that the Minister for Sport and Minister for Youth will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions regarding sport. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions regarding youth on her behalf. Furthermore, the Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. As discussed and agreed between myself and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I will be leaving for Sydney not long after 3 pm to attend the world congress of FIFA to put Australia’s case for hosting the 2018 World Cup.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the chairman of the ACCC, who stated this morning that FuelWatch may result possibly in higher prices?
If we go to exactly what Mr Samuel said today on ABC radio 774 with Ali Moore this morning, he said:
FuelWatch will not in our view lead to an increase in prices. It will, based on our analysis of the Perth situation, lead to a statistically significant reduction in prices. But there is a far more important element of FuelWatch—it is about giving consumers the power to determine when to buy petrol and where to buy it at the lowest possible price.
The choice in this House is very simple: either we vote for additional information to be provided to Australian motorists and consumers or we vote for a cosy, continuing deal with big oil companies.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the impact that rising global oil prices are having on Australian motorists? What is the government’s response, and are there any obstacles to that response?
Look around the world today. We are confronting the full dimensions of the global oil crisis, which has seen global oil prices go up by 400 per cent since the Iraq war. As we know, the Iraq war of itself represented an enormous impediment to the successful continued flow of oil onto the global market. But it is just one element. There are other supply-side factors, including supply-side constraints in Nigeria and huge demand-side challenges which come from the rise of China and the rise of India. With the Indian economy booming, you are going to have another one million-plus Indian motor vehicles on the road each year. Look at the rise of China and the projections out from where China was just a few years ago onto 2010, 2020 and beyond, and the total proportion of world oil consumption which China will represent is a huge new demand factor in overall global oil prices. China’s global energy demand means that we also see, through Australia’s resources boom in the coal sector and the resources sector more generally, that that demand is leading to an acceleration of our own terms of trade. On the question of supply and demand, the other responses which are important in terms of global oil deal with what we are going to do in terms of alternative fuels into the future. This government is embracing that as a strategy for the future through work being done by several of my ministerial colleagues.
On the question of fuel-efficient cars, Australia needs its own manufactured hybrid car. That is why we have put money through a half billion dollar green car fund to assist Australian motor vehicle manufacturing to bring onto the streets of Australia our own hybrid car so that Australian consumers can go out there and buy with confidence, knowing they are supporting Australian manufacturing jobs when they buy that vehicle and at the same time contributing to a better outcome for themselves in terms of what they pay at the bowser, not to mention a better outcome in terms of the environment.
Beyond these measures—how we deal with the demand-side and supply-side factors, how we deal with alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient cars—is the great challenge of public transport investment. Historically the government which has preceded us has said, ‘That this is not our zone; we don’t go there.’ In fact they have said that this is exclusively a responsibility for the states. We have said the reverse. If you look at urban congestion in the major cities of Australia up the east coast—in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne—and the fact that we still, in the 21st century, do not even have the beginnings of anything that looks like a comprehensive metro system in these large cities, surely that is an indictment on us all that we have failed to act. We are facing gridlock in Sydney, gridlock in Melbourne, gridlock in Adelaide and gridlock in Brisbane and in other cities because of this: an absence of effective measures to deal with public transport. That is why we have, in part, a Building Australia Fund: so that we can investigate these sorts of proposals for the future and, if they pass muster, to get behind them to get people out of cars, into decent public transport and to work on time so that they can also contribute to the overall challenge of reducing demand on global oil.
Of course, the other thing which governments can do is to make sure that the family budget is assisted to the greatest extent possible. What we have done through this budget is to make sure that through the tax measures, through the childcare tax rebate and through the education tax rebates that we are providing, we are also delivering extra dollars into the family budget each week. Let me give you one example: a family of four with a combined income of $87,000, one full-time worker $60,000, one part-time $27,000, two kids, one in child care and one at school. What do they get as a consequence of the budget that we have just passed?
What about cars?
I will come to the cars question in a minute. It is worth actually calculating the quantum here. Through the tax cuts, a family of that nature—that is, with a $60,000 full-time worker and $27,000 part-time worker and two kids, one in child care and one in school—are delivered an amount equalling $1,050 per year for the 2008-09 year, that is $20.19 a week. That is the first thing. The second thing is that the childcare rebate delivers $1,255 for the year, $24 .13 a week, and the education tax rebate $375 per year. Add those together and that is $2,680 a year in extra disposable income delivered by the measures which have been introduced through this budget. That is what we mean by practical assistance to the family budget to assist them in dealing with all the challenges coming about through increase in the price of petrol, increase in rents, increase in mortgages, increase in grocery prices and the rest. That adds up to an extra $52 per week.
What have those opposite offered in this respect? If you are to believe that those opposite are serious about their policy on excise, given that the member for Wentworth has said he cannot guarantee that they would actually implement this policy if they were elected at the next election, on 30 litres being consumed a week that means you are adding $1.50 extra per week to the family budget, in contrast with $52 per week that we are delivering through these budget measures. Can I say that at the end of the day it is one family budget and the question is: where do you find the extra disposable income to help on these critical cost of living pressures? That is what shapes so much of our determination in this budget to make sure that we could deliver extra to the budget table. In the bill currently before this House, which I think has just been voted on, the Medicare levy surcharge alone assists families in the bracket of $50,000 to $100,000, who are currently regarded by those opposite as high income earners, because that was the basis on which it was established—high income earners. We do not have that view and we think it is better that we allow those individuals to have some choice when it comes to how their precious family budget dollars are spent.
So through the tax measures, the education tax refund, the childcare tax rebate and the measures which have just gone through the House of Representatives on the Medicare levy surcharge, we deliver extra real dollars to the family budget. It is $52 per week extra based on the cameo I referred to before against $1.50 a week extra on the basis of the excise promise which those opposite do not have sufficient confidence to say to the parliament they would actually deliver when they are in government.
I conclude on this: at the end of the day it is about responsible economic management, and responsible economic management means that, if you are putting downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates, you have got to deliver a decent budget surplus. We have done that with a $22 billion surplus. Those opposite have conducted a $22 billion raid on the surplus, and what that is going to produce is upward pressure on inflation, upward pressure on interest rates and therefore upward pressure on prices when it comes to those in the Australian economy currently doing it tough.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you rule out a cut in the petrol excise?
First of all, I ask those opposite to commit to whether they will rule in a cut to the excise, given their position—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Those on my left will come to order.
that the member for Wentworth refuses to commit to honouring the commitment publicly given by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition says, ‘I’m going to give you a 5c cut in the excise on petrol.’ The member for Wentworth gets asked, I seem to recall, at the National Press Club and says that he won’t give that commitment.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Simple question, simple answer: will you rule out a cut in petrol excise?
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister.
We have made it clear through the statement delivered by the Treasurer and by the Assistant Treasurer that when it comes to the Henry commission of inquiry into tax, income support and retirement income, they will of course consider the GST implications which flow from excise, and we will await the outcome of that report.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the Select Committee on Maori Affairs of New Zealand. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. I thank them for not carrying out their threat of chanting, ‘Off, off, off,’ as a rugby crowd would to a referee.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. With the international price of oil at record highs, how does the government’s FuelWatch plan stack up against any alternative promises?
I thank the member for Petrie for her question. As the Prime Minister was saying before, global oil prices are on the rise and that is pushing up domestic petrol prices, putting a very considerable strain on family budgets. That is why we on this side of the House are so committed to doing something practical with FuelWatch. Those on the other side of the House are fond of saying that watching petrol prices does not make them go down; that is what they have been saying. They should know: they sat in cabinet and watched them go up for 12 years. That is what they did—for 12 years they sat there and watched them go up. And they did not care what was happening to working families during that period.
Now they pretend they have an answer. The shadow Treasurer spoke for 15 minutes in the House this morning when we were debating our proposals for FuelWatch. In that 15 minutes the shadow Treasurer did not once mention their proposal to cut excise—not once! The Leader of the Opposition is up here talking about it but his policy is not supported by the shadow Treasurer. He has done it again. The shadow Treasurer has dropped another clanger this morning. He said this at the doorstop interview this morning: ‘The new modelling from the ACCC is as inconclusive as the old modelling.’ That is what he said this morning at the doorstop. He was asked a question by a journalist, who said, ‘Have you seen it?’ Mr Turnbull answered, ‘No.’ He is an expert on modelling he has never seen. His arrogance knows no bounds. Those on that side of the House do not have an alternative proposal. The only proposal they have is to blow a $22 billion hole in the surplus and put further upward pressure on inflation, interest rates and prices for average families.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his ‘Adelaide surrender’ that he has done all he can to help Australian family budgets, to the Treasurer’s declaration that the budget has made Australians happy and to the Minister for Resources and Energy’s attack on Labor’s flawed FuelWatch stunt. Prime Minister, after only six months, is your government out of touch, out of ideas and out of control?
Let us look at the question which is being put forward by those opposite on the impact on family budgets.
Opposition members interjecting—
There actually is a reason why I occasionally refer to notes—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Those members on my left will come to order.
and that is, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I prefer to have one position on all policy matters, not multiple positions as the Leader of the Opposition has. He has multiple positions on inflation, multiple positions on the question of whether there should be government spending cuts, multiple positions on whether there should be means testing and multiple positions on whether they are going to support or oppose FuelWatch. The reason I am a bit careful about things is that I prefer to be consistent. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should be consistent as well.
On the question of the budget and its impact on working families, the key thing is what you deliver into families’ pockets. What can you also help working Australians with? What can you help those pensioners and carers who are doing it tough out there with? Through the budget we have provided levels of support which assist in meeting some of the cost of living pressures which working families are under. If you go to the example of a family of four that I referred to before, $2,680 per year in extra disposable income is what is delivered by this budget outcome. That results in something like $52 per week extra. I contrast that with the proposal by those opposite on excise—whether in fact they are serious about it or not. Let us go to another cameo of a family of four on a combined family income of $105,000 with no private health cover. Put all these measures together and they are better off after this budget to the total of $5,628 in extra disposable income from 2008-09. That is $108.23 per week. These are practical measures.
We know from the family budget that whether it is petrol, whether it is groceries, whether it is rent, whether it is mortgages or whether it is the cost of child care, it is all going up, up and up. As a consequence of that we must ensure that we provide levels of assistance like this to help families balance the budget. That is the first thing. The second is, if you were to quantify what those opposite have put forward on the excise and actually translate it through into a figure of dollar per week assistance to the family budget—I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to do that—what does it actually add up to in terms of the total yield per week or the total yield by the end of each year?
Of course overall the challenge is this: how do you help in delivering assistance to families who are under financial pressure and to Australians doing it tough out there. You can, through the budget, invest in Australia’s future through infrastructure in schools and in hospitals. You can deliver a responsible budget with a $22 billion surplus. I contrast that with those opposite, who have said, ‘Let’s throw economic responsibility out the window and engender instead a $22 billion raid on the surplus.’ That is not responsible economic management; that is absolute political desperation underpinned by the content of the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister outline to the House the positive benefits of FuelWatch and the reasons why the government are supporting it?
I thank the honourable member for Hasluck for her question. FuelWatch is the only system on offer which will halt the intraday price movements and put consumers back in charge of their purchasing decisions. We support FuelWatch because it was a unanimous recommendation of the consumers’ watchdog, the ACCC. We support FuelWatch and we are pursuing FuelWatch because the ACCC and the government think that this is the way to give motorists an even chance—an even chance against the big oil companies and the petrol stations for whom the deal is stacked.
Motorists and consumers often say to me, ‘Don’t you think there is collusion? Don’t you think the oil companies are colluding? Why do the prices all move together?’ I say to those individuals, ‘No, I don’t think there is collusion because they do not need to. It is all stacked in favour of the retailers. It is all stacked in favour of the oil companies.’ The oil companies and the retailers share information, and consumers and motorists are locked out. We saw today the chairman of the ACCC call the fuel market in this country as close to collusion as you can get, backing up what the ACCC said in their report that the current fuel market arrangements are conducive to anticompetitive coordination. On this side of the House we do not think that is acceptable. Apparently that does not go for members opposite.
For the benefit of honourable members, in the ACCC analysis, and in the full analysis which was released today, the conclusion was that from the econometric analysis, on a conservative basis, the ACCC can say that there is no evidence that FuelWatch led to any increase in prices and it appears to have resulted in a small price decrease overall. Importantly, the ACCC has dealt with the myth perpetrated by the Leader of the Opposition that people who only buy on Tuesdays would be worse off. The ACCC said that prices decreased by an average of 0.7c per litre for the lowest day of the week.
I shared with the House this morning some views of real people who have been emailing and writing to the government about the debate on FuelWatch. I got one in my email at 12.52, which I read just before I came down to the House. It is from a constituent of the honourable member for Canning. I enjoy reading my emails because it does keep you in touch. This is what the constituent of the honourable member for Canning says:
Here in Perth our experience with FuelWatch has been quite good. Initially, I myself was sceptical and didn’t bother about it. But when we experienced the wide price ranges from petrol stations of sometimes 20c within a radius of just a couple of kilometres of where we live, and the substantial savings by using it, we use it all the time.
He goes on to say:
Petrol stations with the highest prices had the least customers. Informed buyers are not stupid. Considering the wide range of prices, the volume of sales are definitely greater at the cheaper ones, hence the average petrol sold in Perth is definitely lower than if there was no FuelWatch service.
Brian from Canning can work it out but the member for Canning and his colleagues cannot.
Mr Speaker, I ask that the Assistant Treasurer table the letter from my constituent.
Was the Assistant Treasurer quoting from a document?
Yes, I was.
Is the document confidential?
It is.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Those on my left are denying the Leader of the Opposition the call. The Assistant Treasurer.
Mr Speaker, to protect the confidentiality of the individual I am happy to table the document after removing the individual’s second name.
Mr Speaker, further to the point of order: I ask that the minister table the document with the address as well.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders with regard to questions are particularly structured to protect the privacy of individuals, including those who write letters to members of parliament, and it is not appropriate to undermine that privacy principle through the device of a request for tabling by someone who might then be able to go and visit the person.
Order! The honourable member for Canning made a request, as is permissible under the standing orders, for the tabling of a document. That request was handled in the way that it has been handled for many years in this place. Subsequent to that, the minister has indicated that he will be in a position to table a document. And I remind the House that a minister does not need leave to table a document. Has the Assistant Treasurer concluded his answer?
Almost, Mr Speaker.
Hopefully. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.
Real people understand how FuelWatch works. They understand that it puts motorists back in charge. The shadow Treasurer’s argument is that oil companies oppose FuelWatch because it benefits them. His argument is that oil companies will benefit from FuelWatch but they oppose it. I will leave the House to draw its own conclusions as to the logic of the honourable member for Wentworth’s proposition. But the Australian people know who is on their side—it is the ACCC and not the oil companies.
My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer stand by his previous statement:
Disciplined economic managers do not wantonly ignore the advice of Treasury.
Yes.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the front page of the member’s website, where he says, ‘Disciplined economic managers do not wantonly ignore the advice of Treasury.’
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister provide information on any new research about binge drinking and the opinions of experts in the field?
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. I am pleased to be able to take this opportunity to address some of the latest information that has been released about the consumption and sale of products that have been the focus of our binge drinking initiatives in the past. This morning and last night, the alcohol industry distributed to media outlets some recent figures on the sale of spirits. I would like to take the House through those figures, because the figures in the newspapers this morning and in the press release that was released today show that the sale of alcopops has now dropped by almost 40 per cent—a measure that the government is very pleased about.
Forty per cent is quite a big decrease on its own, but when you look at the limited amount of data that has been released, what you will find is that in the latest week the most recent figures, from 11 May, actually show a 50 per cent drop. This is a staggering drop in the alcopops industry and something that we believe the distillers have deliberately understated.
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Order! The member for Paterson!
It is a positive sign that sales of these products, which are designed to attract young people, to seduce them into a drinking habit, have dropped.
Opposition members interjecting—
We have the members opposite begging us to address what has been the increase in the sales of some other products, so let me take those interjections since the members opposite are so keen. What this data has revealed, by the industry’s own admission, is that there has been an increase in the sale of a number of other products—a 20 per cent increase in the sale of hipflasks of full-strength spirits and a 21 per cent increase in the 700 ml bottles of full-strength spirits.
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Order! The member for Paterson will cease interjecting!
That is a very good question that the member for Paterson asked: how many does that equate to? What it equates to, by the industry’s own admission, is an overall decline, when you look at the decrease and the increase, of 100 million—sorry, one million—
Opposition members interjecting—
We are only talking about two weeks. One million standard drinks of spirits fewer have been sold in a two-week period. I challenge the members opposite, whatever mathematical skills they have, to tell me that a decrease of one million sales of products is not a good reduction.
Dr Nelson interjecting
It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition just interjected across the table that he wrote the book on this. I tell you what, I hope young people are not reading the book that you wrote, Leader of the Opposition, because what it would show in this debate is that we have the industry—
Mr Baldwin interjecting
I warn the member for Paterson!
with a clear self-interest aligned with the opposition, and we have every other health expert in the country aligned with the government saying that this is a measure which is positive. I will take the House through some of those health professionals: Dr John Herron, a former Liberal senator, now at the Australian National Council on Drugs; David Templeman, the CEO of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia; John Rogerson of the Australian Drug Foundation; Mike Daube from the Public Health Association; and Daryl Smeaton from the Alcohol, Education and Rehabilitation Foundation. But perhaps what will be of most interest to members opposite is that I came across a quote the other day which was given in March by the President of the AMA, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, who gave a very vivid description of the urgency that the problem of alcopops presents to us. Let me read you the quote:
Alco-pops are a specific issue within the binge-drinking problem.
Here you have drinks that are about affordable prices and pretty colours, particularly targeted at young girls - and we’re talking about 12, 13, 14, 15-year-olds.
We have to look at the alcohol industry and how it targets young people with alco-pops. It builds brand loyalty and the kids connect with a type of drink - they’re hooked in.
Then they go off and have an accident, or they’re king hit while waiting in a queue outside a tavern, or they’re raped or are having unprotected sex.
That was from Dr Capolingua, who is not known for necessarily coming out and supporting the position of the government. She is the president of the AMA, a position that the Leader of the Opposition has held himself and apparently wrote the book on. What I am worried about is whether he wrote the book in the week that he supported this measure or in the week that he opposed this measure, because we do not know where the Leader of the Opposition stands on this. But this debate is becoming very clear. You have the health experts and the Rudd government on one side; you have the industry and the opposition on the other side. And there may be a little bit of deja vu in this debate, because it is very like the debate on fuel, where you have the opposition siding with industry and the Rudd government siding with the experts and the consumers. We are interested in protecting young people, and one million standard drinks fewer that have been consumed in the last two weeks is good news.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that the Motor Trade Association of Western Australia says that the FuelWatch scheme in Western Australia benefits big oil companies and that Woolworths says that Western Australia is its most profitable petrol retail market, will the Prime Minister now abandon his flawed FuelWatch stunt?
Let me draw the honourable member’s attention to another remark made today by the chairman of Australia’s competition watchdog. It goes to the matters which the member has just raised:
Importantly, and I have to stress this point, the fuel companies have it all over us. They have a very sophisticated price-sharing system run by a company, called Informed Sources, out of Brisbane, where they know the price that every one of their competitors is charging at every service station in the metropolitan areas of Australia at any point during the day. That is as close to collusion, it’s as close to tacit coordination, as you can ever get.
That is what, seriously and soberly, the chairman of Australia’s competition watchdog has had to say. This is an important consideration, and the choice before the parliament in this matter is very clear-cut. You either vote in support of Australian consumers and motorists or you vote for a continued cosy deal between Australia’s major oil companies. That is the choice that is alive here, and the choice which the Leader of the Opposition faces very soon is whether he is going to kill this option for Australian consumers and motorists in the future through his vote in this chamber or whether he is going to allow this to proceed so that Australian motorists have the same information available to them as big oil has available to it.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, how has the government’s approach to family policy been received?
I thank the member for Bonner for her question. The government is firmly committed to economically responsible family policy. We want to have family policy that supports people who are doing it tough in this country. That is why we are introducing a number of measures to better target family payments, including payments like the baby bonus and family tax benefit part B. We will be introducing an income test that will apply at $150,000 a year—a reasonable limit for these payments. Around 280,000 families will continue to receive the baby bonus, and around 1.4 million Australian families will continue to be eligible for family tax benefit part B. We consider that it is responsible to target government support to those families who are in the most need.
It is the case that these changes have been heralded by a number of commentators. ‘Praiseworthy’ is the way in which Ross Gittins, the economist writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, described it. By contrast, it has taken the Leader of the Opposition quite a while to come to a position on the government’s changes. It does seem like it has been a rather long and very painful process. First, he said he opposed income testing. Then he could not decide which position to take. We know he could not get his colleagues into line. Eventually, I understand, he has agreed that he will be supporting the bill. We do know that he could have gone either way because it is not as if he actually believes that family policy should be both economically responsible and fair. It is the case of course that this Leader of the Opposition has more positions on a range of issues—more positions than even a yoga instructor.
Opposition members interjecting—
I am glad to hear that the opposition are listening because they might be interested in something this Leader of the Opposition had to say on his various views about politics to the Age newspaper back in 1994.
Mr Dutton interjecting
Dr Nelson interjecting
I am glad you are listening and I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is listening. I am sure he will remember what he said to the Age back in 1994. He said:
I would feel equally comfortable as a moderate Liberal as I would feel in the Labor right.
Honourable members interjecting—
I hear my colleagues in the Labor Right indicating that they would not feel comfortable, and the moderates over there do not look very comfortable either. This is the man who wants to be considered the alternative Prime Minister of this country, and he does not know where he feels more comfortable—whether it is in the Labor Right or the moderate Liberals. He is so confused he has no idea what he stands for. On this side of the parliament we know what we stand for. We stand for an economically responsible and fair family policy.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasurer’s contemptuous description of the expert departmental advice from four departments in relation to FuelWatch as being, in the Treasurer’s words, ‘bureaucratic and academic’. Given the Treasurer’s lack of faith in Public Service advice, why did the government appoint the head of Treasury to head up the government’s own ‘root and branch’ tax review?
One of the interesting things about the ACCC and the attitude of the member opposite and the sources of advice for pricing questions is that there is a view on the part of those opposite that all wisdom lies in the regular bureaucratic departments, whereas I am always taken by what the member for Higgins says and what he is up to. We are all taken by what he is up to in recent times—and he should inform the Leader of the Opposition of what that is in due course. The member for Higgins had this to say when this report by the ACCC was first launched:
… the ACCC is an independent market regulator which has more expertise in the area of access and pricing than any other Federal Government instrumentality or agency and that is why it is very important that it is engaged in all of these pricing issues.
That is what he, whom even you described yesterday as the fountain of economic wisdom, had to say when this report was launched. That is why this government, in considering its position on FuelWatch, has been entirely mindful of the econometric modelling contained within the ACCC report.
Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
Yes, Mr Speaker.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House of developments on an agreement on a treaty banning cluster munitions?
I thank the member for his question. Australia joined over 120 states at a diplomatic conference in Dublin, commencing 19 May, to negotiate a legally-binding convention prohibiting cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. The Australian government joined this process because we believed that the time had come for the international community to address the impact of cluster munitions, particularly those that cause indiscriminate harm to civilians long after the cessation of conflict. Australia has a good and proud record in such areas. We have long been a supporter of Mine Action and of alleviating the terrible adverse impacts of the so-called explosive remnants of war on innocent civilians. Over the last decade, Australia has committed over $175 million for Mine Action and to alleviate the adverse impacts on victims. Most recently, on Mine Action Day on 4 April, the government announced a contribution of $10 million to the United Nations Mine Action program for Afghanistan.
In the months and weeks leading up to the Dublin conference and during the recent negotiations, the government has worked very hard to achieve a text that delivers that important humanitarian objective that I have outlined, while at the same time safeguarding Australia’s national security interests. We have worked very hard with the Australian NGO community, the non-government organisation community, with the Australian Red Cross and World Vision Australia having membership of the Australian delegation. During the period of the conference I have spoken to Norwegian and UK ministers and the Prime Minister has spoken to the Norwegian and the New Zealand prime ministers on deliberations before the conference.
The news overnight from Dublin is that very good progress has been made at the conference so far as the text is concerned. A draft text has been agreed and it is expected that it will be formally adopted at the conference tomorrow. The treaty will then be opened for signature formally in a treaty-signing opportunity in Oslo in December this year. States that sign the treaty can then move to formal ratification and adoption of the obligations of the treaty as state parties to it.
I am pleased to advise the House that the government’s preliminary consideration is that the text represents a strong humanitarian outcome, particularly with regard to protection of civilians in conflict zones, victim assistance and clearance of adversely affected areas, and is consistent with Australia’s long-held humanitarian traditions. The text establishes a broad prohibition on those cluster munitions that randomly scatter battlefields with tens or hundreds of so-called submunitions and that have no self-destruct capacity, posing a threat on innocent civilians for many years to come. This does not include modern, precision guided weapons with self-destruct capacities such as the so-called SMArt 155 antitank munition recently acquired by the ADF.
The text also addresses the government’s concern to ensure that cooperation between nations through peacekeeping and other joint operations with states who may not become party to the treaty is able to continue—for example, the United States. This cooperation, formally known as interoperability, is a vital pillar of Australia’s strategic security and defence arrangements. It is also a vital element of Australia’s ongoing peacekeeping operations, and I note that today is formally the 60th anniversary of the start of the United Nations peacekeeping operations in which Australia first took part.
I congratulate the Irish government on the hosting of the conference. I congratulate the Norwegian government on its leadership in initiating this negotiation and this process. Members of course would be aware over a long period of time that Australia has worked very closely with Norway on nonproliferation and disarmament measures. I congratulate the Australian delegation, in particular Ambassador Caroline Miller, who so ably led the delegation. Ambassador Miller is of course our Ambassador for Disarmament and our permanent rep to the UN in Geneva. I am pleased to conclude by advising the House that, whilst the government will review carefully all of the elements of the treaty text in the lead-up to its opening for signature in December, I am very optimistic—indeed, very confident—that Australia will be in a position to sign this treaty before the end of the year.
On indulgence, if I may, Mr Speaker, I strongly associate the opposition with the remarks of the foreign minister.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that your four key economic departments had provided advice to the cabinet that petrol prices may rise as a result of Labor’s FuelWatch, can the Prime Minister explain why the Assistant Treasurer, in a letter to me of 16 April 2008, asserted:
There is simply no independent advice that has reached the conclusion that there is any upward pressure on petrol prices through FuelWatch.
The government in framing FuelWatch has been entirely mindful of not just the advice contained within the econometric analysis within the ACCC report but, as the Assistant Treasurer has also referred, subsequent advice provided to him as well. These have been skipped over, I notice, by those opposite today. When we speak of departmental advice I also draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wentworth that the ACCC falls within the Treasury portfolio. It is there and it has the characteristics described, I think, accurately and elegantly by the member for Higgins—and I do not often say that about the member for Higgins—when he said that the ACCC is an independent regulator—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition quoted from a letter from the Assistant Treasurer which stated that there is simply no independent advice that has reached the conclusion that there is any upward pressure on petrol prices—
If the point of order is simply on relevance, the Prime Minister is responding to the question.
So I am fully endorsing the member for Higgins in this particular observation that the ACCC is an independent regulator and, as I have just said, falls within the Treasurer’s portfolio. It is not a minor matter. It is not an agency staffed with people who are not up to the task. In fact it has the range of expertise unique in the areas of access and pricing. This is quoting exactly what your economic hero the former Treasurer had to say about this particular body. Furthermore, in the subsequent econometric modelling which has been put out by the ACCC today, I draw again to the attention of honourable members the conclusion at the end of this document. I notice that they are not making any questions on the basis of this document because it is so definitive—
There is nothing in it!
I would suggest that this conclusion is definitive. It says:
The purpose of this econometric analysis has been to satisfy the ACCC that the introduction of the FuelWatch scheme nationally would not, based on the experience in Western Australia, lead to consumers paying higher prices for petrol.
From econometric analysis on a conservative basis, the ACCC can say that there is no evidence that FuelWatch led to any increase in prices, it appears to have resulted in a small price decrease overall.
The government has been entirely mindful of this advice in framing its position on FuelWatch. It is a contentious matter for debate—we recognise that. But we have turned to the same agency that the former Treasurer turned to in seeking advice on this matter in the first place. If those opposite contest that that is what the former Treasurer was saying when he made those remarks back in June-July last year, I suggest they raise it with the member for Higgins.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister outline the government’s commitment to responsible economic management through taking responsibility for tackling the challenge of climate change?
I thank the member for Lindsay for his question. Responsible economic management and a resolute commitment to tackling climate change go hand in hand. They are the necessary foundations for building a sustainable Australia, economically and environmentally. And that commitment to responsible economic management is underwritten by Labor’s $3.3 billion in the federal budget climate change program commitment. This is an unprecedented investment in meeting the greatest social, economic and environmental challenge we face.
We know the investment is unprecedented because it compares with a commitment of $2.8 billion in the last coalition budget. In fact, that figure of $2.8 billion contained in last year’s environment budget overview was the coalition’s claimed total spending on climate change since 1996 and projected out as far as 2020. The Rudd Labor government has already committed more to meeting the challenge of climate change in our first budget than the last government did in their entire 12 years in office and projected over another 12.
And it is not just about headline figures; the government has a strategic approach to ensuring Australia reduces its greenhouse gas emissions at the least cost cost. At the centrepiece is an emissions-trading scheme—ruled out by the previous leader of the Liberal Party in his term here as Prime Minister. This will be a most substantial reform—to use the market to drive a least-cost approach to delivering Australia’s emission reduction targets in the future. It will be complemented by a range of measures addressing non-price barriers and, importantly, reducing the overall cost of tackling climate change. We are committed to a 20 per cent renewable energy target to help Australian households and communities tackle climate change. We are investing $1 billion, including $300 million for low-interest green loans, $150 million for energy-saving insulation in rental homes and $480 million to make every school a solar school.
As sea levels rise we understand the fundamental point that the risks and associated costs of neglect of climate change are greater than the cost of action. The Rudd Labor government’s budget is the first down payment on tackling this great challenge. It is an investment that is economically responsible both in the immediate term and with a view to secure a sustainable Australia in the future.
Where is the opposition going on this critical issue? We should not forget that the Liberal Party has form on climate change—12 years of climate change denial, 11th hour makeovers as the election came on and people got concerned about climate change, and suddenly wasteful and expensive climate-clever green wash, but it just did not stick. The Australian public was not fooled by this.
As the headlines and the reports continue to pour in, with more evidence of the impact climate change will have on our coastline, our farming communities and our way of life, we look in vain for the Liberal Party to take climate change seriously. Yet the opposition leader’s budget reply, all 3,500 words of it, mentioned climate change just once, and even then it was the familiar Liberal Party scaremongering—all about the perils and costs of acting and nothing about the truly perilous consequences and missed economic opportunities if we do not act.
The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘We’ll be back to you on a carbon price,’ and that has been his contribution in the House on climate change. But this is not a time for scaremongering; it is a time for rising to the challenge of sound economic management which recognises the critical importance of ensuring that Australians have a sustainable future. And that is exactly what this government is delivering—$3.3 billion on climate change for the Australian people.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to a statement on FuelWatch by the Assistant Treasurer on 27 April 2008 on Sky News. He said that the government will be:
... covering the cost of the setup, and there’ll be no increased compliance costs for service stations whatsoever.
Given the Treasury has estimated that the cost to small business of FuelWatch would be $4,000 per annum, does the Prime Minister stand by his minister’s statement?
I do, and both the Assistant Treasurer and I said this when we did a press conference together just before coming into the chamber. The Leader of the National Party would have been better advised to have observed our comments then rather than expend a question in the way that he just has. The text of the government’s decision on this matter was that there would be no net establishment costs to participating retailers; these net establishment costs for participating retailers would be zero. That is a decision which we took at the time, and we stand by that decision because we recognised a couple of things. One is that there are already cost imposts on retailers in this sector because many of them are either required or are participating in—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was not about establishment costs; it was $4,000 per annum—that means every year.
The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
When cabinet considered this matter it was entirely mindful of any compliance costs faced by business. That is why we took the decision that we did. We are unapologetically a party that supports business, and we are unapologetically a party which believes that we have got to get behind our small business entrepreneurs out there rather than leave them in the lurch like those opposite have done by doing nothing to assist them in practical terms after 12 long years in office. We stand by the decision we took as a cabinet and we will honour that commitment.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister inform the House about the latest information regarding laser pointers being pointed at aircraft?
I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. I expect that the House will be interested to hear that the government will ban the importation of laser pointers above one milliwatt, with the regulation to take effect from 1 July. That means that lasers will, rightly, be treated like other dangerous weapons like knives, tasers and crossbows.
Last year there were 325 laser incidents involving aircraft reported to the department of transport, and yesterday in Senate estimates the Office of Transport Security revealed that since January this year there had been 563 attacks. It is obviously concerning. Those sorts of numbers are of major concern considering the potentially devastating consequences an attack could have. Indeed, aircraft pilots are very anxious to see these changes.
Obviously there are legitimate uses for high-powered lasers—in the construction and mining industries, in surveying and in astronomy. Therefore, under the government’s new regulation, importers will have to obtain police authorisation from the relevant state or territory police force before applying for an import permit. Customs will work with them to make sure that they are aware of the new scheme and know how to access it.
I do not pretend that this ban can immediately prevent all illegal use of lasers. There are thousands of them already in the community. Several jurisdictions—Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory—have already introduced laws banning possession of lasers, and similar laws are at present before the parliament of New South Wales. Of course, this import ban has to be supplemented by these kinds of possession laws if it is to be effective.
It is difficult to locate the source of laser lights directed at aircraft and therefore to apprehend offenders. There is often a long distance between the origin of a laser light and its target. Nevertheless, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Air Services Australia are working with the Australian Federal Police to improve procedures for detection of these incidents, and the AFP is working on a mapping system which will help narrow down the location of the light source.
I thank Customs, the Attorney-General’s Department and other agencies for their work in getting this ban quickly in place. Together with the state possession laws, involving significant jail terms, I am confident that the new Commonwealth regulation restricting laser importation will restrict the availability of laser devices and help us to change the culture which has led some people in our society to so disregard the potentially disastrous effects of their improper use.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister release the regulatory impact statement provided to cabinet which fully examines the costs and impact of FuelWatch? Will the minister guarantee that, if the regulatory impact statement is released, it has not been altered since being presented to cabinet?
The answer to the member’s question is no.
You won’t guarantee it hasn’t been altered?
Order! The question has been asked and answered.
My question is the Minister for Employment Participation. Will the minister inform the House about how the government will support Australians looking for work?
I would like to thank the member for Forde for his question. It is a very important question, and I know he shows a great deal of concern about job seekers in his electorate. The government wants to boost the nation’s workforce to improve productivity and ensure that we stay globally competitive. Employment participation is one of the key elements of the government’s war on inflation. This inflation legacy—the highest inflation in 16 years—was bestowed upon the Australian people by the previous Liberal government and needs to be tackled on all fronts. Increasing participation in our workforce, of course, is also a foundation of the government’s social inclusion agenda. We know that having a job creates opportunities for financial independence and personal fulfilment.
The previous government were lucky but lazy. An unprecedented mining boom, of course, led to a welcome fall in unemployment, but the Howard government sat back and did what all Tory governments always do: they let the nation’s natural resources do the work for them instead of doing the work as a government. They ignored, for example, 20 Reserve Bank warnings on the skills crisis that besets this country. They constantly ignored the warnings of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and other employer bodies who were crying out for the government to address the skills crisis.
Of course, as we know, recently the shadow Treasurer has informed us, either in this place or publicly, that he does not believe there is a skills shortage in this country. The only skills shortages he likes to talk about are those that are exhibited by the Leader of the Opposition. That is the reality in this place. The only thing the shadow Treasurer likes to do is to get on the phone, and also use his email, to indicate how much he thinks the Leader of the Opposition is deficient as the leader of the party opposite. He is happy to talk about those skills shortages all day long. We know that the Howard government also ignored those who remain unemployed and failed to adjust employment programs to suit the new workforce circumstances.
That’s not right!
I will give you a few facts, Sunshine. There is no greater reminder of the Howard government’s policy inertia than the fact that the proportion of the very long-term unemployed more than doubled over the life of the Howard government. In 1999, one in 10 job seekers had been on income support for longer than five years. By 2007, this rose dramatically to almost one in four—one in four job seekers who had been on income support for more than five years. The current Job Network system as we know it is outdated and is being strangled by red tape. Job Network fails to sufficiently assist the highly disadvantaged people and we are going to address those concerns.
The other thing that the Rudd government has done because of the failure of the previous government is to listen to employers who have been crying out for training to provide the proper skills for the vacancies that exist in this country. That is why this government has a plan to provide 238,000 training places for job seekers over the course of the next five years at the cost of $880 million. This is a massive boost in training for job seekers and it is something that employer bodies and employers have been asking for. It is something they asked the previous government to attend to and of course they failed. We know that is a critical area and we will address that.
The second fundamental change in our approach to assisting job seekers is providing a work culture. The government will deliver a new system commencing in July next year that will instil a work culture through a no show, no pay rule. If you turn up and do what is required you will receive your benefit but if you do not turn up without reasonable excuse your income will be docked—just like a real job. Just like a real job, your income will be docked if you do not turn up without reasonable excuse. This approach will be more effective than the harsh and counterproductive imposition of the eight-week non-payment period. Not only does this current approach push job seekers further away from employment; there is mounting evidence to show it is leading to family breakdown, homelessness and impoverishment. We know that we have got this new proposal right.
I welcome the support across the political spectrum with respect to our new proposal. We have certainly been applauded by the Brotherhood of St Laurence with respect to this particular matter. They believe it is a fair and more effective system. The Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, John Roskam—no friend of the Labor Party—the former chief of staff of former education minister David Kemp has said he agrees with the Brotherhood of St Laurence in supporting the government’s position with respect to this. He said that it is a better approach. He said:
I agree with Tony Nicholson on this. If we can make the system more flexible it will get a better result, mainly to get people to stay engaged.
So we have the Institute of Public Affairs and the Brotherhood of St Laurence and many other bodies coming out and supporting this system because we are attending to the training issues that were ignored by the previous government and a skills crisis that was ignored by the previous ministers that sit opposite. That is the reality. We are attending to that.
Mr Simpkins interjecting
Order! The member for Cowan is now warned!
We are not into playing games like those opposite. We are about getting on with the business of government, addressing the skills crisis in this country and putting productivity back on the nation’s agenda.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. During that answer I heard the member for Bowman make a quite offensive comment about the Brotherhood of St Laurence. I ask that he withdraw that comment.
Mr Speaker, on that point of order, I certainly did not hear that, but at the same time when a comment is made it is asked to be withdrawn at the time the comment is made; therefore, I would suggest that it should be ruled out of order.
Mr Speaker, if it assists you, the comment was also offensive to members of this side of the House. The comment was, ‘How much did you pay them?’ alleging that we had bribed the Brotherhood of St Laurence. That is offensive to us and it is offensive to them.
Without going into who said what to whom, I did hear what the member for Bowman said. Upon reflection, I think that it would best suit the proper dignity of the House if the member were to withdraw.
I am happy to withdraw unreservedly.
I thank the member.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. I refer the minister to the advice of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet which warned that FuelWatch would involve increased compliance costs of $4,000 a year to affected small businesses. Why did the minister advise parliament yesterday that small business will be the big beneficiaries from the introduction of FuelWatch when Prime Minister and Cabinet advice is the opposite?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The minister has the call.
Opposition members interjecting—
You’ll find out.
Opposition members interjecting—
The minister will resume his seat.
An opposition member—Now he’s got a chance to read it.
I just make the observation: his chance to read it is an unintended consequence of the actions I am taking. The question having been asked, the minister should be at least allowed to start his answer, and hopefully complete his answer, in silence.
Dr Nelson interjecting
I will read it out to you.
The minister will refer his answer through the chair.
Mr Speaker, I will read it out to him. At the government’s urging the FuelWatch scheme was designed in such a way as to minimise any compliance costs. There is no need for businesses to establish and maintain IT infrastructure to communicate with the ACCC under the approved FuelWatch scheme. They can use a toll-free number. They will still have to notify petrol prices to the ACCC but this is a once-a-day event and integral to the scheme as a whole. I compare that with present subscribers to Informed Sources. Do you know about Informed Sources?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Those on my left will curb their enthusiasm.
Under Informed Sources those subscribers must subscribe and notify of any price changes many times a day. Under this scheme they will have to do it only once. Treasury has ensured that the legislation is simple and easy to comply with. There is no need to establish record-keeping IT systems or records on petrol prices. The ACCC will wear the cost and will keep the records.
My attention has been drawn to a statement that has obviously just been made today by the Queensland Liberal leader Mark McArdle—he is a relatively new leader in Queensland. He was on ABC radio today and I am advised that he has contradicted his federal counterparts and expressed support for FuelWatch. Mr McArdle says FuelWatch is worth considering. He said:
The issues around FuelWatch are very complicated, but certainly it is an initiative that appears to have worked in Western Australia and I think it should be looked at here in Queensland and across Australia as well.
Go Mark! He said:
I understand that my federal colleagues may have a different view, but that is their point of view.
Here is the Liberal leader in Queensland saying FuelWatch is worth considering. So, Brendan, give Mark—the Liberal leader in Queensland—a ring on the toll-free number. Ring Mark McArdle. Mark McArdle knows what is in the interests of motorists. Mark McArdle has contradicted you—
Order! The minister will refer his remarks through the chair.
the Leader of the Opposition. He has contradicted the shadow Treasurer and he has contradicted his Queensland colleague the shadow minister for small business, and the member for Moncrieff. The Liberal leader in Queensland, the Liberal leader who introduced FuelWatch in Western Australia and the Liberal leader in New South Wales are all right. They support FuelWatch and so they should, and it is about time you got onside.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On his way to the dispatch box, the minister was handed an answer, which he read. I ask him to table the answer which he read off that piece of paper, which is in his hand.
Was the minister reading from a document?
I was, Mr Speaker.
Is the document confidential?
No, it is not, Mr Speaker. I table the statement from Mark McArdle.
Before calling the honourable member for Solomon, I know that in his enthusiasm the minister made some remarks. I do not know Mark McArdle. I will not be actually ringing him, but I ask the minister to refer his remarks through the chair.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Would the minister update the House on excavation activities at the site of the Battle of Fromelles?
I thank the member for Solomon for his question. Further to the answer that I gave to the House yesterday, I would like to advise the House that work has resumed at Pheasant Wood following the inspection of the site by the French police who approved the continuation of the dig. However, at this stage no further discoveries have been made.
The meeting of the Fromelles Evaluation Group agreed on a tighter security regime and agreed that work should continue until 13 June and that investigation should proceed on the future of the land. I should mention, however, that conditions at the excavation are proving quite difficult. The watertable is high, requiring pumps and waste water storage; the clay is very heavy and quite difficult to dig, so hand trowels are being used, and that is necessary for the care needed in such a delicate task. I have been overwhelmed by the public response to the decision to proceed with his dig.
Yesterday I paid tribute to Mr Lambis Englezos for his support and, indeed, leadership in providing us with guidance as to where we might look. I would also like to give recognition today to General Leahy, Chief of Army, who acceded to requests to consider the evidence objectively and to obtain expert advice. It is indeed a salutary feeling for a modern commander to remain committed to recovering those lost in old battles. But I also want to recognise that this parliament is no stranger to the debate over the recovery of the missing; nor, should I say, are we strangers to the people who fought at Fromelles. Indeed, General ‘Pompey’ Elliott, who led the devastated 15th Brigade from Victoria on that fateful night in July 1916, tried to prevent the attack from proceeding and wept inconsolably the next morning at his 1,600 casualties, was a senator in the parliament for two terms. Sadly, though, he took his own life. That perhaps is an illustration of how disaster can ruin lives—not just through death in battle but through the horror of the memories. It is worth pointing to the difficulty that confronted him at that battle and what he said following it. He said not soon after:
I presume there was some plan at the back of the attack but it is difficult to know what it was. I trust those who gave the order may be made to realise their responsibility.
The general who gave the order, General Haking, is quoted as saying of that battle that the experience would do the Australians ‘a great deal of good’. This was, of course, after General Elliott further said, some years later, about the battle, ‘It was a wretched, hybrid scheme which might well be described as a tactical abortion.’
In conclusion, I also want to remind the House that 1,300 men were missing after that battle. A mass grave for 410 Australians already exists at VC Corner, just down the road from Pheasant Wood. Even if the Pheasant Wood site is proven and approximately 170 lost souls are in fact identified as being Australian—and we think we may know who they are—many hundreds more remain missing. There are in fact 7,243 individual graves in France, Belgium and Gallipoli marked ‘Known only to God’. I undertook yesterday to keep the parliament and the public informed of progress, especially the families, who have such a keen interest, and I will continue to do so.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
The minister may proceed.
Mr Speaker, earlier in question time I undertook to table a document once the privacy of the individual concerned was protected. I have ensured the privacy of that individual is protected and I table the document.
On pages 46 and 47 of yesterday’s Hansard there is a record of events that occurred after the suspension motion for the member for O’Connor. The member for O’Connor would have been due to return to the House at about 2.14 pm this afternoon, as I understand it. I first of all apologise for two things. You will find at the top of page 47 I got a little carried away with myself and used the royal ‘we’ in saying:
We will deal with him when he returns.
I also apologise for making the Chief Opposition Whip’s task in keeping the member for O’Connor in town a bit more difficult. But, upon reflection of the events following the decision of the House, it would have been my intention to indicate to the House that I would not be taking any further action. At the time, the member, in progressing out of the House, made comments that I believed to be a reflection against the chair. It was on that basis that I sought that he return to apologise. After further consideration, I understand that it was not a reflection on the chair. There is therefore a lesser transgression that occurred—that is, the member for O’Connor did not go quietly! But I explain to the chamber that, if that had been the case, I would have applied standing order 271, which applies to common sense: I would have ignored his comments and let him go, and there would have been no record in the Hansard. I do not see this as a precedent—and I hope that others will not undertake to use it as a precedent—but I believe that, to my mind, this suffices to conclude this incident.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 36 of 2007-08 entitled The Australian Taxation Office’s strategies to address tax haven compliance risks—Australian Taxation Office.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Stirling proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to heed departmental advice with regard to FuelWatch.
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—
Because the proposer does not appear to be here, and I do not think he is here, the matter lapses.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Lifting workforce participation is one of the key aspects of the Rudd government’s five point fight against inflation.
We know that for many parents the accessibility and affordability of quality child care affects their decisions about staying in or returning to the workforce.
An ABS survey has found that concerns about the quality, accessibility and affordability of child care were important factors in the decisions of 85,000 secondary earners to stay out of the workforce.
Child care has become an integral part of modern Australian family life. More than 700,000 Australian families use child care each year. In the last five years childcare costs have grown much faster than the price of other goods and services. In the 12 months to June 2007 alone, after factoring in childcare benefit, childcare costs rose by 12.8 per cent, the fifth year in a row of double-digit increases.
That is why federal Labor developed its Affordable Child Care Plan—a $1.6 billion investment in the future of Australian families and in Australia’s future economic prosperity. This commitment is part of an overall $2.4 billion investment over the next five years in integrated early childhood initiatives that will provide high-quality services for young children and help build a productive, modern economy for Australia’s future
Through this bill the government is making good on its election commitments. This bill will increase the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket childcare costs—up to $7,500 per child per year. It will also allow the rebate to be paid quarterly, rather than annually, helping parents to meet the costs of child care as they arise.
The changes to childcare tax rebate will make child care much more affordable for working families, making it easier for those families who want, or need, to return to work. These changes are supported by an agenda that will deliver rigorous quality standards and expand the supply of quality child care and early learning.
This bill also contains a number of amendments which will enhance the operation of the Child Care Management System to ensure payments to families are delivered in a timely and efficient way.
The government is also making good on its commitment to responsible economic management by reducing the value of payments for those who can most afford it. From July 2008 there will no longer be a minimum rate of childcare benefit for approved care. This will only affect high-income families. This is an extension of the current system where a family’s income affects the amount of CCB they receive. However, instead of the rate reducing only down to a minimum rate, it will continue to reduce until the family’s rate is zero. The income levels at which the payment cuts out completely will depend on the number of children using approved child care. This means that high-income families will no longer receive any childcare benefit.
Families using approved care that were eligible for childcare tax rebate before the changes will continue to be eligible for the childcare tax rebate.
Overall families will gain more assistance through the childcare tax rebate changes than they lose in childcare benefit.
This change will not affect childcare benefit for registered care—that is, care provided by relatives, friends or nannies who have registered with the Family Assistance Office.
The bill also includes a range of measures that make improvements to childcare benefit compliance. This includes extending pecuniary penalties to service providers who contravene their obligations under the current legislation. The bill also amends powers of entry for authorised officers to improve their ability to determine if a service is complying with family assistance law. It will also introduce a number of other changes which will enhance the integrity of outlays of childcare benefit by making childcare service providers’ requirements clearer.
This bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to Australian families to make child care more affordable and to ensure taxpayers’ money is used correctly. It is an important step in the government’s plan to provide access to affordable, high-quality child care to all Australian children.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement the Rudd government’s education revolution 2008-2009 budget package in higher education. These measures carry through on our election commitments.
The government’s immediate priorities for higher education implemented through this bill will address skills shortages in critical areas, restore equity and support access to higher education, and fund places and infrastructure in key areas.
The commitments delivered in this bill are complemented by the budget’s two major education infrastructure initiatives—the Better Universities Renewal Fund and the Education Investment Fund—that together will begin the process of restoring university facilities after years of being run-down under the Howard government. These funds will fund major infrastructure investments in our universities.
These initiatives are part of the government’s commitment to ensuring higher education plays a leading role in equipping Australians with the knowledge and skills to make Australia a more productive and prosperous nation.
This bill makes important amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to address urgent and immediate priorities.
One such priority is to amend the act to provide considerable incentives for students to study mathematics and science at university.
The maximum annual student contribution amount for students studying mathematics, including statistics, or science units will be reduced from $7,412 a year to the lowest national priority rate of $4,162 in 2009 for an equivalent full-time student load. Commencing maths and science students will enjoy the same rate as students studying education and nursing units of study. These are all areas of particular workforce need. Existing students will also benefit if they transfer into a mathematics or science course.
The bill also ensures that higher education providers’ funding for mathematics, statistics and science units will be maintained by compensating them for lost revenue associated with this measure. This will be through a new Transitional Loading under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme.
The bill will also provide incentives for maths and science graduates to pursue related careers through the new HECS-HELP benefit, which implements the government’s policy for HELP debt ‘remissions’. The HECS-HELP benefit will encourage graduates to pursue careers in mathematics and science, including teaching these subjects in secondary schools. The HECS-HELP benefit will also encourage early childhood education teachers to work in areas of particular need.
The HECS-HELP benefit will reduce an eligible person’s compulsory HELP repayment. For certain eligible persons, if no compulsory repayment is required to be made, the benefit may be a reduction in the person’s accumulated HELP debt.
The amendments to the act provide the framework for the HECS-HELP benefit and for the details of the eligibility requirements and the amount of the benefit to be specified in HECS-HELP benefit guidelines.
It is proposed that the guidelines will provide for the HECS-HELP benefit to be claimable for a total lifetime limit of 260 weeks, the equivalent of five years.
A person will receive a benefit for an income year based on the number of weeks in the year for which they are eligible. The HECS-HELP benefit will be claimable from the 2008-09 income year onwards. An application for the benefit will be made to the taxation commissioner, generally at the same time as a person lodges their tax return.
The maths and science HECS-HELP benefit will be available to people who grad-uate from a maths or science course from the second semester of 2008 onwards, having undertaken that course as a Commonwealth supported student, and who are employed in a related occupation, including the teaching of maths or science at secondary school.
The early childhood education HECS-HELP benefit will be available to eligible people who have graduated at any time from an early childhood education teaching course undertaken as a ‘HECS’ liable or Commonwealth supported student, and who are employed as a teacher in an early childhood setting in an eligible location—regardless of whether their repayment income is such that they are required to make a ‘compulsory repayment amount’ in the income year.
Another of the government’s key election commitments reflected in this bill is to ensure that students gain access to higher education on merit and not on ability to pay by phasing out full-fee-paying undergraduate places for domestic students in public universities from 2009.
From 1 January 2009, universities will not be able to enrol a new domestic undergraduate student on a fee-paying basis, except in circumstances where the act prohibits their enrolment as a Commonwealth supported student. Additional exceptions are for students who accepted a fee-paying place this year but have deferred taking it up and for students who commenced their courses as overseas students but later become domestic students.
Fee-paying students who began their courses before 2009 will be able to continue their courses on a fee-paying basis.
The government will allocate up to 11,000 new Commonwealth supported places by 2011 to replace the full-fee-paying places that will be phased out from 2009. Funding for the places will be ongoing.
If universities demonstrate that assistance is required to ensure the delivery of replacement Commonwealth supported places, the government may provide additional funding, over and above that for the places, through the new transitional loading that is being introduced through this bill.
In addition to the measures I have already outlined, the bill will also provide for increased funding under the act:
Mr Speaker, the measures in this bill, in addition to our commitment to the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $500 million Better Universities Renewal Funding (BURF) that are not covered by the act, represent the start of the government’s education revolution in higher education.
Together with addressing these immediate priorities, the government will take its reforms further to make long-term, systemic improvement in the higher education sector through the Review of Australian Higher Education, led by Emeritus Professor Denise Bradley AC. This is important work. It will report on the future direction of the sector, its capacity to meet the needs of the Australian economy, and the options available for ongoing reform.
The government’s response to the review will build on this legislative package that I present to you today.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In the first sitting week of this parliament, the Rudd government apologised to Indigenous Australians for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on our fellow Australians. At the time, the Prime Minister made the point that this is not the end of the government’s commitment, but the start. If Australia is to be truly reconciled there must first be an acknowledgement of past wrongs, but this must be followed up with actions to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
Shortly after the national apology, I was proud to introduce amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 which appropriated funding for the first of our election commitments to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous outcomes—an initiative to provide an additional 200 teachers in the Northern Territory.
Today, during Reconciliation Week, I introduce further amendments to the act to appropriate funding for another two initiatives aimed at closing the gap.
The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 by appropriating additional funding of $8.353 million in the 2008 calendar year to improve educational outcomes for Indigenous students. This amount, when indexed under the provisions of the act, will amount to $9.050 million in 2008 prices and is part of an $85.3 million package over four years. The remaining funding for 2009 and beyond will be appropriated through subsequent legislation.
This funding will be used for the expansion of intensive literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous students, professional development support to assist teachers to develop individual learning plans for their Indigenous students and the provision of three new boarding college facilities for Indigenous secondary school students in the Northern Territory.
In 2006, a 13 to 32 per cent gap existed between the proportion of Indigenous students who achieve years 3, 5 and 7 reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks and the proportion of all students who achieve the same benchmarks.
The Australian government places great importance on achieving better educational outcomes for Indigenous students and has made a commitment to assist education providers to halve the literacy and numeracy achievement gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students through the $56.4 million Building Strong Foundations program.
This program will assist education providers to ascertain which intensive literacy and numeracy programs are demonstrating the best results with Indigenous students so that what is working in one school can be tried in other schools.
Funds will be used to establish an evidence base around innovative literacy and numeracy projects which will contribute to a national menu of best practice. Education providers will be able to choose programs from this menu to suit the needs of their systems, schools or Indigenous students and integrate them into their teaching. With the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students greatest in numeracy, this will be an early focus of the program.
The program will also provide teachers with extra materials and support to assist them to prepare and maintain individual learning plans for every Indigenous student for each year of schooling up to year 10.
This measure will complement the National Action Plan on Literacy and Numeracy with resources to assist education providers to halve the gap in literacy and numeracy outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students over the next decade.
The second measure this bill provides for is the government’s commitment to provide additional funding of $28.9 million over four years to construct and operate three new secondary boarding colleges in the Northern Territory. These facilities are expected to cater for 152 Indigenous students from remote areas.
The proportion of young Indigenous people living in remote areas who reach year 12 is approximately half that of their metropolitan peers, and only one in 10 actually completes year 12. Approximately one in four 15- to 19-year-old Indigenous people lives in a remote area.
An additional capital contribution of $15 million will be provided from the Indigenous Land Corporation which is committed to establishing student hostels to enable Indigenous young people from remote areas to obtain secondary school education.
Agreement on the siting of boarding facilities and their construction will be negotiated with Indigenous communities and their representatives, the Indigenous Land Corporation and Northern Territory education providers. Management options for these facilities will be developed in consultation with relevant education providers, local communities, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and other interested parties.
The increased funding for this program will provide support for Indigenous young people to relocate from remote and regional areas to access high standards of education, training and employment opportunities not otherwise available to them.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Consistent with its theme of responsible economic management, the government identified a number of programs that were inefficient or wasteful, or were largely duplicated elsewhere. The employment entry payment is one such scheme.
The employment entry payment was initially introduced in 1989 to assist with costs associated with taking up employment. Since then, three other schemes have been introduced which provide similar or better assistance and which are more flexible in their application. These are the special employment advance, job seeker accounts provided via the Job Network, and the working credit. Further improvement will be implemented under the new employment services model.
This bill will repeal the employment entry payment, effective from 1 July 2008.
Removal of the payment will simplify the assistance available to those commencing work, particularly in relation to the complex interactions now in place between the employment entry payment and the special employment advance and will realise savings of $60.8 million over five years and deliver on the government’s commitment to responsible economic management.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill will allow the government to deliver on a key part of its election commitment to improve dental health for working families and address Australia’s dental crisis.
The Medicare Teen Dental Plan is the first part of the Rudd government’s plan for improving dental services in Australia. The second part is a new Commonwealth Dental Health Program, through which the Commonwealth will provide additional funding to the states and territories to reduce public dental waiting lists.
In the recent budget, the government announced funding of $780 million over five years for these two new dental programs. We are providing $490 million over five years for the Medicare Teen Dental Plan and $290 million over three years for the Commonwealth Dental Health Program.
These significant commitments will help ease Australia’s dental crisis, end the blame game, and start addressing the parlous state of Australia’s dental health—the dire state of which should be laid at the feet of the Howard government: they closed the Labor government’s previous Commonwealth Dental Health Program and refused point-blank to work with the states on addressing this growing problem for a decade.
Before discussing in greater detail the policies which the Rudd government is implementing through this bill, I want to outline the magnitude of the problem which we have inherited from the previous government.
Latest estimates still remain at about 650,000 Australians languishing on public dental waiting lists. Thirty per cent of Australians are reported to have avoided dental care due to the cost of services.
Fifty thousand people end up in hospital each year with preventable dental conditions, putting more pressure on our public hospitals not to mention the pain and agony those individuals go through.
These problems with accessing affordable dental care have contributed to the dismal and deteriorating state of Australians’ dental health. Tooth decay is Australia’s most prevalent health problem, with gum disease ranking as the fifth highest. Over a quarter of the Australian adult population have untreated dental decay—untreated because they are not accessing the dental care they require.
What is most troubling is that poor dental health is starting with our kids. It then becomes entrenched as our kids transition as teenagers to adulthood.
For example, between 1996 and 1999, five-year-olds experienced a 21.7 per cent increase in deciduous decay. Children in lower socioeconomic groups experience tooth decay at twice the rate of children in higher socioeconomic groups. In New South Wales, in the decade between 1994 and 2004, there was a 91 per cent increase in hospitalisation rates for children under five for the removal or restoration of teeth—that is, the hospitalisation rate has nearly doubled. I know that the Deputy Speaker and I share a particular interest in this being mothers of children of that age. Neither of us would like to see our children unnecessarily in hospital, as I am sure no parent would.
This poor dental health deteriorates even further through teenage years. According to dental health experts, there is a fourfold increase in dental decay between the ages of 12 and 21. Almost half of all teenagers have some signs of gum disease. According to the OECD, the rapid deterioration in dental health occurring in teenage years leads to the dental health of Australian adults ranking second worst in the OECD. This comes after a history of very good ratings in the past.
This alarming state of affairs is even worse among the poorest and most needy Australians. Concession card holders, such as pensioners, have lost on average 3.5 more teeth than non-concession card holders. The children of concession card holders have over 50 per cent more decayed teeth than those of non-concession card holders.
Above all, when we talk about statistics and waiting lists, preventable hospitalisations and decay rates, we must always remember we are talking about people. We are talking about Australians who sometimes have such severe dental problems that it affects not only their health, but their work and personal lives. We are talking about pensioners who may not be able to eat food comfortably or easily and teenagers whose confidence to go out in the world to study and work is badly affected. We are talking about everyday Australians who will not visit their friends, who cannot apply for a job or cannot get a job, simply because they cannot get the dental treatment that they need.
It is clear from these terrible facts that Australian working families need action on dental health. As we know, rather than addressing these problems, the Howard government spent much of the past decade cynically playing the blame game.
Rather than taking any responsibility, the previous government passed the buck. They shifted blame. They repeated the all too familiar mantra that it was the states’ fault. For the past decade, the previous Commonwealth government did nothing to address the dental crisis in Australia. They did nothing but say that dental health was not their responsibility and blame the states.
But it was the Howard government that helped create some of these problems in the first place. As I have mentioned, one of the first acts of their government was to scrap the previous Labor government’s Commonwealth Dental Health Program, ripping $100 million a year from the public dental system—and this led to the explosion in public dental waiting lists that we see today.
Then, belatedly, the Howard government introduced a dental scheme whose referral processes and eligibility criteria were so complex and restrictive that few people could access it.
I do acknowledge that, for those able to navigate their way through the complicated referral process and the red tape, the program offered some help. But many people missed out—often the most needy in our community.
For example, over four years of the previous government’s scheme, right up to 30 April 2008, in the whole of the Northern Territory, no services at all had been provided to children and young adults up to the age of 24.
We know that the Northern Territory has some of the poorest, most marginalised people in our Indigenous communities. We know that they have some of the worst dental health problems in Australia. But how many of these young people did the previous government’s scheme help? Not one at all—zero. Across all age groups in the Northern Territory the picture is similarly poor—only 28 people accessing treatment over nearly four years.
In South Australia, over four years, no services at all had been provided to children up to the age of 14. Again, zero.
This means that, during the entire term of the Howard government, no child born and raised in South Australia or the Northern Territory got any assistance at all from their failed dental scheme.
In Tasmania, over four years, only eight people up to the age of 24 have received these services. That is only two young people a year on average.
And the picture is similarly poor in the larger states.
Only 52 people in Queensland under the age of 20 accessed the previous government’s program over four years. On average, that is only about one young person a month over four years across the whole of Queensland.
Only 94 people in the whole of Victoria under the age of 20 have received services in nearly four years. On average, that is only about two young people a month over four years across the whole of Victoria.
These figures are nothing to be proud of. They clearly show that the previous government’s dental scheme had failed.
In total, over almost four years to 30 April, the Howard government’s failed dental scheme will have spent less than $50 million (currently it stands at about $42.8 million). This compares to the investment provided in the budget of $780 million by the Rudd Labor government and the new dental programs that will be introduced and run over the next five years.
Moreover, even the limited support provided by the Howard government’s failed scheme was poorly targeted. As I said, we recognise that some people here and there received assistance under the failed scheme. But the problem is that it was not a targeted program. It did not help those most in need.
The poorest people with the worst dental health did not get access to the previous government’s failed scheme. If you were simply poor and had bad dental health because of your poverty, you could not get treatment under the program. However, if you were wealthy and had a chronic disease with complex care needs, you could get access to the program. Meaning that a millionaire could get access to the program—once they got through the red tape. A pensioner with an excruciating toothache but no chronic disease got no assistance at all.
The failings of the Howard government’s approach are manifest. They failed pensioners. They failed the poorest, most needy people in our community with the worst dental health. They failed our kids and teenagers—failed to help them maintain their teeth and prevent much worse problems later in life.
In implementing our dental commitments, the Rudd government is helping to fix these problems. We are not going to let the Howard government’s failed scheme continue, while the dental health problems of millions of needy Australians go unaddressed. That is why the government is redirecting funds from this underutilised scheme to support better targeted dental programs, such as the Medicare Teen Dental Plan that is being introduced today and the Commonwealth Dental Health Program.
We have made a decision, as governments need to do, that we should be helping the most needy people in our community first, in the most effective way possible.
We have made a decision that providing up to one million dental consultations and treatments under the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, and enabling more than one million teenagers every year to access preventative dental checks under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, is a good investment for our money.
We will work with the states and territories and the dental profession to expand the provision of dental care, with a focus on treatment for those in greatest need, and preventative care for eligible teenagers.
Both of our programs are squarely targeted at people who are most in need of help, many of whom could not afford dental care without this assistance.
Commonwealth Dental Health Program
Under the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, the Rudd government will be providing an additional $290 million over three years to improve access to public dental services, working in cooperation with the states and territories.
This marks a stark change from the last decade of the Howard government criticising the states for not doing enough on dental health.
We do agree that the states and territories should be encouraged to do more—but instead of just passing the buck, the Rudd government is going to do its bit to help the states to do better.
Discussions with the states and territories about the implementation arrangements for the Commonwealth Dental Health Program are well advanced. As health minister, I am keen to end the blame game and to work with the states and territories to fix Australia’s dental care system, and the health system in general. We have already made a good start through COAG discussions over the last few months.
Commencing in July this year, the Commonwealth Dental Health Program will assist the states and territories to reduce waiting times by funding up to one million additional dental consultations and treatments over the next three years.
The states and territories are well placed to ensure that this extra funding will have maximum impact. Often public dental services are the only services available to treat people with the most severe dental conditions, especially in rural and remote areas. The public dental services target the most needy people in the community, and the additional $290 million in funding will ensure that these vulnerable and needy people will be assisted.
We will be putting strict conditions on the states and territories to ensure the Commonwealth funding goes where it is most needed. We will be requiring the states to target people with chronic disease as a priority, such as patients with cancer, cardiac patients and people with HIV-AIDS. Another priority will be people with increased oral health needs, including preschool children and Indigenous Australians.
States and territories will also be required to maintain their existing efforts in dental health, and report consistently on expenditure, the number of services being provided, and the number of people on the public dental waiting lists.
This means that pensioners will get more help. It means that concession card holders will get more help. It will assist the poorest members of our community, and the people with the poorest dental health. It will also give priority to Indigenous people, and preschool children—groups that the Howard government’s program so spectacularly failed.
In government we have to make choices. And, instead of persisting with a failed dental scheme, we are choosing to provide up to a million more dental consultations and treatments for the most needy Australians.
Medicare Teen Dental Plan
The Medicare Teen Dental Plan will also commence in July 2008, subject to the passage of this bill and the Dental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008.
Under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, the government will provide up to $150 per eligible person towards an annual preventative check for teenagers aged 12 to 17 years in families receiving family tax benefit part A. Teenagers in the same age group receiving youth allowance or Abstudy will also be eligible for the program.
About 1.1 million teenagers will be eligible for the Medicare Teen Dental Plan each year.
The program will assist families to help keep their teenagers’ teeth in good health, and encourage young adults to continue to look after their teeth once they become independent and move out of home. This is an investment in preventative care.
Adolescence is a time when many young people strive for independence from their families, and move outside the parental structures which have supported their health. It is precisely at this stage in life that many young people’s dental health declines. As I noted earlier, there is a fourfold increase in dental decay between the ages of 12 and 21. Dental experts also tell us that the highest levels of reported toothache are in those aged between 18 to 21.
We need to stem the dramatic decline in dental health that occurs among our children in adolescence. We need to avoid the terrible health consequences this leads to in later life—which requires more expensive treatment, as well as entailing personal and social costs.
We have said on many occasions that preventative health is a key priority of the Rudd government. The health system needs to be refocused so that it keeps people well and prevents disease. The $490 million investment that the Rudd government is making in the Medicare Teen Dental Plan demonstrates our determination to make this priority a reality.
Under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, we are going to encourage teenagers to care for their teeth properly—to get annual check-ups, so that any problems that might arise do not get worse further down the track. Providing preventative checks is also an effective way to maintain good oral health and reduce the need for expensive treatment in the future.
The Medicare Teen Dental Plan will operate as part of the broad Medicare arrangements, through a new Dental Benefits Schedule (DBS). The Dental Benefits Schedule will be administered by Medicare Australia and will operate in a similar manner to the existing Medicare arrangements. However, unlike the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the DBS will be targeted to specific age groups and working families receiving family tax benefit part A.
The annual preventative dental check will include an oral examination and, where clinically required, X-rays, scale and clean, and other preventative services. These include fluoride application, oral hygiene instruction, provision of dietary advice, and fissure sealing.
Eligible families and teenagers will be automatically sent a voucher by Medicare Australia once the program commences. Once the voucher is received, the teenager can receive a preventative check from his or her dentist. Teenagers or their parents will be able to claim a rebate back from a Medicare Office, or their dentist may decide to bulk bill the dental check. Up to $150 towards the cost of the service can be reimbursed through Medicare Australia.
Eligible teenagers will be able to use their voucher to receive a preventative dental check either from a private or public sector dentist. The dental check may be performed by a dental therapist or dental hygienist on behalf of a dentist, under appropriate supervision.
The Dental Benefits Bill establishes a legislative framework for the payment of dental benefits under a new Dental Benefits Schedule.
Summing-up
In summary, the Rudd government is delivering on its election commitments and making a $780 million investment in Australia’s dental health through the Medicare Teen Dental Plan and the Commonwealth Dental Health Program.
This marks the end of the blame game that, thanks to the previous government, has afflicted dental health for more than a decade.
It marks the end of the buck-passing and blame-shifting that has prevented the poorest, most needy people accessing the dental care they need.
It demonstrates that the Rudd government can make tough decisions to close down ill-targeted programs which have demonstrably failed, and replace them with targeted programs that help Australians most in need, such as pensioners and concession card holders.
It also demonstrates our commitment to investing in preventive health, ensuring our kids preserve their dental health today, rather than only treating their dental problems tomorrow.
The programs demonstrate the Rudd government’s determination to address the immediate pressures on Australia’s dental health system, the 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists who are the Howard government’s sad legacy.
And they also demonstrate the Rudd government’s commitment to building for Australia’s future, by encouraging our teenagers to develop good dental habits and preserve their dental health for the long term.
Together, these programs will attack the sorry state of dental health in Australia. They will address Australia’s dental crisis by delivering up to one million more consultations and treatments through the public dental system. And, by enabling more than a million teenagers to take better care of their teeth, they will support better dental health into the future.
This is the start of a new era in dental care. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Before I commence my speech, I have a note here saying that 100 very excited grades 5 and 6 students from Carranballac College in the Deputy Prime Minister’s electorate are here hoping that Julia Gillard is going to be here to wave to them. I have to report that, unfortunately, she was here looking for you but left at five to four and asked me to acknowledge you. You are very welcome in the House. I hope you all look after your teeth well.
The Dental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 makes amendments to a number of other acts, including the Medicare Australia Act 1973, the Age Discrimination Act 2004 and legislation relating to the family tax benefit part A, youth allowance and Abstudy programs.
These amendments are necessary for the effective operation of the Teen Dental Plan.
The amendments will ensure that the Medicare Teen Dental Plan does not breach the Age Discrimination Act, and ensure that the investigative powers of Medicare Australia may be exercised in relation to offences contained in the Dental Benefits Bill.
The amendments will also allow the exchange of information between Centrelink and Medicare Australia so that vouchers can be distributed to eligible families and teenagers.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 amends the National Health Act 1953, which I will refer to as the act, to provide authority for the cost recovery of services provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the exercise of powers for listing medicines, vaccines and other products, or services, on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and designation of vaccines for the National Immunisation Program (NIP).
The aim of the PBS is to ensure that Australians have affordable access to high-quality medicines in the community. An initiative of a Labor government 60 years ago, the PBS is now accepted by both sides of politics as a success story. Access to high-quality medicines is maintained by subsidising the cost of PBS medicines and limiting the amount that people pay for prescriptions at the point of sale. Medicines that are listed on the PBS are assessed by experts to be clinically safe and cost-effective. The PBS serves Australians well and is justifiably regarded as one of the best systems of its kind in the world.
Similarly, the government is dedicated to ensuring that all Australians can continue to receive fully funded vaccines under the NIP. The NIP is a joint program of Commonwealth and state/territory governments which provides fully funded vaccines for major preventable diseases. NIP funding is provided through grants from the Commonwealth to the states and territories. The states and territories provide vaccines free of charge to health providers for them to administer to the community.
The cost of providing subsidised medicines and fully funded vaccines to the Australian community is a significant financial outlay to the Commonwealth and taxpayers. In 2006-07 the Commonwealth paid $6.4 billion to approved pharmacists, hospitals and medical practitioners for the subsidised supply of medicines under the PBS. A further $280 million was provided by the Commonwealth to the states and territories for the fully funded supply of vaccines under the National Immunisation Program within their respective jurisdictions.
The government was in opposition when the previous government sought to introduce cost recovery of services associated with listing on the PBS and NIP and, in fact, banked the savings despite never introducing the legislation. We shared some of the reservations of some stakeholders about the model proposed by the previous government. It was arguable that the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) could be threatened if it was reliant upon the pharmaceutical industry for its funding.
However, in the model reflected in the bill I introduce today, the independence of the PBAC is guaranteed. The government will continue to directly fund all the activities of the PBAC and its subcommittees. The PBAC will have no role in setting fees and it will not receive any revenue from industry. All revenue collected from cost recovery will be paid directly into consolidated revenue.
I would like emphasise that the expertise, integrity and sense of propriety that PBAC members bring to their task will not change as a result of cost recovery. The PBAC will continue to provide expert advice on medicines, independent of government and industry. Cost recovery will not affect the structure or the operation of the PBAC, nor will it compromise the independence of the committee’s decisions. There are other notable examples of agencies, such as the Therapeutics Goods Administration, the TGA—which regulate in the public interest and where that regulation necessarily results in commercial gain—where cost recovery has been implemented successfully and without a loss of independence.
In implementing a cost recovery fee for Commonwealth services, it is important to note that the Australians accessing the PBS and NIP will not be required to pay any extra for PBS listed medicines or vaccines as a result of this measure.
Cost recovery is not a new policy. Cost recovery arrangements have been applied with success to many departments and agencies at state and federal level, including for example, the TGA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.
The pharmaceutical industry is familiar with cost recovery—the industry has been paying for the pre-market evaluation of products by the TGA since 1991.
Achieving a product listing on the PBS provides a high level of commercial certainty to a company in relation to that product’s sales.
In this context, it is not unreasonable to recoup taxpayer incurred costs associated with new listings, or changes to existing listings of medicines on the PBS or vaccines designated for the NIP.
Australian pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors with medicines or vaccines listed on the PBS and designated for the NIP receive considerable financial benefits via the PBS from the supply of their products to the Australian community. For example, in 2006-07 the top 20 pharmaceutical companies, by total cost of payments, each received, on average, $223 million from the Commonwealth via the PBS subsidy.
The Productivity Commission has commented that, by ensuring that those who use regulated services bear the costs, cost recovery can promote economic efficiency and equity by instilling cost consciousness among agencies and users. In this case, it is expected that cost recovery will provide benefits to both government and industry—for example, potentially increasing the compliance of submissions with the PBAC guidelines and reducing time and costs associated with resubmissions.
As I mentioned earlier, the PBAC is an independent expert body, established under the act. Its members are selected from consumers, health economists, practising community pharmacists, general practitioners, clinical pharmacologists and other specialists. This remains unchanged. The functions of the PBAC include making recommendations to the minister on products which they consider should be made available under the PBS or NIP. This also remains unchanged. In deciding whether to recommend products for listing, the PBAC is required under the act to give consideration to the cost-effectiveness of the treatment, including by comparing alternative options. This is also unchanged.
In fact, the whole process remains unchanged. The PBAC makes recommendations for listing and changes to those listings three times a year. In conjunction with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority, the Department of Health and Ageing undertakes price negotiations for brands listed on the PBS and for designated vaccines. The schedule of PBS benefits is updated and published 12 times a year to reflect new and changed listings.
The evaluation, pricing and listing of products, and changes to those listings, involves activities undertaken by various parties, including the PBAC, its subcommittees, the pricing authority, departmental officers, and contractors and subcontractors to the department.
Currently, the cost of these activities is borne fully by taxpayers. This bill changes only this part of the PBAC’s current function and structure.
The government supports the principle of cost recovery in appropriate circumstances to alleviate the burden on taxpayers and, consistent with responsible economic management, is proceeding with the previously announced intentions of the last government. The bill is to commence on 1 July 2008, and the cost recovery will begin following commencement of regulations prescribing the necessary fees and arrangements.
These proposed amendments to the act will provide the necessary legal authority for the charging of fees, which will be prescribed in regulations under the act. The bill is not a taxing bill and the fees may not amount to taxation.
Cost recovery will include the costs of submissions to the PBAC and all processes that arise from those submissions in relation to new or changes to existing listings of medicines on the PBS or designated as vaccines for the NIP.
Although any person may lodge a submission, in practice, the fees will generally be payable by pharmaceutical companies. The bill does, however, provide for regulations to be made for exemptions and waiver of fees so that, when it is in the public interest, no fees will be payable.
The trigger for fees will be the lodgement of a submission, which, in the case of pharmaceutical companies, is purely a commercial decision. Pharmaceutical companies are free to market their products in Australia independently of the PBS or NIP subsidies. However, financial returns from the PBS and NIP, especially in relation to high sales ‘prescription only’ items, are significantly increased by PBS listing.
The desired scope of the regulation-making power for cost recovery is broad in order to allow for the flexible, efficient and transparent administration of the cost recovery arrangements. The regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Without limiting the scope of the regulation-making power, the regulations may include, but are not limited to:
During consultations with stakeholders by the previous government in 2006 and 2007 there was a general agreement on a fees-only model with two payment points: the first for the receipt and evaluation of a submission, and the second for pricing and listing activities following a positive PBAC recommendation. A simple fee structure is proposed, in line with the existing submission categories with which the industry is already familiar. Each passage through the PBAC will be treated as a single event—a drug that is resubmitted on several occasions, following a refusal by PBAC to make a positive recommendation, will be liable for an evaluation fee on each occasion. This reflects the fact that a complete evaluation is required each time a submission is made, and is a disincentive for poor quality submissions. A further payment point will apply for an applicant seeking an independent review of a negative PBAC decision.
The regulations may allow for exemptions from fees, as I have noted. For example, it is expected that Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) designated orphan drugs and drugs approved for temporary supply will be automatically exempted.
The regulations may also provide for the refusal to provide services until a fee is paid. If fees go unpaid, a simple ‘tools down’ approach is envisaged, involving no further consideration until payment is received. Furthermore, this bill clarifies that the minister may refuse to exercise certain powers (under section 9B or a provision under part VII of the act) if prescribed fees are not paid. The regulations may also allow for the recovery of unpaid fees as a debt due to the Commonwealth.
The government is very committed to ensuring that there is a due process to ensure that fees and charges are levied in a fair and equitable way. For that reason we will be ensuring that there is a system in place to allow drug companies and others who may make submissions to the PBAC to have their medicine evaluated, or to the Department of Health and Ageing to have their medicine listed, will have a right to ask for a review of the charges that have been imposed.
In the first instance, and if the matter cannot be resolved through discussion, the department will ask a departmental officer who has not been a part of the original decision to review the case and make a fresh decision. And if this still does not satisfy the company, they will have a right to take their case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
This will be an important feature of cost recovery and will provide assurance that fees and charges are being applied consistently, fairly and equitably. There will be no additional fee charged for this process.
In making preparations for implementation, my department is liaising with the Department of Finance and Deregulation and following the Australian government cost recovery guidelines. The department has consulted with key stakeholders, including peak industry, consumer and healthcare provider bodies. In addition, a cost recovery impact statement will be finalised to report on consultations and document compliance with the government’s cost recovery policy.
In accordance with the cost recovery guidelines, the department will introduce ongoing monitoring mechanisms to ensure fees remain based on efficient costs, and will continue to liaise closely with key stakeholders.
Revenue from PBS cost recovery will depend on the number and type of submissions brought to the PBAC for consideration. As a general rule, the more complex and time consuming the evaluation and price negotiation, the higher the fees. Once fully operational, annual revenue from fees is expected to be about $9 million in 2008-09, rising to around $14 million a year in following years.
It is expected that fees will be indexed annually and a full review undertaken within five years, in accordance with cost recovery guidelines.
The recovery of costs incurred by the department for the assessment of submissions made to the PBAC and subsequent evaluation, pricing and listing processes is an extension of an already established cost recovery model operating for the TGA. In that case applicants pay a fee for the work undertaken by the TGA in assessing their drug for use within Australia. Applicants are familiar with this process and have accepted its introduction.
Cost recovery within the PBAC process will be a simple system recovering costs from parties that are in a position to gain significant financial benefit from the listing of their drugs or changes to listings, within the PBS subsidy framework and from the designation of their vaccines for funding under the National Immunisation Program.
It is all about ensuring that the PBS continues to be able to provide reliable, timely and affordable access to a wide range of medicines for all Australians.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), as I said in speaking to the previous bill, is one of the cornerstones of our health system. It has provided Australians with affordable access to quality medicines for almost 60 years and is justifiably regarded as one of the best systems of its kind in the world. One of the reasons it has been so successful is that PBS subsidies are provided directly to consumers at the point of purchase of medicines in the community.
At the same time, the PBS provides an efficient, transparent and predictable system for industry and the supply chain.
In 2006-07, government expenditure on the PBS was approximately $6.4 billion and we expect it to be around $7 billion this year. This is a significant level of government expenditure, but we believe that the money is well spent.
This bill contains a number of largely technical amendments to the National Health Act 1953, with the exception of a safety net measure that will provide great relief to families separated by poor health or working for the government overseas.
Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.
These changes will strengthen the PBS and improve access to PBS entitlements. I will now outline each, commencing with the safety net measure that I just mentioned.
The PBS safety net, as people in this House know, protects individuals and families who need a large number of medicines from high cumulative health costs.
Members of the family can combine certain PBS charges toward a joint safety net tally. In 2008, the PBS safety net thresholds are $290 for concession card holders and veterans, and $1,141.80 for general patients. The same threshold applies for a family unit, whether as an individual, a couple or a family with dependent children. After a family reaches the safety net threshold amount, all members of the family benefit from the reduced PBS charges for medicines for the rest of the calendar year. In 2008, the copayment reduces from $5 to free for concessional payments, and from $31.30 to $5 for general payments.
In broad terms, a PBS family for safety net purposes consists of a person, their spouse, and dependent children. Under the current rules, a legally married or de facto couple must be living together on a permanent basis to qualify as members of the same family. If a couple is living apart permanently, neither person meets the PBS definition of spouse to the other. In that case, each person is treated as an individual with a separate safety net for him or herself, together with any dependants in the person’s care, meaning a much higher threshold has to be reached by the couple.
This rule currently applies even if a couple is living apart permanently due to illness or infirmity; for example, if one partner is living separately in long-term nursing care. For such couples, the effect of having separate safety nets is that they may need to pay up to twice the amount in PBS contributions to reach the safety net threshold as they otherwise would.
The amendment in schedule 3 removes this harsh rule and improves access to the PBS safety net for legally married or de facto couples living apart permanently due to illness or infirmity. It provides relief to couples, particularly elderly couples, at a difficult time in their lives. It will allow such couples, who are currently treated as individuals, to use the safety net as a family, in the same way as they would if they were still living together.
This amendment extends the PBS safety net definition of spouse so that a legally married or de facto couple living apart permanently due to illness or infirmity, of either or both persons, is not taken to be living separately on a permanent basis.
This will mean that couples, often long-time life partners, can continue to be treated as members of the same family for the PBS safety net. They will be able to contribute PBS payments to the same safety net threshold; be included on the same safety net concession or entitlement card once the threshold is reached between them; and both will have access to reduced copayments for medicines supplied as safety net benefits.
In effect, this change will mean that the amount of PBS payments required for both members of the couple to reach the safety net is the equivalent of one safety net threshold—not two. It has the potential to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for PBS medicines for such couples by an amount equal to the relevant safety net threshold amount.
This is an important measure that will provide significant financial relief and appropriate recognition to eligible couples struggling to afford their medicines. There is no good reason why people who, as a result of illness or infirmity, are forced to live apart should not have the same PBS entitlements as other couples. This is essentially a matter of fairness.
It might assist the House, given the time of day, if I table the rest of the speech in accordance with the one that has been distributed. The other measures are mostly technical measures which will have benefits for Australian residents who are working for the government overseas. If that is an appropriate method for the House, I will do so.
I am led to believe that speeches are not ordinarily tabled in practice.
They may not ordinarily be, but I can guarantee that there are a number of my colleagues—and it appears none on the other side—who would benefit from this process. I seek leave of the House to be able to do that.
Certainly leave is granted from this side.
To help clarify issues, both for me and for my colleagues here, I believe I have to seek the permission of the Speaker in practice to do this, so I would need to be able to do that. It is not the practice of this House to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: to assist, perhaps a convenient means would be to accept that proposition, subject to the agreement of the Speaker being raised and given the agreement of the House not to proceed with the adjournment for the convenience of members of the opposition. I would have thought that in those circumstances, whilst it is not common, it would be convenient. Perhaps, if the clerk at the table could communicate with the Speaker, we could resolve that matter rather than the minister having to read the remainder of the speech.
On a common-sense level, I would regard that as acceptable if the opposition also accept that practice.
I am not aware of the rules of the House in this matter—
No, nor am I.
but I think common sense does prevail. On the basis that if the Speaker agrees with it then I certainly do not have a problem. But I certainly have not checked it with my group.
I regard that as common sense, and I would ask that that occur. I seek the apologies of the House if I am wrong in my ruling on this, but I regard it to be common sense, so I would like to allow that.
Thank you for that indulgence. I think it does assist the House, and I therefore table the remainder of my second reading speech.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces amendments to the social security law, the family assistance law, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and related acts to implement certain measures from the 2008 budget and some minor amendments.
The Rudd government’s first budget delivered over $55 billion to support working families, seniors, carers and people with disability.
The budget delivered our election commitments and invested responsibly in building a modern Australia.
It was carefully framed to meet challenging economic times. It recognised that many Australians are under increasing financial strain from rising cost of living expenses and high interest rates.
The budget also reflected the economic reality that inflation is the No. 1 enemy of families, pensioners and the vulnerable in our community.
Fighting inflation is essential to responsible economic management, and this budget delivers critical measures to achieve this.
Central is the better targeting of government payments so that assistance is being directed to those who need it most.
The first of the budget measures in this bill will establish a $150,000 limit on primary earner income for family tax benefit part B. Claimants of related tax offsets will be subject to a similar income limit.
Family tax benefit part B, along with part A, is one of the two components that may make up a person’s rate of family tax benefit. The part B rate for a single person is not currently subject to an income test. For a member of a couple, the part B rate is currently subject to an income test on the secondary earner only. As a result, very high income singles and couples with children may currently be eligible for taxpayer funded family assistance, a situation that has been of some community concern.
Under this measure, a family will not be eligible for family tax benefit part B where the primary earner in a couple, or a sole parent, has adjusted taxable income of more than $150,000 for the financial year. Single parent families with income at or below the $150,000 limit will continue to receive the maximum rate of payment. The limit will be indexed each year in line with movements in the Consumer Price Index.
Related dependency offsets delivered through the tax system—namely, dependent spouse, housekeeper, child housekeeper, parent or parent-in-law and invalid relative tax offsets—will also be targeted to those on incomes of $150,000 or less per year.
There are four measures in the bill relating to baby bonus. Baby bonus is currently a flat rate, one-off payment made on the birth of a child or the adoption of a child under the age of two. The payment is currently indexed twice a year, in March and September. The baby bonus will increase to $5,000 on 1 July 2008.
The government is committed to a child centred approach to family policy and this bill will make baby bonus simpler and fairer, and help direct it to those families who need it most.
The first of the baby bonus measures in this bill will introduce an income test, limiting eligibility to families with incomes equivalent to $150,000 or less per year. The income test will be applied on a pro rata basis for the six months after the birth. Families with estimated adjusted taxable income of over $75,000 in the six months following the birth, or following the commencement of care by an adoptive parent or a long-term carer, will no longer be eligible for the payment.
Families will need to provide a reasonable estimate of their income over this period. This can be easily provided through things like evidence of their income, their partner’s income and any approved leave, including paid leave. The government’s emphasis in administering the income test will be on up-front verification of estimates. Families do not have to worry that a debt may be raised against them because their income changes. If false or misleading information is provided then the usual sanctions will apply.
The new income test takes into account the fact that family income is often reduced when a new child arrives, and ensures that the timing of the birth or adoption within a financial year does not arbitrarily affect a family’s eligibility.
As with the family tax benefit part B income limit, the baby bonus income limit will be indexed each year in line with movements in the CPI.
The second baby bonus measure will result in eligible families being paid their baby bonus in 13 fortnightly instalments from the date of claim. This will provide families with financial support and certainty over an ongoing period, providing families with the cash they need to pay the bills as they come in.
The third measure will change the indexation date for baby bonus to 1 July each year after the legislated increase to $5,000, in line with other family payments. The first application of annual indexation will be on 1 July 2009.
The fourth change will increase the age limit for baby bonus eligibility from two to 16 years where a child is adopted. A parent will now be eligible for baby bonus for an adopted child if the child is aged under 16 when adopted, and if the adoptive parent claims the bonus within 26 weeks of the child being placed into their care by the appropriate authority. The baby bonus will be available for a locally adopted child, regardless of whether this payment was previously made to the birth parent or other primary carer.
Extending the eligibility criteria for the baby bonus to allow more adoptive parents to claim payment will create a fairer system and treat all new parents in the same way. It recognises that, as with a newborn, an adoptive parent incurs similar set-up costs and may need to spend periods of time out of the workforce to welcome and settle their child.
A further budget measure recently announced will see the development of a compliance regime for the Commonwealth seniors health card. The card helps self-funded retirees of age pension, veteran pension or qualifying age, who pass an income test with living costs, by allowing access to transport and health services at a cheaper rate and providing entitlement to the seniors concession allowance and telephone allowance. There is currently no mechanism to determine ongoing eligibility for the card, unlike other concessions and benefits in the social security system.
The bill provides for the collection of tax file numbers to enable data matching, similar to existing arrangements for social security payments and payments under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, to ensure compliance with the income test.
The bill also introduces amendments to the social security law to allow a person to enter into an agreement with the secretary under which the person voluntarily agrees to be subject to income management.
Income management redirects a percentage of a person’s income support and family payments to meet costs associated with shelter, household essentials, food and clothing. Currently, income management is being implemented under three differing models, all with the objective of ensuring that income support and family payments which are paid for the benefit of children are used as intended. The three models are:
The bill allows people to refer themselves for income management where they feel, for example, that this would assist them to manage their finances better. Anecdotal evidence from the Northern Territory and other areas within Australia has indicated that some people would like the option of using income management to ensure the priority needs for themselves and their children are met. The voluntary scheme of income management introduced by this bill will give people this option. Income management will provide an avenue for individuals to learn money management skills in the longer term and will assist in meeting any essential financial priorities.
The final budget measure will align the minimum eligible age for partner service pension, paid under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, with that of veteran service pension age. This measure will increase the eligible age for partner service pension—for males, from 50 to 60 years of age; and, for females, from 50 to 58½ years of age—as currently set under age equalisation rules.
Lastly, the bill will make some minor policy and technical amendments to portfolio legislation, including to the family assistance law in relation to the 1 July 2008 child support reforms, and to provide a discretion for the Child Support Registrar to deduct child support arrears from Centrelink and Department of Veterans’ Affairs payments at less than the full prescribed amount in cases of hardship.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Debate resumed.
by leave—The new safety net definition for spouse also applies for couples accessing pharmaceutical benefits under the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS). The amendment is proposed to commence on 1 January 2009, as the PBS and RPBS safety nets operate by calendar year.
The proposed safety net arrangements can provide significant benefits for the people involved. I also note that this measure of fairness comes at a modest cost to the PBS. The overall cost is estimated to be around $1.1 million per year, which is a small fraction of total PBS expenditure.
Illness-separated couples are provided for in other Commonwealth legislation such as the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The change to the PBS reflects a similar approach and will apply to couples in similar circumstances to those already recognised under those other acts.
This measure recognises that when couples need to live apart for reasons of ill health, frailty or dependent care they do not cease to be a family. The proposed amendment provides continuity for joint access to safety net entitlements for those couples despite their living circumstances having changed permanently. It will improve the affordability of PBS medicines for these people at a time when they may be most in need of the benefits of the PBS.
The amendment in schedule 2 proposes changes to provide access to the PBS for people working overseas as government officers, and for accompanying spouses and dependants. Only people who are otherwise eligible to receive PBS medicines will be able to take advantage of this measure.
Under the current legislation, access to the PBS is restricted in the following way:
The existing provisions are appropriately designed to protect the PBS by making it hard for ineligible people, such as nonresidents, tourists and visitors, to obtain PBS subsidised medicines. However, these safeguards also affect the ability of Australian government officers to obtain supplies of PBS medicines when working outside Australia.
Accessing medicines in some overseas locations may be difficult or uncertain. In some places where officers are sent to perform duties for an Australian government, the range and quality of medicines available locally may not match that of PBS medicines, supply of medicines may be unreliable, or medicines may only be available at a high cost.
This amendment provides that, for PBS purposes, a person who is working outside Australia as a Commonwealth, or a state or territory officer, is taken to reside in Australia. This will enable pharmacists to dispense PBS prescriptions for medicines required by these officers. It also provides for PBS medicines to be supplied for accompanying spouses and dependent children of these officers. PBS medicines for these officers and their families will be able to be taken or sent out of Australia in quantities required for personal use.
Under the proposed changes, access to pharmaceutical benefits outside Australia is extended only to government officers, spouses and dependants who are otherwise eligible to receive these benefits when in Australia. Around 3,000 people will be eligible.
The present prohibitions on export of PBS medicines for or to other persons outside Australia remain in place. The new arrangements do not cover people working overseas for private companies, studying overseas, providing services as an independent contractor to governments, conducting personal business, travelling as tourists, or living overseas permanently.
Established compliance and surveillance activities by Medicare Australia and the Australian Customs Service will continue to ensure that controls on access to PBS medicines are enforced appropriately. Arrangements will be established to identify those eligible and to ensure that non-eligible people cannot benefit from the measure.
The proposed changes will provide people working overseas as government officers with access to pharmaceutical benefits. It is important that this access be implemented as soon as practicable.
The amendment in schedule 1 expands the criteria for determining that brands of pharmaceutical items are co-marketed. This is to ensure that legislation in relation to co-marketing operates as it was originally intended.
PBS amendments to the National Health Act in 2007 introduced the concept of co-marketed brands. This concept permits two or more brands of a pharmaceutical item that are prescribed in the regulations, or meet certain criteria, to be treated as one brand of the pharmaceutical item. This is important, because while these brands are co-marketed they are not subject to statutory price reductions that would otherwise apply to the brands as multiple brand medicines.
The criteria for determining co-marketed brands require amendment so that co-marketed brands, in certain circumstances, may be co-marketed brands even if they are brands of more than one pharmaceutical item. As I said earlier, this simply ensures that the act operates as intended.
I will use a fictitious example to show how this amendment works.
This amendment also contains provisions for the minister to determine, by legislative instrument, that co-marketed brands cease to be co-marketed. This is an important amendment as it allows the minister’s determination ceasing a co-marketing arrangement to take precedence over the regulations which prescribe certain co-marketed brands. This is necessary to ensure that the co-marketed status of brands grandfathered into the regulations when the concept was introduced in 2007 can be adjusted in a timely fashion when new brands of pharmaceutical items are listed on the PBS. This will mean that once a determination ceasing co-marketing is made the prescribed co-marketed brands that no longer meet certain criteria for co-marketing can be treated as multiple brands.
And finally, to two miscellaneous amendments that are made by this bill:
With regard to provisions for gazettals, the legislation currently requires that the determinations which specify the pharmaceutical benefits that can be prescribed by participating dental practitioners and authorised optometrists, be published in the gazette. The amendment removes this requirement and provides that these determinations are legislative instruments.
Under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, the registration of legislative instruments on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments generally replaces the requirement for gazettal. The changes bring the requirements for the PBS determinations I mentioned into line with the Legislative Instruments Act. Inclusion of these determinations on the register is already occurring. There are no implications for consumers, business, or regulatory procedures associated with this change.
In conclusion, the bill contains amendments which recognise that the way the PBS operates is important to the health of Australians. The proposed changes demonstrate this government’s determination to ensure that the PBS continues to meet the needs of Australians as users of PBS medicines, while providing workable requirements for the pharmaceutical industry. This bill contains fair, sensible and practical changes which maintain that balance between the cost of the PBS for the community as a whole and the cost of medicines for individuals and families.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill makes amendments to legislation related to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. The amendments are aimed at allowing greater flexibility in dealings with land which is owned or controlled by Aboriginal people, and at facilitating the provision of improved housing and infrastructure for Aboriginal people by better allowing for security of tenure to government providers of facilities.
The bill allows for additional flexibility in relation to township leases under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to encourage more communities to enter into township leases. In particular, a minimum term of leases will be set at 40 years and leases will be able to include provision for extension of the original term of the lease to a maximum of 99 years.
These changes will allow traditional owners to propose a lease tailored to the needs of a particular community. The government sees many advantages to whole-of-township leases and will work with traditional owners through land councils to progress these leases where communities are interested.
The amendments will allow the finalisation of the Regional Partnership Agreement in relation to the Groote Eylandt region signed on behalf of the Australian and Northern Territory governments and the Anindilyakwa people on 20 May 2008. That agreement includes township leases over the communities of Angurugu, Umbakumba and Milyakburra for an initial term of 40 years and a renewal period of 40 years. This flexible position which was taken on the term allowed agreement to be reached with people who were understandably concerned at committing future generations to a century-long land arrangement. The amendments will allow these leases which have been agreed to be put in place.
The bill also allows the Executive Director of Township Leasing to hold other types of leases or subleases over land held primarily for the benefit of Aboriginal people. This simply provides a further option to Aboriginal people in considering whether to grant leases over their land. Aboriginal people may prefer a position where a lease granted for the purpose of supporting housing and infrastructure is held by the Executive Director of Township Leasing that is a Commonwealth statutory office with a measure of independence.
This measure is an additional avenue for landowners to consider when leasing or subleasing their land to government to enable much needed housing and infrastructure construction to occur with certainty for both governments and landowners.
The bill contains some minor changes to the land related provisions of the emergency response legislation. In particular, it provides streamlined processes for payments to landholders for the acquisition of five-year leases.
The bill amends schedule 1 to the Northern Territory Land Rights Act to include 13 parks and reserves which were the subject of land claims under the act. This arises from a landmark agreement struck in September 2003 between the Northern Territory government and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land about the future tenure and administration of the parks and reserves.
The government is pleased to be able to finalise the agreement, and notes that the previous government failed to do so in the more than two years between the request for scheduling and its losing office. Resolving Indigenous land claims by agreement where possible and not through the courts is the position this government takes when approaching Indigenous land issues.
The government recognises the foresight and determination of the Northern Territory government and the Northern and Central land councils in reaching an agreement that provides lasting benefits for all Territorians.
As a result of the agreement, the land will be granted to the traditional owners on the basis that it will be immediately leased back to the Northern Territory government to continue to operate as national parks. This is similar to the arrangements the Northern Territory government has with the owners of Nitmiluk National Park and the Commonwealth has with the owners of Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu national parks and ensures that Aboriginal people and other Australians can jointly enjoy the benefits of significant pieces of the national estate. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Burke.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia’s wheat export marketing arrangements are not working effectively.
The previous government’s wheat export marketing arrangements failed to protect the interests of growers.
First, there was no effective separation of the management of the listed company AWB Limited and the subsidiary AWB International.
Second, the export monopoly resulted in a lack of contestability in services.
This meant that returns to growers from the national pool were not maximised because the costs of operating the pool were not minimised.
And third, the body established by the former government to protect the interests of growers, the Wheat Export Authority, as well as its successor, the Export Wheat Commission, was not given the powers it needed to do its job.
Worse, the government failed to ensure it used the limited powers it had effectively.
These failures were highlighted over the years during a range of inquiries and reviews, including the Cole commission.
For example, the 2000 National Competition Policy Review of wheat marketing arrangements, the study by ACIL Tasman in 2006 and a recent analysis by ABARE all failed to find any compelling evidence that single desk marketing can deliver price premiums in the international market.
These studies provided convincing evidence that the old single desk had an inhibiting effect on both innovation in marketing and the realisation of cost savings in grain transport and handling.
The research found any price premiums were largely attributable to freight advantages or to the provision of services associated with the sale of wheat—not the single desk arrangement.
In addition to those authoritative reports, successive ‘grower reports’ produced by the Export Wheat Commission suggest that growers were not getting the best financial deal under the old single desk arrangements.
For example, the 2007 report raised concerns about the financial risk faced by growers under AWB Limited’s hedging practices relating to the 2005-06 and 2006-07 pools and chartering rates charged by AWB Chartering.
The failings of the previous government’s wheat marketing policies are well documented.
Risks to growers were increased by forcing them to rely on a single exporter. For example, by forcing growers to export through AWB International, Australian growers temporarily lost access to the Iraq market, a critically important market which has only recently resumed Australian wheat imports.
The former government’s policy reduced incentives for much needed investment in rail and port infrastructure.
It stifled innovation by restricting growers’ capacity to invest in their own marketing options.
It prevented growers from being able to take full advantage of high-premium niche export markets.
It restricted the marketing choices for growers.
And it prevented industry from working collaboratively to maximise supply chain efficiencies.
An evidence based assessment clearly demonstrates the failings of the old single desk system.
In the wake of the Cole commission, the previous government had an unprecedented opportunity, indeed a clear responsibility to act, and to act decisively.
But it failed to do so.
It failed to do so because the Liberal-National coalition was paralysed by division on the issue.
Instead, in response to Cole, the previous government put in place a series of half-hearted temporary measures which were nothing more than a patch up job.
The temporary measures, which remain in place today, not only failed to remedy the underlying defects but in fact exacerbated the problems.
Worse, the previous government politicised the complex arrangements by granting temporary veto powers for bulk wheat exports to the then minister.
We now have the absurd situation where it is the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry who decides who can and who can not export wheat in bulk.
Even the monopoly holder has described the current temporary arrangements as unworkable.
AWB Ltd Managing Director, Mr Gordon Davis, recently said, and I quote, ‘No responsible board of directors would agree to continue running a national pool in these circumstances and in the current US subprime environment.’
The temporary arrangements are a stark reminder of just how badly the issue of wheat marketing paralysed the previous government.
Members on all sides of the House need to appreciate that this legislation is about providing choice for growers.
This should not be considered an unreasonable step.
After all, it is their wheat.
This bill delivers on a key election commitment to establish a system that will provide Australian wheat growers and the grains industry with a structure that will maximise incentives, minimise costs, increase supply chain efficiencies, reduce risk and protect growers.
The bill will make marketing services more cost efficient, and will open new markets for Australian wheat.
In developing the draft legislation, the government has undertaken an extensive consultation process:
we have released an exposure draft of the legislation for public comment
the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee has conducted an inquiry into the bills
we established an industry expert group which has consulted with industry and reported on the most effective delivery of industry development services
and I, and my department, have consulted with a range of stakeholders, including growers, grower organisations, bulk handlers and potential exporters.
The government has conducted several detailed private briefings with each of the state farm organisations.
And a significant number of non-government members and senators also took up the offer that I made of private briefings.
The government is particularly pleased with the response to this consultation process and the willingness of industry to look to the future and work cooperatively with the government to refine the legislation before the parliament today.
The government has listened to the views expressed by industry members and the Senate committee, and has accepted arguments put forward on a number of issues.
The draft legislation has been amended accordingly.
The new arrangements will be in place by 1 July 2008 so that growers and other industry participants will know, with certainty, the arrangements that will apply for the 2008 harvest.
The government will conduct an independent evaluation of these arrangements commencing in 2010.
By then, the scheme will have been operating for long enough to allow a true indication of its effectiveness.
This review will be conducted by the Productivity Commission, and will include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the arrangements.
The new arrangements centre around the establishment of a new industry regulator, Wheat Exports Australia, which will control bulk wheat exports by managing an export accreditation scheme.
Wheat Exports Australia will be established as an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and will be subject to the provisions of that act.
It will be comprised of a chair, and between three and five other members who will be appointed based on their skills and experience in relevant areas.
I have established a selection committee to provide me with a list of candidates for consideration.
I expect the committee will provide its recommendations shortly.
The primary responsibility for Wheat Exports Australia will be to develop, refine and administer the accreditation scheme.
The scheme will be made as a legislative instrument under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
It has been done this way to make sure Wheat Exports Australia has the flexibility to manage the scheme effectively.
While Wheat Exports Australia will be given the power to make and administer the scheme, it will do so under broad policy parameters set out in the bill.
The final scrutiny will be by parliament, as the scheme must be tabled and is a disallowable instrument.
As well as granting accreditation, Wheat Exports Australia will have the power to suspend or cancel an accreditation if the exporter ceases to meet its probity requirements or is not complying with the conditions of accreditation.
Wheat Exports Australia will regularly review the financial conditions, and activities, of accredited exporters to make sure they are complying with the conditions of their accreditation.
Accredited exporters will be required to provide annual compliance reports and other relevant information to assist with this process.
Wheat Exports Australia will also be able to audit accredited companies.
There will be severe penalties for exporting wheat in bulk without accreditation, for breaching the conditions of accreditation or for providing false or misleading information to Wheat Exports Australia.
These will vary, depending on the breach.
These powers and related penalties will mean that, unlike its predecessors, Wheat Exports Australia will have the teeth to effectively perform its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities.
The bill contains an appropriate balance between the need to apply strict probity and performance tests to protect the interests of growers while not applying an excessive regulatory burden on accredited exporters.
Any company or cooperative may apply for accreditation.
The government does not believe it is necessary to extend accreditation rights to individuals, as prudent managers would operate as a company to reduce their exposure to risks associated with shipping what are expected to be high-value tonnages.
The bill sets out the criteria that Wheat Exports Australia must consider in assessing applications for accreditation.
Wheat Exports Australia will be looking at things such as the financial resources available to the company, its risk management systems and the demonstrated behaviour of the company and its executives including making sure that they are abiding by Australian law and complying with foreign laws and United Nations resolutions.
To ensure continuity of accreditation, exporters will be able to apply to have their accreditation renewed before it expires.
Wheat Exports Australia will apply the same criteria as it would with any application for accreditation.
However, as Wheat Exports Australia will already hold significant information relating to the applicant, the process should be less onerous when it comes to renewal.
While applicants will need to comply fully with some of those criteria, Wheat Exports Australia will be able to exercise some flexibility in respect to others.
There are some eligibility requirements that Wheat Exports Australia must consider, and it will have to make a judgment on whether the applicant’s record is likely to impact on its ability to fulfil its obligations as an accredited exporter.
Wheat Exports Australia has the discretion to make decisions based on the applicant’s particular circumstances and proposed export arrangements.
In determining whether an applicant is fit and proper for accreditation, Wheat Exports Australia is to have regard to a number of clauses as spelled out in section 13(1)(c) of the bill.
In reference to section 13(1)(c), I stress that the 17 clauses that follow are not of themselves the test, but are issues to which Wheat Exports Australia must have regard when determining whether or not the company, in the present, is a fit and proper company to be accredited to export wheat in bulk.
If a company does not meet one of the criteria to which Wheat Exports Australia is to have regard in determining whether an applicant is fit and proper for accreditation, it does not necessarily mean it will not be accredited.
For example, Wheat Exports Australia may also consider what action the applicant has taken to remedy the situation.
Wheat Exports Australia will need to exercise judgment as to whether the applicant is fit and proper to be accredited even though it may not pass all of the items in section 13(1)(c).
The assessment of the probity and performance of businesses applying for accreditation will go back five years.
All applicants will be treated the same under the assessment process.
However, different conditions of accreditation may be applied depending on the content of their application and their ability to deliver on their proposed activities.
AWB International will not hold any special status, and will need to apply for accreditation based on the same criteria as applied to other exporters.
These criteria are designed to make sure that growers are dealing only with companies or cooperatives of good standing and financial capability.
Growers need to know that exporters have the reputation and financial backing to pay for their crop.
I appreciate that growers will want to know as soon as possible who has been accredited and with whom they can deal.
A timely assessment of applications is essential.
I expect Wheat Exports Australia to assess applications as a priority, and I will make sure the government provides any assistance needed to help it cope with the initial flurry of applications.
One of the concerns identified during consultation was the risk of a single wheat export monopoly being replaced by three regional monopolies.
There were varying views on how to manage this risk, and the government considered a number of options to meet the principle of ensuring effective competition without imposing an unnecessary regulatory burden on business.
The government was also mindful that imposing a significant regulatory burden on the supply chain would only result in increased costs being passed back to growers.
So we have decided to impose specific requirements on accredited exporters that operate bulk grain terminals at ports, as these are the facilities with natural monopoly characteristics and are the infrastructure bottleneck in the export supply chain.
Unless all exporters can obtain access to these critical facilities on fair and reasonable terms then one of the major objectives of the policy could be frustrated.
Compliance with these requirements will be a condition of accreditation.
If Wheat Exports Australia is satisfied that an exporter has breached these conditions it will have the power to suspend or revoke its accreditation.
For the period until 1 October 2009, accredited exporters who operate bulk grain terminals at ports will be required to publish the terms and conditions under which they will provide access to other users.
After 1 October 2009, they must have an approved access undertaking with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The reason for the different conditions for port terminal operators before and after 1 October 2009 is that, according to advice from the ACCC, it is unlikely that the ACCC could receive, process and approve access undertakings in time for the 2008-09 marketing season.
The Senate inquiry also identified concern in relation to the potential for bulk-handling companies to restrict access to up-country storage facilities in a similar manner to concerns in relation to port facilities.
It is unclear from the evidence presented to the Senate inquiry whether the problem would necessarily arise, and if so, the extent of legislation that would be required to correct it.
If the highest level of regulation were to be imposed on the more than 500 up-country facilities, there is no doubt that this would create increased compliance costs which would almost certainly be directly passed back to growers.
The government will, therefore, continue to monitor the ability of exporters to access up-country storage facilities.
Let me say here, if any problems are identified then the government will take steps to remedy the situation including, if necessary, the development of a code of conduct.
Wheat Exports Australia will require an annual budget of around $4 million which will be funded through the existing wheat export charge at its current rate of 22c per tonne of wheat exported.
This will be complemented by accreditation fees which will be determined on a cost-recovery basis.
Funds left over from the Export Wheat Commission will be transferred to the new regulator on its inception.
The government recognises that these funds will be limited, as revenue from the 2007 crop has been well below expectations because of the drop in wheat exports as a result of the drought.
In addition, the funding streams for Wheat Exports Australia will not generate significant revenue until exports from the 2008 crop are fully underway.
Therefore, some additional start-up funding will be needed, particularly given that operational expenses are expected to be greater in the initial year.
The government will provide up to $5 million to help Wheat Exports Australia through the transition period.
As part of the reforms, the government established the Wheat Industry Expert Group to advise on the most efficient and effective delivery of industry development functions previously provided by AWB (International) Ltd.
For most of these services the group recommended a mixture of commercial and industry driven solutions that do not need to be set in legislation. The government agrees with this assessment.
The exception is the availability of market information.
The success of the new arrangements will depend on all industry participants having equitable access to key market information.
The government will facilitate delivery of this information by providing up to $2.52 million over three years to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to collect the necessary information and to ABARE to prepare a monthly report which will be available to industry.
This approach is consistent with the recommendation of the industry expert group.
While I agree with the group’s assessment that technical market support is a matter for exporters, I appreciate that it may take time for new entrants to develop support arrangements.
The government will therefore provide funding of up to $600,000, over three years, to help new marketers develop arrangements to deliver effective technical market support.
The government will be talking to relevant industry representatives on how to best utilise this assistance.
The IEG strongly supports the development of a code of conduct along the lines of that being developed by the National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association, NACMA, and its members.
The NACMA code is aimed at improving clarity in prices posted at silos and thus allowing growers to make better informed marketing decisions.
Among other things, compliance with the NACMA code would mean:
first, prominent listing and use of standardised language and means of expressions for all fees, charges and statutory deductions applicable to all types of transactions in grain;
second, posting on silo boards and on the web, the transparent net return figures for all types of transactions;
and third, expression of base marketing costs charged against all types of transactions.
The government supports the IEG recommendation and will provide some funding to NACMA to help with the finalisation and promotion of that code.
There is also a need to help growers understand the proposed changes so that they may be able to take full advantage of the benefits the new system has to offer.
The government will provide up to $1.15 million for information sessions for growers and major customers right across the country starting in July.
This will include informing wheat growers about the new arrangements and associated marketing options and financial dealings, and appropriate checks and balances that will be in place to protect growers’ interests.
The government will work closely with the state farming organisations in developing and implementing this initiative.
The government is also committed to finding solutions to problems associated with grain rail infrastructure and is providing up to $6 million for taskforces in Western Australia and New South Wales to investigate ways of stimulating investment in this critical transport industry for rural Australia.
The bill is accompanied by the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008.
This bill provides for amendments to other legislation to make it consistent with the provisions of the main bill.
This is an exciting time for Australian agriculture.
Australia’s wheat export marketing arrangements must be changed if the Australian wheat industry is to realise its true potential in the global market place.
With grain prices at historically high levels, growers are now very well positioned to directly benefit from the changes the government is introducing.
These benefits, in turn, will flow back to regional and rural communities that depend on Australia’s grain growers.
Under these changes, for the first time in more than 60 years, Australian wheat growers will be able to choose whom they sell their grain to based on the very best deal they can get.
Today’s farmers continue to benefit from the abolition of trade tariffs and the trade liberalisation reforms introduced by the Hawke-Keating Labor governments.
Today’s wheat growers also enjoy the benefits offered by the deregulation of the domestic wheat market in 1989.
Tomorrow’s farmers stand to benefit from the reforms introduced to the parliament today.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Burke.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
To ensure the new wheat export marketing arrangements operate effectively, various amendments are needed to make other legislation consistent with the provisions of the bill.
The bill will help ensure an orderly transition to the new arrangements and make certain that growers are not disadvantaged because of arrangements entered into under the previous legislation.
It also repeals the existing Wheat Marketing Act 1989.
The key provisions include:
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Burke.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
The Farm Household Support Act 1992 (FHS Act) was introduced in 1993 and allows farmers and some small business operators to access financial support or exceptional circumstances relief payments (ECRP) to help them manage through the drought.
Changes broadening access to the ECRP were introduced in September 2007.
We supported the former government’s introduction of these changes while we were in opposition and we will now honour that commitment by formalising them in legislation.
This bill will provide the legislative basis for these changes and will validate the payments people have received between then and when this legislation passes.
This bill amends the FHS Act to help more small rural businesses, who are suffering a downturn because of the drought, access relief payments. This not only supports rural business but also the communities that rely on them.
The bill will increase the income exemption for the ECRP income test from $10,000 to $20,000. This effectively doubles the amount of off-farm or non-business salary and wages that farmers and small business operators can earn without reducing their payment. This recognises that during this prolonged drought many farmers have had to seek some off-farm income to keep their business viable.
The bill will also remove an inequity between the treatment of Newstart allowance recipients and recipients of the ECRP. Currently Newstart allowance recipients may travel overseas for a limited number of humanitarian or family reasons and still receive their payments; ECRP recipients can not.
We see education and the welfare of young Australians as vital to the economic prosperity of this country. By amending the Social Security Act 1991 (SS Act), this bill will provide concessions under the Austudy and youth allowance means tests for newly eligible recipients of the ECRP. It will also ensure that all newly eligible recipients receive a health care card.
The bill
Exceptional circumstances assistance continues to be the Australian government’s primary vehicle for providing direct assistance to eligible farmers and small business operators impacted by rare and severe (‘exceptional’) events, including drought events, which lie outside the scope of farmers’ and small business operators’ normal risk management strategies.
Extending the ECRP to more farmers and small rural business operators
This bill will amend the FHS Act to allow more farmers and small business operators to access the ECRP and the associated ancillary benefits. It will do this by increasing the level of exempted off-farm or non-business salary and wages earned by the applicant and their partner from $10,000 to $20,000.
It will also amend the eligibility criteria to extend the ECRP to more small business operators. These small business operators must be located in towns that have a population of 10,000 or less, are located in exceptional circumstances, prima facie, or interim assistance areas, and are substantially reliant on income sourced from providing products and/or services to farms, farmers, farm workers, or their families.
These small business operators must also show they have experienced a significant downturn because of the drought.
Validation clause
This bill will amend the FHS Act by validating the payments made between the announcement on 25 September 2007 and the date the bill receives royal assent. This validation clause will provide a legislative basis to make these ECRP payments as if the bill commenced on 25 September 2007.
The validation clause will also provide a legislative basis for the provision of ancillary benefits such as the health care card and exemptions from the Austudy and youth allowance means tests provided to recipients between 25 September 2007 and royal assent of the bill. Specifically, these amended provisions will provide automatic access to the health care card to newly eligible recipients of the ECRP and exempt the Austudy and youth allowance payments of the dependent children of recipients of the ECRP from reductions through means testing of their parents.
Removal of the requirement to be ‘in Australia’ to receive ECRP
The bill will amend the FHS Act to allow ECRP recipients to continue to receive payments while temporarily absent from Australia for specific family or humanitarian reasons.
This measure treats ECRP recipients in the same way as those in receipt of the Newstart allowance and means they can continue to receive benefits while they are overseas if their reason for travel is covered by an exemption.
Conclusion
The government will continue to support farmers and small business operators throughout the drought and give them the opportunity to have a sustained recovery. We want to maintain the long-term viability of our farming families, rural small businesses and our rural and regional communities.
The effects of climate change, prolonged drought and structural change present critical challenges faced by our farmers every day. Through the exceptional circumstances assistance measures, the Australian government will enable the sector to meet and actively manage these challenges into the future.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.
Schedule 1 to this bill amends the income tax law to restore the original tax treatment of rights issued by companies to shareholders to acquire additional shares. This will overcome the impact of the High Court of Australia’s decision in Commissioner of Taxation v McNeil.
McNeil’s case overturned longstanding tax treatment in relation to put options which has caused great uncertainty in the market. The changes in schedule 1 will provide certainty to the market as to the tax treatment of put options and call options which will allow companies to continue to raise capital through the use of such options.
These amendments will ensure that no amount is included in the assessable income of a shareholder in a company as a result of acquiring certain rights issued by the company to acquire further shares.
The amendments will also ensure that an amount that is included in the assessable income of a shareholder, as a result of acquiring rights issued by the company to dispose of shares, is appropriately reflected in the cost base of the rights.
To ensure that taxpayers are not disadvantaged, these amendments will apply to rights issued on or after 1 July 2001.
Schedule 2 to this bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to overcome a deficiency in the scope of the restriction of GST refunds following the Federal Court of Australia decision in KAP Motors versus the Commissioner of Taxation. The restriction of GST refunds will apply regardless of whether transactions giving rise to a refund are supplies for GST purposes.
This schedule also amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to overcome a deficiency in the four-year time limit on payment and refund of indirect taxes and ensures that it applies as intended to bring finality and certainty to the indirect tax affairs of taxpayers.
Schedule 3 to this bill exempts rent assistance paid to Austudy recipients from income tax. This will ensure consistency with the taxation treatment of rent assistance paid to Newstart allowance, youth allowance and Abstudy recipients.
Rent assistance has been payable to Austudy recipients from 1 January 2008. The payment provides assistance with the living costs associated with full-time study and training.
Schedule 4 to this bill exempts the carer adjustment payment from income tax. This will ensure consistency with the taxation treatment of other one-off payments made to carers in previous years.
The carer adjustment payment provides up to $10,000 in financial assistance to families with a child, up to six years of age, who has suffered a catastrophic event after 1 January 2007. It is designed to assist families adjust with the increased costs arising from a severe illness or medical condition, or major disability as a result of the catastrophic event.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction and overview
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to introduce this bill to create a national Fuelwatch scheme.
The creation of a national Fuelwatch scheme will finally put power back into the hands of Australian motorists.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill will introduce a national Fuelwatch (Fuelwatch) scheme to address the existing retail fuel price transparency imbalance between retailers and consumers. It will empower consumers in, and improve the operation of, the retail petrol market.
The stated object of the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill is to provide intraday price stability and decrease search costs for consumers. The act contains a number of provisions to enable the effective and efficient operation of Fuelwatch and to provide consumers with greater information at the bowser.
Background to the bill
Mr Deputy Speaker, for too long the motorists of Australia have been disadvantaged in their purchasing decisions by the actions of petrol retailers.
For too long the motorists of Australia have lacked the tools necessary to make informed choices as to where to buy the cheapest fuel on any given day.
Mr Deputy Speaker, for too long the big petrol retailers have held all the cards.
Mr Deputy Speaker, no longer.
Today, the government introduces a bill to assist motorists in buying the cheapest petrol, at the cheapest petrol stations, at the cheapest times.
Fuelwatch will give motorists highly detailed and up-to-date information about local petrol prices to help motorists avoid being ripped off.
No longer will motorists drive past a petrol station in the morning and notice a price, only to return in the afternoon to find a 10c per litre jump in the price of petrol that afternoon or that evening.
Rather than guessing the best time and the best place to buy petrol, consumers will know where and when to buy the cheapest petrol in town.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on 15 June 2007, the former government agreed to the holding of a price inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) into the price of unleaded petrol, pursuant to section 95H (subsection 2) of part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act.
On 18 December 2008, the ACCC released its report Petrol Prices and Australian Consumers: report of the ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol. In this report, the ACCC concluded that there was an imbalance in price transparency between buyers and sellers in Australia. It identified three options for addressing the retail price information imbalance, including the introduction of a Fuelwatch scheme.
While the ACCC identified three options to address the relative imbalance in price transparency, the only viable option to address both the price information imbalance and price volatility in the form of intraday movements is the adoption of increased pricing information and price commitment rules in the form of Fuelwatch.
On 15 April 2008, the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of Fuelwatch to empower consumers and encourage transparency in the fuel market.
Fuelwatch is proposed to commence nationally on the 15 December 2008.
Provisions of the bill
Fuelwatch will apply to petrol retailers that offer motor fuel for retail sale. Fuels covered by this scheme are those defined as suitable for use in an internal combustion engine. As the government has already announced, this would include unleaded petrol, premium unleaded petrol, LPG, diesel, 98 RON and biodiesel blends.
Fuelwatch will apply to metropolitan and major rural and regional areas. The legislation provides for this initial coverage to be specified by regulation.
Furthermore, to ensure that other regional and rural areas have the opportunity to become part of Fuelwatch, the bill enables the minister to make further declarations, to expand or adjust the coverage of the scheme as required.
In making the declaration, the bill provides that the minister must have regard to: the size of the locality; its population; the number of vehicles in the locality; the number of service stations; the ownership and operating arrangements for service stations; and submissions made by the relevant local government body.
This will ensure that Fuelwatch can increase price transparency, wherever it is needed in Australia.
The crux of the Fuelwatch scheme is the requirement for petrol retailers to notify the ACCC of their intended price for the next day.
This must be done by 2 pm on the immediately preceding day. Commencing from 6 am the following day, petrol retailers are required to maintain this notified price for a 24-hour period.
However, if a petrol retailer has not changed their price from the previous day, they will not be required to notify the ACCC of their price. The bill deems this price to be their notified price automatically.
For its part, the ACCC will be required to publish notified prices from petrol retailers on a dedicated website. This information will be publicly available each day by 4 pm. The bill enables the ACCC to approve other methods of publication of this price information.
Civil penalties will apply if a petrol retailer notifies the ACCC of a price, but does not sell fuel at all times during the fixed price period; or if a petrol retailer notifies the ACCC of its price for fuel, but sells that fuel at another price.
The requirement to sell the fuel at, and not above or below, the notified price is crucial to the design of the Fuelwatch scheme. Without it, retailers could simply notify a price well above their intended retail price, and subvert the purpose of the scheme in providing greater transparency.
The bill provides the ACCC with the ability to give a person an infringement notice, if it breaches key provisions of the bill. The ACCC has the discretion not to issue an infringement notice. The infringement notice regime provides the ACCC with sufficient flexibility to make a proportionate response in relation to breaches of the bill.
In relation to compliance costs, which were mentioned in the House today, the cabinet regulation impact statement, which I have tabled as part of the explanatory memorandum, was considered by the cabinet. In considering the regulation impact statement and the implementation costs involved in FuelWatch in the proposal, cabinet took a decision that the implementation cost should be nil. The reason for this was on the basis that information technology systems would need to be installed at each service station, based on the experience in Western Australia.
Instead of this, and to eliminate implementation costs, no software will be required. Service stations will be able to notify prices via a website or a toll-free number. As the explanatory memorandum notes, there will be no ongoing compliance costs because no software will need to be maintained.
A very large number of service stations subscribe to the Informed Sources website, which involves a considerable subscription cost which will no longer be relevant.
Those who do not subscribe to the website will, in most cases, spend some time each day checking a competitor’s price movements, which, of course, will no longer be necessary either.
Conclusion
At a time of record world oil prices it is incumbent upon the government to do everything in its power to assist motorists.
It is not a time for stunts or economically irresponsible gimmicks.
It is a time to introduce real initiatives to empower consumers and drive transparency.
This is a reform designed to give motorists a fair go that they have missed out on for so long.
Up until now motorists have been disadvantaged. They have not been able to access information on where to get cheap petrol—and if they do have access to some price service the information is out of date by the time they get to the station because the price may have changed.
Just like the woman who emailed me over Easter to complain that the price of petrol had jumped 15c while she was waiting in the queue.
Mr Speaker, at present the oil companies have all the information and motorists have none.
At present petrol retailers subscribe to a website known as Informed Sources, where they share information every 15 minutes on their own and their competitors’ prices.
The ACCC inquiry into petrol prices had this to say about Informed Sources: ‘The direct exchange of price information between suppliers is conducive to anti-competitive coordination.’
Fuelwatch is designed to redress this imbalance.
With Fuelwatch, companies are obliged to sell at their best possible price or else risk being out of the market for a 24-hour period with a price which is higher than their competitors’ prices.
This means motorists benefit.
Retailers must put forward the best possible price if they are to retain business.
Motorists will be able to conveniently find the cheapest petrol via the Fuelwatch website, or by SMS or email alerts.
Just as over 30,000 Western Australian motorists do receive an email every day from WA FuelWatch. In Western Australia the FuelWatch website gets approximately 200,000 hits per month, proving how highly valued this system is as a consumer tool.
Mr Speaker, FuelWatch has been in operation successfully in Western Australia for seven years and the benefits to motorists are clear.
The ACCC inquiry had this to say about the operation of FuelWatch in Western Australia: ‘The publication of petrol prices on the FuelWatch website and reporting of prices in the media have increased price transparency for consumers in the market for petrol in Western Australia.’
One of the key tenets of a well-functioning market is the ability of all participants to have access to transparent information—or, as economists would say, perfect information.
This is at the heart of Fuelwatch.
Under Fuelwatch, motorists will be able to map out their route to and from work or for any other journey and see where the cheapest petrol is that day and the next day.
Motorists will be able to decide when and where to buy petrol based on perfect, real-time information.
This means, Mr Speaker, that the days of driving past a petrol station in the morning and noticing a different price in the afternoon will be gone under Fuelwatch.
Price savvy motorists will stand to be some of the biggest winners from the introduction of Fuelwatch.
That is because they like to shop around for a bargain and with Fuelwatch they will be able to do exactly that.
Mr Speaker, on any given day there is on average a 15c per litre difference between the cheapest and most expensive fuel in a city. Sometimes it can be as high as 30c per litre. This means that price sensitive motorists will know exactly where they can save 15c and will make their purchasing decisions accordingly.
Fuelwatch will empower motorists by giving them access to greater transparency on petrol prices.
The econometric analyses undertaken by the ACCC also indicate that Fuelwatch can have a positive effect on prices at the bowser as well. I take the opportunity of tabling the ACCC’s comprehensive econometric analysis, as was considered by the cabinet and the expenditure review committee of the cabinet, as they were briefed on.
The ACCC report found that ‘the main finding from this econometric analysis is that the average of the price margin reduced by a statistically significant amount for Perth relative to the eastern capitals in the time since the introduction of FuelWatch’.
The ACCC report concluded that comparing relative price levels between Perth and the eastern states before and after the introduction of FuelWatch, prices in Perth were around 1.9c per litre less on average for the period from January 2001 to June 2007 than for the period from August 1998 to December 2000. Using the low points of the weekly price cycle rather than the simple weekly average, the price difference was around 0.9c per litre on average.
And the ACCC also found in relation to the low points of the price cycle ‘The results are also robust using the low points of the week’s prices’. Also a benefit to price sensitive motorists. This was confirmed in the further analysis that the ACCC conducted, which was provided to the cabinet.
FuelWatch is one the most empowering tools for consumers ever debated in this House.
It will provide the transparency and reductions in intra-day price volatility that motorists have been crying out for.
It will redress the imbalance that the big oil retailers currently enjoy over motorists.
It will allow consumers to take purchasing decisions into their own hands.
And it will assist motorists in buying the cheapest petrol, at the cheapest petrol stations, at the cheapest times.
I commend this bill to the House. It is an important bill. It has been supported by the rigorous analysis of the ACCC, as the cabinet was briefed on. This is an important bill which the House should adopt if they wish to put the interests of motorists first.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
The following notice was given:
to move:
That the House:
I wish to talk about the University of Western Sydney. A campus in my electorate, Nirimba campus, is an education precinct. It has two high schools and a TAFE, and of course the university has been there for a number of years. Last year I learnt from the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, that the university had proposed to withdraw from that campus. I have to give credit to my colleagues on the other side. In particular, the member for Parramatta, who is here, was part of a group who pulled together to fight to ensure that the university did remain. I called a number of meetings with the chancellor and the vice-chancellor and the then education minister and also took out a petition. The Labor candidate at the time criticised me for taking out that petition, but he has now taken out a petition himself, which he claims has helped. I congratulate both the mayor, Leo Kelly, and also my other colleagues for fighting together. This is an opportunity to talk about the fact that we can work together to achieve a good outcome, but what is most important here is that the young people of my electorate now have the opportunity to continue or to begin a university education.
Last week the vice-chancellor announced that the university will remain. They will be moving some diploma courses from their Westmead campus. I think that is a good move; it is a good start. I would certainly like to see the university look beyond diploma courses. Previously, there were only business courses available. With this move, there are more opportunities for students to, at least, start in a variety of different courses. This is a win for young people, particularly people who are already in high schools and TAFE on the campus in that precinct. It is a win also for young people in the nor’-west sector, in the electorate of Greenway and neighbouring electorates across Western Sydney to begin a university course. If they want to complete a diploma they can complete it on site, but it also gives an opportunity to students to decide whether they want to complete a full university degree and whether they will be able to complete one. I congratulate the university for this decision. It is a good step forward. I will be encouraging them to look at how they can provide further educational opportunities for the young people of Western Sydney. (Time expired)
I rise today to update the House regarding a school in my community, Carlingford West Public School, which has recently suffered badly from fire damage. On Sunday night at around 11.45, fires ripped through seven classrooms of the school, on Felton Road in Carlingford, requiring nearby residents to be evacuated from their homes. Thankfully, there was nobody hurt as a result of the fire, although $1 million worth of damage was caused. Investigations are ongoing as to the cause of the fire, with investigators spending all day Monday at the scene. But, thankfully, they have ruled out arson as a cause, instead labelling it an accident—a possible fault in the electrical wiring. I can report, though, that a generator has been installed and the school, once again, has power. Now the work begins to find out what went wrong to spark the fire and to ensure that it does not happen again.
I have been in contact with the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. John Della Bosca, whose office has assured me that dealing with the aftermath of the fire is a top priority for his department. The school reopened on Wednesday for as close to normal business as possible, utilising the library and the out-of-school-hours room as an interim measure to make up for the loss of the seven classrooms that were destroyed. All of the firefighters, some from as far away as Greenacre, should be congratulated on ensuring that the damage to the school was minimised, enabling classes to resume so quickly.
There will be seven demountable classrooms installed as quickly as possible. The principal, Mr Kevin Gerard, and the department are in discussions as to exactly where the new demountables will be situated. The demountables will remain in place until a new set of classrooms can be built. Again, I am sure it is a matter of priority for the state government to restore Carlingford West to the excellent education facility it was only last week.
A fire such as this destroys much more than the classrooms. Buildings can be replaced and alternative arrangements can be made, but many of the 686 students lost artwork that they had been preparing for Education Week, putting those celebrations on hold. The computer rooms and their computers have also been destroyed, with work still on hard drives. Many other teaching resources for the kindergarten and year 1 students have been lost and will need to be replaced as a matter of urgency. The memory of this will live in the minds of the younger students for many years, but I am sure that both they and the school will bounce back and I wish them all the very best with their rebuilding.
Today I rise to talk about two issues, and I am glad the member for Shortland is here because one of those issues surrounds her. With the budgets of recent times under the Howard government, straight after the budget there would be a cry from the Labor members in the Hunter for $30 million for a football stadium at EnergyAustralia Stadium. The member for Shortland is sitting there grinning. She knows—she was a part of that chorus for $30 million from the federal government: they said it was a federal responsibility to put $30 million in. Well, when Labor members come to the treasury bench, what do the people of Newcastle get? Ten million dollars—although that is not the issue.
All the while, the state Labor government in New South Wales kept saying to the people that it was a federal responsibility to cough up $30 million. So federal Labor get to the treasury bench and all of a sudden it is $10 million. This week, without a whimper, the state government turned up with the additional $20 million. What it has proven is that Labor has committed a fraud over the last few years against the people of the Hunter region by denying them the stadium they deserve, because Morris Iemma, and before him Bob Carr, refused to accept the responsibility for the funding. What is amazing is that the member for Shortland, the member for Newcastle, the member for Hunter and the previous member for Charlton refused to take the commitments up to the state Premier. They accepted the argument without question that this was a federal responsibility.
Now I want to get to the second point, having shown that Labor had let the people down at that stage. The second point is the F3 Link Road. To quote the member for Hunter’s webpage: ‘For 18 years I have been supporting and pushing for the F3 Link Road.’ The week before the election, the Howard government committed to the funding to complete the F3 Link Road. I had always said—and this road is not in my electorate—that once the roadworks in my electorate were underway I would support the link road. That has happened. So we announced the funding—and there was not a word from the member for Hunter, not a word from any of the Labor members. But when they got to the treasury bench, guess what happened: ‘We’re not going to fund that. It’s not important. We now need to do another study to work out a cheaper option.’ So for 18 years the member for Hunter pushed a project—he got to the treasury bench and then nothing. There is $1 million for another study. What about the tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that have already been spent on studies and acquiring properties, leading people to believe there would be a new route from Seahampton to Branxton? This is a fraud upon the people of the Hunter. (Time expired)
I rise today to pay tribute to an incredible program that I had the opportunity to see firsthand in my electorate last week. It is in Gagebrook, a suburb in the north of Hobart that was settled in the early 1970s as a broadacre public housing estate. The ABS figures indicate it has the lowest average annual income in Tasmania.
The Gagebrook Primary School, under the guidance of Principal John O’Rourke, has set about ensuring that all of their students are provided with every opportunity to make the most of the first six years of education. The school’s Pathways program was designed to help children who are finding it difficult to engage in a normal classroom situation. These children could not learn because they were often sent home for inappropriate behaviour. The behaviour was also disruptive to their classmates. Through Pathways these children are separated from the rest of the class but remain in school. This allows other teachers to focus on the remainder of their classes while the Pathway students receive the special attention they need. There are 10 boys in the class, and to date Pathways has given them more confidence and a greater motivation to learn, as well as measurably improved reading and writing skills.
Earlier this year I was approached by Hamish Cunningham, the coordinator of the Pathways program, with a request for assistance to run a lunch club through the scheme. This demonstrates the vital fundamental life skills that Pathways offers the children at the Gagebrook Primary School. It does not just look at improving the children’s learning; it also focuses on giving them broader social skills. I am informed it has been a tremendous success.
Since Pathways began, the Gagebrook Primary School’s suspension record has seen a dramatic drop from nearly 80 in 2005 to fewer than 25 last year—an impressive achievement by anyone’s reckoning. Pathways has given the children a learning environment in which they feel comfortable, improving the way they behave and their ability to learn.
This program takes a lot of work to run. Under the guidance of Hamish Cunningham, and with the cooperation of the parents, Pathways was established using the school’s existing resources. Its importance has been recognised not just by the local community but also by other schools in southern Tasmania, which are seeking to establish similar programs. Its success is a testament to the incredible work of John O’Rourke, Hamish Cunningham and the other dedicated staff at the Gagebrook Primary School.
When I visited the school last week, the children proudly cooked me a toasted sandwich for lunch. They showed me the work they had been undertaking. They spoke to me confidently about the program, the food they had been cooking and their favourites. They talked about how they now liked coming to school and how different it really is. Initiatives like the Gagebrook Primary School’s Pathways program are helping children to overcome a stigma that some attach to the area and they give the children a real chance. (Time expired)
It is a great pleasure to be speaking in the Main Committee today on the issue of Fair Trade chocolate. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 April about an issue that is burning in my electorate and across the world, particularly for those people who have supported the Millennium Development Goals and are running a campaign called Don’t Trade Lives: What is the Real Cost of Chocolate? Reverend Tim Costello and World Vision have been playing a role internationally in trying to highlight the appalling situation of child slave labour that is producing cocoa in countries such as the Ivory Coast and Ghana, which produce 70 per cent of the world’s cocoa. They do not get paid at a fair price for the cocoa. As a consequence, those people who produce the cocoa are forced to use child slave labour.
World Vision, on their donttradelives.com.au website, say that approximately 70 per cent of the cocoa beans used to make chocolate around the world come from the Ivory Coast and Ghana, that it is intensive, backbreaking work, that cocoa prices have been declining largely because of corruption and poor economic planning and that criminal networks have been caught moving children across regional and international borders to work on cocoa farms. There is evidence that children as young as six are being forced to work 80 to 100 hours a week, enduring beatings and malnutrition. There are hundreds of thousands of children working on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast and Ghana who never even get the opportunity to consider going to school. Reverend Tim Costello has visited some of those people.
I wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 April asking that the government consider using its purchasing power to send a very important message to the confectionary manufacturers of the world but particularly those in Australia. It would be a serious step if the government required that the only chocolate sold in vending machines in government departments across Australia was Fair Trade chocolate. That is not hard to do. I am going to ask for permission to table a list of guilt-free chocolates, as the Don’t Trade Lives website call them, which would be available to be stocked in vending machines. Certainly all new vending machines and all new contracts for vending machines could require Fair Trade chocolate. It would send a real message across the world. The purchasing power here in Australia has the capacity to make changes. It would have a ripple effect right across the world. When people go to vending machines and ask where their usual chocolate is, they will be told, ‘You have to purchase Fair Trade chocolate.’ That would get the issue being talked about around the water coolers and over the barbeques on weekends. It is a small change but an important one. I ask leave to table this list.
Leave granted.
I rise today to congratulate the residents who live in and around Elmhurst and Bungalook Roads in Bayswater North, in my electorate, for helping me save their local postbox. It was one of my first local campaigns. It came up pretty much before I had even been declared elected. The fact is that local residents, many of them elderly and many of them without many community services, were confronted by Australia Post demanding that they increase usage of their postbox or have it taken away. Many of these people have lived in the area for a long time and have grown old with the area, and to get a letter from Australia Post telling them to cross a main road and walk a kilometre uphill to a postbox was not acceptable to many. So they asked me what I could do to help and I was happy to take up that little task.
We ran a bit of a media campaign and then we started a local petition. Surprisingly, even though Australia Post said so few people were using the postbox, we had over 200 local residents sign that petition. It was back in my office within a period of three or four days. I must say Australia Post representatives were happy to listen to our representations, and they did come out and inspect the site with me. After that we decided that the best decision, because of vandalism more than low usage, was to move the postbox under a street light. Australia Post actually did that and I do congratulate them for that. The local residents of course were happy.
To explain a little bit more: Bayswater North is a suburb stuck between suburbs. It does not have its own local amenities. There is a petrol station which sells a small amount of food but there are no real shops. There are no community facilities of any sort. When residents have very little by way of community facilities, they certainly do arc up when things like that happen, and I am happy to say that in this case they were successful. In fact, many people associate the suburb of Bayswater North with a Bunnings store because a lot of the suburb is light industrial, but there is a real community there among the residents of Bungalook and Elmhurst roads. Many go across to the Glen Park Community Centre, which provides a lot of services to these people. The campaign was actually a very good win for the local community. I congratulate both them and Australia Post.
The Rudd Labor government’s Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, has been caught out not only misleading Senate estimates but also using the probity card when it suits him to avoid legitimate scrutiny of his flawed national broadband tender process. Senator Conroy claimed he was in the middle of ‘live commercial negotiations’. How strange that the bidding period has not even closed and potential bidders do not have the vital existing network information upon which to develop a proposal! Otherwise, as many already believe, Labor’s national broadband network process is nothing more than a political fix and Senator Conroy is certainly doing plenty of politicking when he should be focusing on sound public policy.
We know Canberra based TransAct was directed by Senator Conroy’s probity advisers not to meet with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications for a scheduled 23 April briefing on the general topic of broadband technologies and services for fear that it may create the impression of preferment or advantage. This was a bipartisan parliamentary committee, with no member of the executive or of the decision-making process involved, seeking only a general brief on the subject well within its function—and it was a probity risk! We know Senator Conroy pulled out of a 9 May meeting with CEOs from the G9 group of telecommunications companies believed to be considering a bid as the Terria consortium. He said he pulled out of that meeting for probity reasons as well. We also know that in estimates Senator Birmingham asked Senator Conroy:
You can give an assurance that since the probity advice was received a day or two prior to the 9th of May you haven’t met any prospective bidders on matters relating to the NBN?
To this Senator Conroy answered categorically, ‘Yes.’ Senator Conroy must have thought he had been too direct and needed a little bit of wriggle room. He later added:
I do have ongoing meetings and discussions with many, including potential bidders, about other matters that are not to do with the National Broadband Network and I’m not suggesting I won’t be in the presence of them.
We now know that is false, and the evidence is on the minister’s own website for the whole world to see. On 21 May he met with representatives of state and territory Labor governments, including the Treasurer of the Tasmanian state Labor government, Michael Aird, at an Online and Communications Council meeting. In fact, Senator Conroy chaired the meeting. Topics that were discussed under title headings in the meeting communique, which is also on the minister’s website, included ‘National Broadband Network’ and ‘National Broadband Network strategies for effective use and development’. The media communique even presents, in black and white, conclusions specifically about the NBN tender process. You cannot have it both ways, Senator!
We know that the minister and his Labor colleagues must have talked about these topics. What they have said on the record is one thing, but what was actually discussed during the meeting and during the breaks? There are comments about open access, about last-mile infrastructure and about structural separations—issues that go to the very heart of the tender process. But, if you are a Labor mate, probity does not apply, and I am sure all the other potential bidders wonder just what has happened and just what this political fix is going to turn up next.
I want to speak up for libraries, having been asked by local constituents to do so. Libraries are a rich community resource for learning, for communications and for information. We all love to love libraries, but we often do little to promote and defend them. I know in times of high public demand for basic services like health, education and roads it is easy to overlook libraries and give less funding in such areas.
Supporters of a local regional library in my area recently asked the public to get behind a campaign to secure extra funding to the tune of about $1 million they say is a shortfall for the regional library based in Lismore. The Country Public Libraries Association of New South Wales and public libraries in New South Wales have been asking for an increase in the overall percentage of state money provided to local libraries. I have supported them and, in doing so, did the research and found the following. The federal government’s contribution to libraries is, correctly, primarily concentrated on national libraries and university libraries. State funding is to state libraries and also to local libraries but at about one-third of the local government contribution. Local government makes a significant contribution and most libraries would be struggling if not for local government. That is a very big burden for local government to bear and one that it needs some assistance with.
The expenditure figures on public libraries shows that in New South Wales there was an increase from $201 million in 2001-02 to $256 million in 2005-06. Expenditure per capita went from $30.31 to $37.36. The expenditure figure has been going up, but in real terms the state contribution has actually fallen from 23.6 per cent in 1980 to 7.8 per cent in 2004-05. So, even though the funding has increased over three times from 1980, it has been supplemented by local government and has not kept up with inflation, so due to the cost of living pressures—the inflationary pressures that we are all experiencing—it has had an impact on the libraries. Although in 2006-07 the allocation was only $185,000 less than the previous year, it appears that the regional library in Lismore in my area is suffering a shortfall of about $1 million. In conclusion, I have never really understood why libraries come under the sport and recreation portfolio. To me it is something that should be under education given the nature of libraries. (Time expired)
I rise to speak about the Labor government’s latest backflip—this time on Regional Partnerships. I understand that the government will now give 86 not-for-profit and local government projects until 31 July to complete contract negotiations with the department. However, I am yet to see which of these projects will benefit in my electorate of Forrest. There are a number of Regional Partnerships projects that had received written approval of funding from the Department of Transport and Regional Services before the last election. I will be very interested to see which of these 86 will receive consideration—and I am hopeful that all of them will.
The first one is Bunbury Sea Rescue, an inshore project for the purchase of a rescue boat. That was approved in August 2007. The second one is the Dunsborough and Districts Country Club, for a ‘new lease on life’ project, approved in August 2007. The next is the Shire of Nannup, for the Nannup Timewood Centre, a co-location project approved in July 2007. The next one is the Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup, for the Gnangangarick Waugal Sculpture Park project, an extremely worthwhile project approved in May 2007. Then we have the Morrissey Homestead, for the Leschenault Morrissey Homestead Special Needs and Community Facility Australind project, approved in May 2006. Each one of these preapproved projects is worthy of consideration and funding under the Regional Partnerships program.
Additional projects were submitted as well: the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Jewel Cave upgrade; the Busselton jetty upgrade; the Bunbury and Districts Hockey Stadium; the Augusta Margaret River wine-cloning rapid multiplication project; the Geographe Bay Tourism Association Cape Naturaliste lighthouse project; the Stinton Gardens function room; the Australind playing fields; the south-west speedway training centre, Lake Kepwari; the Stirling Street Arts Centre; the Ferguson Valley centre; the Donnybrook medical centre; the Manjimup truffles project; the St Marys Community Care BUZ Hive project; and the Manjimup avocado summer fruit program. All of these extremely valuable regional projects were to receive funding or had submitted for funding under the Regional Partnerships program. They are of immeasurable value in my community. (Time expired)
Mia Ristovska is a third-year Bachelor of Social Work student, and she is currently on placement in my office. The words that I will read now have been written by her. She has been a fine student and we have enjoyed having her in the office. In her last placement she visited a number of caravan parks and has reported to me that to look at the parks was displeasing. The vans are dilapidated and the few amenities available are odious. Yet when talking to the residents themselves she found their outlook to be positive, despite the various adversities thrown at them. The children thrive socially and emotionally. She found that the community spirit evident in the parks was the result of collaboration between the residents and the Caravan Park project.
The Caravan Park project is a support service for caravan parks and manufactured home residences in the Hunter Valley and Lake Macquarie regions. As well as providing onsite support for park residents, the caravan project aims to facilitate resident empowerment through asset based community development, or ABCD, by increasing community leadership and by encouraging community strength.
The caravan project aims to build the esteem and comradeship of residents, which in turn will increase children’s resilience. It is this very resilience that keeps the children in the parks happy and healthy. Research suggests that resilience will give children the capacity as adults to lead satisfying and rewarding lives. Talking to the residents of the parks, Mia found it common to hear statements like: ‘The people here are like a big, happy family. The children love it and it is like a little community.’ The positive responses are testament to the work of the Caravan Park project, and their early intervention services should continue to be supported.
Despite the extraordinary efforts of the residents and the caravan project, some adversity remains. Most families on the park are there as a last resort, due to either homelessness or rental backlists or as an escape from domestic violence. After reaching the park, residents are further disempowered by having limitations placed on them by the park, such as private space or a ban on visitors. Their physical environment is haphazard and geographically they are often isolated. Both of these factors contribute to the high rate of ill health, school truancy and unemployment of park residents. The essential resources are simply not there to connect them. It is only through this Caravan Park project that these people are being connected to the mainstream community. It is an excellent project. I have had dealings with it over a long period of time. I congratulate Mia on the fine speech she wrote for me.
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! I would like to welcome to the Main Committee the Chaplain to the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship and say thank you to him for gracing us with his presence. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As a member state of the World Health Organisation, Australia is party to the International Health Regulations. In the old days, the IHR applied mostly to cholera, plague and yellow fever. However, the world is going through a phase of globalisation. The dynamics of the way infectious diseases spread have changed. These days more people travel by plane and international trade is common. So a health crisis in one country can quickly become a health crisis in another country, including in Australia.
Polio was a disease that was close to being eradicated worldwide and had not been seen in Australia since the 1970s, but in 2003 unfounded fears about the safety of the vaccine emerged in Nigeria and authorities simply stopped vaccinating children. From that period we saw the polio eradication program set back significantly. Polio ended up as close to our borders as Indonesia and there were very real fears that polio cases would re-emerge here. The World Health Organisation kicked in and in a relatively short time the program was restarted. Today only Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Pakistan have endemic polio. The International Health Regulations provide a binding legal arrangement by which the World Health Organisation can minimise the impact of outbreaks of communicable diseases. The IHR were bought in on 15 June 2007. They require countries to report certain disease outbreaks and public health events to the WHO.
Living in a globalised society brings risks, benefits and obligations. We in Australia are blessed with high levels of clinical care and the very best doctors, nurses and other health workers. We have a duty to endorse the hard work of groups such as the World Health Organisation. We also have a duty to Australians to protect their health in the best way possible. In this regard the Minister for Health and Ageing has a lot to answer for. In her first six months in the job she has put in train a series of steps that will seriously diminish the health and wellbeing of many vulnerable Australians. The minister wasted no time in office and immediately dismantled Medicare dental. This program allowed people with complex medical conditions to access a dentist rapidly and to qualify for $4,250 worth of dental treatment over two years through Medicare. So popular was this program that its intake doubled every month peaking in March, the month before it was scrapped, at over 92,000 services.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. Unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it, the comments by the member for Parkes have absolutely nothing to do with the legislation.
I thought the member was straying from the topic of quarantine amendments by going on to dental. I will ask him to come back to the bill at hand.
Dental disease is a serious problem for Australians—
The member is completely disregarding my call. I ask him to return to the bill at hand. You can continue your remarks. I know you have been put in an untenable situation and I appreciate that, but if you could continue your remarks in regard to the bill.
I will endeavour to move on. Similarly, the minister has taken a baseball bat to private health insurance, raising the Medicare levy—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. This is about quarantine. It is a very specific kind of legislation. I believe the member needs to return to the topic.
Member for Parkes, I do appreciate that you have been put in a very awkward situation. I appreciate you filling the gap that we have, but I do need you to refer to the legislation before us.
At that point I will close my remarks but in doing so point out the importance of the World Health Organisation in securing our borders with respect to the incredibly mobile population that our world has become. I ask that this bill be given due consideration.
I want to thank the member for Parkes for his endeavours before the House today.
At the risk of attracting the same objection, I start by commending the member for Parkes on his taste in ties. I seek your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—and risk social death—for wearing the same tie as the member for Parkes today. It is a very beautiful tie, and clearly he is a man of great taste. I will return to the matter at hand before an objection is raised about the relevance of my speech.
I rise to speak in support of the Quarantine Amendment (National Health Security) Bill 2008. This is a very important bill for the future safety and health security of our country. It has enormous implications for all of Australian society. Evidently, a breach to our nation’s health security has the potential to give rise to devastating effects on our economy. It can have the effect of threatening our way of life and of jeopardising the health of all Australians.
Under the Constitution the Commonwealth government is granted the power of dealing with quarantine. The principal act by which this is done is the Quarantine Act 1908, and this bill today seeks to amend that principal act. This bill builds upon a very significant history of Labor attention to the issue of quarantine in this country and to making sure that we have strong quarantine security. The Fisher government enacted the Quarantine Act in 1912. The Chifley government amended the act in 1947 on two occasions, the Hawke government amended it in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1991 and the Keating government similarly improved the quarantine regime around this country in 1994—and that is just a sample of the bills in this area throughout the history of Labor governments.
The Rudd government is very much committed to building upon the strong Labor tradition of having a secure quarantine network around Australia. It would also be fair to say that many of the initiatives of the Howard government in relation to quarantine are a result of thinking which occurred through the eras of Labor government. A ground-breaking report in relation to quarantine, Australian quarantine: a shared responsibility, also known as the Nairn report, was from an independent review commissioned by the Keating government and chaired by Professor Malcolm Nairn into Australia’s quarantine policies and programs in October 1996. Indeed, in 1997 the Howard government accepted the majority of the review’s outcomes and legislated accordingly as a result of that. Whilst that review was predominantly around plant and animal quarantine issues, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, AQIS, commissioned its own report in relation to human quarantine issues in response to the Nairn report. This AQIS report formed the basis of much of the activity of the Howard government’s policy initiatives in relation to quarantine, in particular in relation to human quarantine issues in the early years of that government.
The existing legislative environment sees that the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service conducts most of Australia’s quarantine duties. However, its duties in relation to human quarantine are largely administrative. Broadly speaking, the role of the Department of Health and Ageing, which is charged with the construction and maintenance of Australia’s public health and human quarantine policy, is to ensure national health security by implementing public measures to guard against the potential outbreak of quarantinable diseases. Of course that includes the identification and monitoring of people who are potentially exposed to such diseases and the provision of appropriate medical treatment when that is necessary.
The communicable diseases which are the subject of quarantining control in this country are smallpox, yellow fever, the bubonic plague, cholera, rabies, avian influenza in humans, SARS and viral haemorrhagic fever. Furthermore, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, in screening visa applications, is also required to ensure that appropriate prophylaxis has been undertaken so as to permit entry to this country. Importantly, at present the financial obligation arising from the costs of meeting the quarantine requirements of a temporary or permanent visa for entry to this country falls upon the applicant.
The basis of this bill lies very much in the International Health Regulations 2005, otherwise known as the IHR agreement. Australia was a negotiating party at the 58th World Health Assembly where the current IHR 2005 framework was established. The IHR is a set of regulations which exists under the auspices of the World Health Organisation. Together, they are a longstanding framework which deals with the international community’s response to international health issues. There is a long history to the World Health Organisation and the International Health Regulations, which it administers. In fact, it dates back to the cholera epidemics in Europe between 1830 and 1847, which gave rise to the International Sanitary Conference in Paris in 1851, which led to the first international response to health epidemics and dealing with communicable diseases.
In 1948, the World Health Organisation was constituted and came into force, and it took over the management of those same international sanitary regulations. These were replaced in 1969 and renamed the International Health Regulations, which, of course, were the first guise of the regulations we are currently dealing with today. The International Health Regulations were then modified in 1972 and 1981 before again being dealt with in the recent modification in 2005. The 2005 reforming of the International Health Regulations was to meet the challenges of the new global village in which we are living in the early part of the 21st century. In the discussions around the development of the International Health Regulations 2005, it became clear that the previous framework of 1969 was very much outdated, dealing with only three diseases—cholera, the bubonic plague and yellow fever. They did not require any mandatory reporting of disease outbreaks, which then led to a number of countries not fully reporting disease outbreaks in their own countries for fear of trade and travel restrictions being imposed upon them.
The 2005 International Health Regulations framework has become a much more robust regime to deal with the contemporary environment. It requires participant states to report ‘all events that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern and to respond to requests for verification of information regarding such events’. As part of the World Health Organisation’s encompassing of the epidemic and pandemic alert response measures, of which incorporate the International Health Regulations, coverage of new diseases extends to anthrax, avian influenza, Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, dengue haemorrhagic fever, Ebola haemorrhagic fever, hepatitis, influenza, Lassa fever, Marburg haemorrhagic fever, meningococcal disease, the bubonic plague, Rift Valley fever, severe acute respiratory fever—which is SARS—smallpox, tularaemia and yellow fever. From that list, you can clearly see that the International Health Regulations are now a far more robust regime, one which is much more fitted to the 21st century environment, where far more global travel is occurring.
The International Health Regulations came into effect on 15 June last year. So that Australia can meet its obligations under these treaties, it is now incumbent upon the Commonwealth government to legislate in accordance with those guidelines. That is what this bill is doing today. It needs to be done in a timely manner as the agreement, which is the basis for the International Health Regulations, states:
Countries that are States Parties to the Regulations have two years to assess their capacity and develop national action plans followed by three years to meet the requirements of the Regulations regarding their national surveillance and response systems as well as the requirements at designated airports, ports and certain ground crossings.
This bill, in essence, brings Australia into line with the International Health Regulations obligations. It seeks to enact, if you like, those regulations into the Australian jurisdiction, and it does so in three key ways.
Firstly, this bill ensures that Australian travellers and quarantine support staff can be required to submit to a vaccination or other prophylaxis as defined by the International Health Regulations—or as recommended by the World Health Organisation, when required, which is obviously with a view to preventing the spread of disease. To make clear how that differs from the current environment, currently there is a requirement for travellers and quarantine support staff to submit to vaccinations but not to other prophylaxes. Nor is there a requirement to submit to vaccinations or other prophylaxes for diseases which are otherwise recommended by the World Health Organisation. In other words, this amendment extends the range of diseases that can be the subject of compulsion to have a vaccination or a prophylaxis. This legislation increases the range of prophylaxes that can be required to be used in relation to travellers and quarantine support staff. An example of that may be antiviral drugs for influenza. That is the first way in which the legal regime will be changed in Australia by virtue of this bill.
The second is that it expands the current certification requirements to bring them into line with the International Health Regulations. At the moment, the only disease where there is required to be certification of a vaccination in order to enter certain countries is yellow fever. Now, as a result of the International Health Regulations and as a result of this bill, there will be an expanded range of diseases and vaccinations and other prophylaxes which can be certified. That is a very important advance because it increases the amount of documentation which exists in relation to travellers and what vaccinations and other prophylaxes they have received.
Finally, this bill ensures that the costs associated with maintaining these more stringent quarantine requirements will not be borne by travellers, except for persons seeking temporary or permanent residency in Australia. These are very important measures. They bring Australia into line with the new international quarantine regime. It strengthens the quarantine network around Australia and enacts the International Health Regulations of 2005 into our jurisdiction.
This is an important piece of legislation for my electorate of Corio. In the seat of Corio is the port of Geelong, which is the second largest port in Victoria and handles 25 per cent of the state’s exports. It is an avenue by which people, particularly crews of vessels, enter into Australia, so this quarantine regime obviously applies to them. It is very important for the safeguarding of not only the Geelong community but the Australian community that there be a proper quarantine network which applies to these people. Also, as I have mentioned previously in this place, there is a hope that at some point in the not too distant future Avalon Airport, which is currently a domestic airport servicing about 1.4 million travellers in Australia, will expand its operations internationally. Were that to be the case, there would be another international gateway into this country coming through Geelong, and an expanded quarantine network would be important for dealing with those passengers.
In conclusion, this bill is not large in terms of its measures but it is very important for ensuring the public safety of all Australians and our national health security. For those reasons I very much commend it to the House.
I congratulate the member for Corio on the very detailed and insightful speech that he just made. He touched on all the really important issues associated with this Quarantine Amendment (National Health Security) Bill 2008. I can see how this legislation is important for his electorate, but I see it as being important for all electorates and for all of Australia. As he so aptly pointed out, these days of international travel—where people are travelling from country to country and continent to continent on a very regular basis—and the global economy make this legislation, although small in content and very technical, very important to the health security of Australia and of the people who live here.
This legislation amends the Quarantine Act 1908. It is the legislative basis for implementing Australia’s treaty obligations under the International Health Regulations 2005, the IHR. In relates to vaccinations and vaccination certificates for international travellers and charges levied on travellers for public health measures. The proposed amendments will enable persons seeking permanent or temporary residence to be charged by the Commonwealth. Very importantly, there will be no charge borne by Australian citizens. Only a very small group of people will be charged under this legislation. It is not expected that there will be any great costs associated with the implementation of this legislation, but any costs associated with it are well and truly worth while because this health measure can prevent the spread of communicable diseases in Australia which can have most serious implications for the Australian community.
The amendments are required to enable Australia to fully comply with the IHR 2005, which came into force on 15 June 2007. The IHR is an international agreement aimed at protecting public health security. It does that by controlling the spread of infectious diseases in ways that avoid unnecessary interference with international trade and traffic. Once adopted by the health assembly of the World Health Organisation the IHR 2005 is legally binding—and that is fairly important—for all WHO state parties that neither rejected nor filed a reservation to the IHR 2005 by 15 December 2006. The IHR 2005 came into force on 15 June, as I have previously stated, and Australia neither rejected nor registered an objection, so we have obligations and this legislation is delivering on those obligations.
The IHR was revised in 2005, broadening its scope to include all public health emergencies of international concern. The IHR 2005 requires state parties to develop certain minimum core public health capacities to detect, assess and notify the WHO of health emergencies that are of international concern. You only have to look back to the crisis of the SARS virus and the talk of flu pandemics to understand just how important this legislation is and its implications for the community as a whole.
There are three key parties involved in this legislation. Obviously, the Commonwealth government is responsible for the legislation, but the legislation comes under the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, AQIS, so they have responsibility in this area. The Department of Health and Ageing has responsibility for developing human quarantine and public health policy in Australia. Human diseases that are subject to quarantine control in Australia are plague, rabies, cholera, yellow fever, viral haemorrhagic fever, smallpox, SARS and avian influenza in humans. The last two in particular are new diseases that the government has to turn its mind to when it is looking at immunisation, quarantine and the protection of the population in our country. Those diseases really emphasise the importance of this legislation. This bill is part of a package of new health security legislation which specifically addresses the requirements under IHR 2005 regarding vaccinations and related health certificates and charges.
The Quarantine Amendment (National Health Security) Bill 2008, as I have already pointed out, implements Australia’s international public health security obligations under the International Health Regulations. Proposed amendments will require travellers who are subject to quarantine to submit themselves to vaccination or other prophylaxis if this is necessary. Australia currently has the capacity to require vaccination; however, this is not extended to other prophylaxis or to diseases recommended by the World Health Organisation that are not quarantinable diseases. It is very important that this is addressed, which is another reason that this legislation is very important.
The issue of health certificates ensures vaccination and other prophylaxis is in accordance with the requirements set out in the IHR. As has previously been stated, currently yellow fever is the only disease for which proof of vaccination or prophylaxis may be required of travellers. There is potential for new vaccines to be introduced, and therefore it is important that we extend the legislation to cover new vaccines that come on the market. It is critical that Australia, along with our international neighbours, has the ability to require the necessary prophylaxis and it is essential that the paperwork is in line with international standards. Once again, that is what this legislation ensures.
The amendments align the current provisions relating to certain health measures with the requirements of the IHR. The amendments provide that, except for persons seeking temporary residency, there will not be any charge. When I was reading up on this piece of legislation, I noted that in some circumstances insurance companies may be required to actually pay for the vaccinations. Basically, this legislation is delivering on Australia’s obligations under the IHR of the World Health Organisation and should be supported by all members of the House.
I thank the members who have spoken on the Quarantine Amendment (National Health Security) Bill 2008. I appreciate their contributions to this debate. The bill before parliament today is the second to implement Australia’s treaty obligations relating to public health security under the International Health Regulations, also known as the IHR. It builds upon the Rudd government’s commitment to ensure that all Australians continue to be protected in case of a major health emergency such as pandemic influenza.
The entry into force of the IHR in June 2007 was a public health landmark for the World Health Organisation and for all member states including Australia. It provided the international community with a new legal framework to better manage its collective defences against public health risks that can spread globally and with devastating effect. The National Health Security Act 2007 was passed by the parliament in September 2007. It provides the legal authority and establishes the operational arrangements for Australia to meet its IHR obligations to notify the World Health Organisation of health emergencies and to exchange surveillance information.
The proposed amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 will implement IHR requirements in relation to vaccinations and prophylaxis and health certificates and charges that may be levied on travellers for measures to protect public health. Firstly, travellers who are subject to quarantine may be required to submit to vaccination or other prophylaxis if this is necessary to prevent the spread of a quarantinable disease or if the vaccination or other prophylaxis is specified in the IHR or recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Under our Quarantine Act, Australia has had the capacity to require vaccination for quarantinable diseases for the past 100 years. However, this has not extended to other prophylaxis or to diseases recommended by the World Health Organisation that are not quarantinable diseases. Other forms of prophylaxis include antivirals to treat pandemic influenza or antibiotics to treat bacterial infections. This provision would only be applied for diseases with the most serious of consequences such as SARS, plague, rabies, cholera, smallpox or avian influenza. A decision requiring a traveller to be vaccinated or take other forms of prophylaxis would be made on the advice of a qualified medical practitioner having balanced the wishes of the traveller with the broader public health interest in preventing the spread of a dangerous disease in Australia. A person refusing to comply cannot be forcibly vaccinated but could, for example, be kept in isolation until any danger to the community had passed.
Secondly, these amendments also provide for the issuing of health certificates proving vaccination or other prophylaxis in accordance with the requirements set out in the IHR for standardised certifications. It is critical for public health and to facilitate travel that Australia, along with our international neighbours, has the capacity to issue all essential paperwork in line with international standards.
Thirdly, the amendments take the existing provisions in the Quarantine Act relating to charges for certain health measures and align them with the requirement of the IHR. These amendments provide that, except for persons seeking temporary or permanent residence, charges will not be applied for certain health measures administered to international travellers to protect public health. This includes measures such as medical examinations to ascertain the health status of a traveller, vaccinations or other forms of prophylaxis, and restrictions on travel that may be necessary to prevent the spread of disease.
Charges for such measures will not be levied on travellers who are Australian citizens or who are in transit to another destination. Charges will, however, be able to be levied on persons seeking temporary or permanent residence in Australia. The bill authorises the minister to set, by legislative instrument, fees for the provision of health measures in these cases. Such fees will be limited to the actual cost of necessary health measures and must be published 10 days before they come into effect. The Commonwealth may also seek reimbursement from insurance companies or, in the case of crew members, from the master, owner or agent of the vessel. In addition to the amendments giving effect to the IHR, the opportunity has been taken to make some minor technical housekeeping amendments to the Quarantine Act.
I stress the importance of this bill in ensuring that we fully implement our international treaty obligations. The Rudd government is committed to ensuring that Australia has the capacity to respond appropriately to public health risks, and this bill will help to ensure this.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak today on the issues that I see that will confront my electorate and probably many other rural and regional electorates across Australia as a result of the budget, which will impact on us greatly. One of the issues that we are going to have to confront now is the removal of many of the programs that were key to the establishment, the progressiveness and the sustainability of rural and regional areas. In three key areas, particularly in my electorate of Riverina, we have seen many of these programs cut and slashed. In fact, regional development, communications and agricultural cuts in the budget have stripped more than $1 billion from regional and rural Australia.
The Labor government has abolished the Regional Partnerships and the Growing Regions programs. This measure saves the government $436 million and it has only put $176 million back into regional development, all of which has already been allocated. That means that there are no programs eligible for funding, particularly in the next financial year, because that funding has already been committed to Labor’s election promises.
But I am relieved because much attention has been paid to the Regional Partnerships program. There have been many assertions about it being a National Party slush fund and claims of corruption. Many derogatory comments have been thrown around about this program by the minister and others. I was very pleased to note that last night the minister recognised the essential worth of at least 86 of these programs. I congratulate the minister on recognising the absolutely essential programs that had funding promised to them but were slashed and burned in the budget process. The minister now obviously recognises that comments made in the past about Regional Partnerships, about the Nationals’ involvement, about the former government’s involvement and about it being just a slush fund for regional Australia were wrong. He now recognises these programs as essential and accepts that they have integrity, are not flawed and have stood up to the process of scrutiny. I thank the minister for agreeing with the Nationals and the coalition by recognising that these projects certainly are worth while.
I know the projects in my electorate absolutely stand up to scrutiny, because they have delivered medical services. When medical services walked away from my region the program delivered the services back in. When banks walked away from our region this program delivered banking services and other associated capacity into communities through rural transaction centres. We have had many fantastic initiatives. We have been able to establish child care to enable us to attract rural professionals—doctors and lawyers and people of the general professions—of whom we currently have a critical lack. We have had the resources to be able to secure their services in our electorates by the provision of a simple thing taken for granted by most city people—access to child care. The program has assisted enormously in the procurement of many of these services right across my electorate.
The Commercial Ready program has helped businesses in my electorate—new businesses. We have a business called Flip Screen Australia. They would never have been able to get off the ground, employ people and provide valuable economic input into our economy if they had not had the Commercial Ready program. We have seen the destruction of the $10.5 million Building Entrepreneurship in Small Business program, which enabled small businesses to get skills development in incubation and advisory services to enable them to move forward and to provide innovation and employment opportunities. Many of our councils under the Riverina Eastern Regional Organisation of Councils—REROC—and the Riverina Regional Development Board, a New South Wales government development board, have been recipients of grants under this program.
The Small Business Field Officer Program has also been slashed. My small business officer in Griffith is no longer employed and no longer able to give advice to those who want to set up independent businesses. This will affect their ability to move forward and expand and to provide much needed employment opportunities in the ever-increasing squeeze caused by the prolonged seven-year drought in my region. The New Industries Development Program was a great program that increased opportunities for innovative and market orientated industry development for small- and medium-sized agribusinesses. One business in my electorate, Cootamundra Oilseeds, was a previous recipient of funding under this program. It is one of our largest employers in the Cootamundra area. The New Business Intensive Assistance Program has also ceased. There is much red tape and much to comply with when deciding to set up a new business or even for those existing businesses with people who are not familiar with the GST and the BAS and general bookkeeping requirements. For such people, that intensive assistance program was invaluable. Again, it has been slashed. We also have the problem of additional funding to our Export Market Development Grants program. We have nothing in the forward estimates after 2010. I think that is a shame because we have had significant beneficiaries of that program who have been delivering back to the GDP of this great nation.
I am disappointed in the scrapping of the Investing in our Schools program. It was able to deliver to the mums and dads of communities. It was not out there pork-barrelling—as we have been accused of—these mums and dads. It was providing the P&Cs with their priorities. There was one particular project in my electorate at the South Wagga Public School. The P&C had been trying to raise money for 15 years to get a covered outdoor learning area. In that time they had only raised $30,000. When we were able to give them the Investing in our School’s grants of $150,000 not only were they able to build the outdoor covered learning area that they had been waiting for for 15 years but they were able to put in tanks to collect the water off the outdoor covered learning area. They were able to utilise that water to provide the kids, for the first time, with a playground where they could play on grass. That was certainly welcomed.
I understand the need for innovation and technology in schools, but there is also a need to assist mums and dads who are desperately putting in mammoth fundraising efforts to ensure that their children are attending a school that is at least reasonably comfortable, whether it be a public, private, or Catholic school. I am very disappointed to see that program go.
Then there is the Community Water Grants program. Community Water Grants was a program that I was very proud of because it was able to establish best practices, particularly in teaching school students about the need to conserve water. It involved the collection of water to be used in tanks to preserve groundwater and surface water systems. I feel that schools did a sterling job. In fact, my electorate received $4.7 million in programs, each and every one of them with integrity.
I note there have been concerns raised in the House by many people on the government side about the replacement of a bowling green turf with a synthetic surface. That makes absolute sense if you are living in a dry area. Our country towns do not have picture theatres, tenpin bowling alleys or the great entertainment facilities found in cities. For some of our communities the only social fabric that can bring us together is a bowling green—just two little bowling greens with a bowling club where regional people, farmers and local inhabitants can get together. We have such a fantastic response from our young people. Our schools are the biggest participants in lawn bowls. Our young people are there, taking their instruction from older people, who give great mentoring and role modelling. That is what happens in a rural community.
When you see it in action, it actually makes you feel very pumped in your heart and soul. You say, ‘Here are some young people gathering together with a group of elderly men and women to learn from them and be involved in a healthy aspect of life.’ If the only opportunity for that healthy aspect of life is a bowling green that requires a considerable amount of water to keep the surface in place, it stands to reason that the turf should be replaced with a synthetic surface. If a struggling community has little water and it is environmentally sound to put synthetic turf in, it stands to reason that the community should be able to get some assistance. Whether you are on the outskirts of Western Sydney or Melbourne or in the Riverina, it stands to reason that you should be able to apply for these grants and not come under some sort of cloud with people saying it is an absolute waste of money.
When I was going through the budget, I wanted to see what benefits had come to rural health. When I was a government member I did not believe in line items for the Riverina. I wanted to have money available for the Riverina when we needed it. I did not want to have an allocation to the Riverina and then be forever waiting for another allocation. When I wanted and needed assistance for the people I represent, I wanted to be able to go to the minister with a properly constituted proposal that had integrity, and I expected it to be supported.
Rural health issues in regional Australia are staggeringly difficult. I noticed an entry in the budget papers which seemed at first glance to be a fabulous initiative, and I was very warmly appreciative. I congratulated the government on many of their initiatives. I thought the childcare and some education components were terrific. I thought: ‘This is great, we’re now going to have an additional workforce to meet the needs of Australian communities. We’re going to enhance the medical workforce by the addition of 5,000 international medical graduates. Wow, this is fabulous; we’ll get some spin-off.’ But then I looked for the line item that gave us some resources for the training of those 5,000 international medical graduates. There was no sign of any allocation—no budget line anywhere for resources.
GPET, the General Practice Education and Training program, does a fabulous job right across Australia, whether you are in the Riverina or in any other electorate. But it is an intense and enormously difficult job, because it provides vocational education and training support for medical graduates who are seeking to become general practitioners. There are 21 regional training providers to do that. Our GPET force is already burdened, with 21 trainers, but now we have no-one to assist our international medical graduates to obtain the necessary education and training to fit them into Australian general practice. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to attract more people into Australian general practice training programs. I am not being critical at this point. I absolutely welcome the 5,000 places. But I am not sure whether the requirements that international medical graduates will have to undertake to fit into the Australian GP process have been overlooked—and they will be quite extensive. I would like to raise this matter in the House today to bring it to the attention of the minister—whom I think is a tremendous minister. You need to apply money to enable those 5,000 medical graduates to enter into general practice. It is essential. I appeal to and urge the government to look at this issue and to consider this not as a criticism but as an appeal for only what is required. I am not asking for any more than what is required.
As a past chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which dealt with substance abuse—illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco and prescribed pharmaceuticals—I am concerned about the implications, ramifications and unintended consequences of the alcopops tax. In my view, the alcopops tax seems to be counterproductive and disingenuous because, out of all of the proposed revenue that will be collected from the alcopops taxation, only $58 million will be put into programs. I have long called for the delivery of programs on the ground. I called for it when I was part of the last government. I argued for fewer research programs and more delivery of assistance on the ground. But only $58 million of the tax windfall from the imposition of this excise on alcopops will be returned. If this were a genuine proposal, all of that revenue—it is fortuitous additional revenue; it is not part of a budget surplus—should go into actually doing something on the ground such as providing more rehab and detox centres. I have no detox centre anywhere in my electorate. I have fought for and delivered a rehab centre, but I do not have a detox centre for regional people to go into in order to be able to attend a rehab centre. If you cannot do detox, you cannot attend rehab. I called for it from the last government and I will call for it from this one. It is essential.
I have a letter from the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia, who are very concerned by the unintended consequences of the tax. I have seen an article in the Australian today that says sales of alcopops have plummeted by almost 40 per cent in the fortnight following the lightning tax hike, but sales of 375-millilitre bottles of full-strength spirits have gone up by 20 per cent. Sales of 700-millilitre bottles of full-strength spirits have gone up by 21 per cent. Sales of dark spirit ready-to-drinks—scotch, rum and bourbon—have gone down by 39 per cent and sales of light spirit RTDs have gone down by 37 per cent. I am not quite sure we have managed to achieve the intention of the tax, and there will be more of this to come.
I am very concerned that we have just transferred the problem of substance abuse from one drink to another drink. I hope that after seeing these statistics the Prime Minister will reconsider how he wants to spend the tax take on addressing these problems, which will only increase with people mixing their own drinks and not knowing how much alcohol they are putting in. We are obviously going to have a big problem dealing with these issues, and I think the spend has to be much greater.
It is a great pleasure for me to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related legislation because they reflect the very first budget for Labor in 12 years. This budget is about building a strong economy that delivers for all Australians. This government was elected to not only represent all Australians but also act in the nation’s collective best interest. This government is funding its election commitments and responsibilities by investing in the future. The Rudd Labor government takes the economic situation left to it by the previous government very seriously. It will do everything in its power to responsibly manage the economy for this and for future generations.
Every single dollar of new spending has been more than matched by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget, which makes this the most responsible budget in many years. This government has built a strong surplus because it is an important way to fight inflation and invest in long-term improvements in our hospitals, roads, universities, TAFE colleges and schools. This budget will fight inflation and keep downward pressure on interest rates while at the same time investing in all of our futures.
On the other side, the Liberal’s response to this budget shows that it is the party of irresponsible spending. It is the party of high inflation and welfare for high-income earners, who just do not need the money. I have been talking extensively with people in my area in the western corridor of Brisbane. They admit that times are tough and that making ends meet is more difficult than it has ever been. Times have been getting tough for most Australians, for families and for the aged for many years. That is why this budget is so important. This government is pleased that their needs are no longer being ignored in favour of the top end of town. This budget rebalances the scales to give everybody a fair go.
People will also be pleased to see that all of Labor’s election commitments are being and will be met and delivered fully funded, instead of previous years where non-core promises continually knocked them for six in the budget directly following an election. The Rudd Labor government will keep all of its promises—core and non-core. This budget sets out a long-term plan to build a stronger economy that will deliver in the western corridor and right across the nation.
The past 12 years prove, if anything, this: the Rudd government actually understands the pressures on working families, ordinary people, the aged and those who are doing it tough. We will do everything in our power to make life a little bit easier for them. The reality today is that more and more of the family income is being eaten away by mortgage repayments, rent, groceries and petrol. This is the reality of life as it has been governed over the past decade. We will now do everything within our power to step in and make life easier. There is still a bitter taste in the mouths of a lot of Australians—in fact, I would say most Australians—from the former government’s statement ‘Working families have never been better off’. Today, just as it was then, that is an offensive statement.
It is time that we actually reward those who have worked very hard, and those that are working hard, and help them cope with the rising costs of living. This budget is that reward. It is the first stage in the reward for all Australians. Take for example the Working Families Support Package: $55 billion worth of support, which includes targeted initiatives specifically delivering in a range of key areas, such as personal income tax relief. Our commitments to personal income tax are fully met and will be fully met. We will help with childcare fees because we understand the pressures that ordinary families face. We have made a serious move in childcare fee rebates, raising them from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. We will support parents investing in their children’s education, by making some educational expenses deductable for the very first time—something that has been asked for by parents for a very long time.
We will move on the big-ticket issues, the big items that are hurting ordinary people, such as improving housing affordability. We are the party that listens to people, understands their needs and will deliver their needs. We will support older Australians and carers. We are introducing a Teen Dental Plan. We understand that people’s teeth are central to their health and their full enjoyment of life. We will introduce a fairer Medicare levy surcharge threshold for individuals and for families. And, for the first time ever in the country, we will introduce the national FuelWatch scheme, which will follow the lead from Western Australia on their very successful model and is based on advice from the ACCC.
This suite of budget measures, along with a whole range of other measures, is a comprehensive package. It is the first budget from a government that has very seriously taken its obligations and the things that it needs to do for all Australians. The previous government would not even have comprehended a package like this, because it simply did not understand the pressures that people were under. While this government discusses within its cabinet easing the pressures on working families, ordinary people, the aged and carers, around their cabinet table the previous government talked about themselves and about slugging ordinary Australians and workers.
The Rudd government is taking action in this budget to address cost-of-living pressures, household budgets and those sorts of pressures. This government has shown a disciplined approach to its budget management to take the pressure off inflation by paying for all new spending promises with savings. It is a responsible budget, with spending met through savings. Every dollar of new spending is offset by savings. This government promised during the election that a minimum of 1.5 per cent of GDP would be a surplus. Not only have we met that but we have exceeded that: we have actually achieved a surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP. Very importantly, the government is also tackling the skills shortage and road and port bottlenecks, which push up the cost of doing business and hurt the Australian economy for everybody.
These are the matters that were ignored for over a decade by the previous government. These matters were ignored boldly in the face of countless recommendations, countless sets of advice and countless reports and indicators that pointed to the growing need for the government to take action. I just cannot understand the logic or the thinking of the previous government and why it was so focused on its own re-election and on what it was doing, on its own survival, rather than the needs of the nation as a whole. We will invest in skills and education, and we will deliver 450,000 new training places over four years. The new $20 billion Building Australia Fund will provide the economic infrastructure for that future.
One way that any budget can help all Australians—a very central key—is by keeping inflation in control. Everybody wins when inflation is low. This budget is about keeping inflation down. Fighting inflation is the Rudd government’s No. 1 priority. Inflation does not discriminate but it does treat people on lower incomes worse than it treats others.
Inflation pressures have intensified over recent years, with underlying inflation now rising to 4.2 per cent in the year to March 2008, its highest rate in over 16 years. This is the legacy, this is the reality, that was left to us by Costello, by the Howard government. We will not sit back and allow that to continue. It is not good enough. Prices for many essential items have gone up, and that has put a lot of pressure on ordinary people’s budgets—on the families and on the aged—and we are acting to alleviate those pressures. Inflationary pressures have led to the Reserve Bank of Australia lifting interest rates eight times in just over three years—in fact we saw 12 consecutive interest rate rises under the stewardship of the previous government. This is their legacy; this is what they left ordinary Australians. Australians are feeling the impact and the effects of the inflationary rises of interest rates through their mortgage repayments, their rent, their grocery bills, the price of petrol and the cost of living, and all we get from the previous government is: ‘Don’t do anything.’ They themselves do not know what to do, and yet anything we do they say we should not do.
The build-up in inflationary pressures is the result of years of strong growth in demand that has not been met by increases in the supply capacity of the economy. Governments need to avoid wasteful spending that puts unnecessary pressure on the economy, which makes the Reserve Bank’s job of controlling inflation even harder. That is why we are working very hard to keep inflation under control. We must also note that productivity growth has fallen to its lowest level in over 17 years. A key driver in keeping this country prosperous is keeping productivity up. Even with productivity at its lowest level in 17 years, the previous government did not acknowledge that a problem existed. This budget actually begins to meet the much needed investment to expand our productivity capacity and our economy through infrastructure, through education and through training. These are the policies that lift productivity and are a key part of our reform agenda, including investing in key economic and social infrastructure. Investing in skills is vital to help us work more productively. A workforce with the right mix of skills leads to higher productivity and participation, lower unemployment and increased living standards and is a long-term approach to ensuring that we have a prosperous country that delivers to everybody, not just to a few people. Tighter monetary and fiscal policy is expected to gradually ease underlying inflation from the current 16-year highs.
In the western corridor, residents regularly talk to me, particularly recently, about a wide range of topics, but none more so than my local pensioners and the aged. Pensioners are doing it tough—there is no escaping that—and that is why we have invested an extra $5.2 billion in this budget to try and take away some of that pain for them. On this side of the House the government recognises the financial pressures that seniors face. We are the only ones committed to helping seniors make ends meet. We understand the problems that they face. We must not forget that it was Labor, when in opposition, that called for a Senate inquiry into the cost-of-living pressures that face senior Australians. The then government could have done something but it chose not to. It made a conscious decision: when it was in the cabinet room, it chose not to act. We are committing $5.2 billion in additional new funding for seniors in this budget—that is, 3½ times the amount that was pledged by the previous government—because we understand that more needs to be done. That does not mean that all has been done; it just means that we have taken those first essential steps to ensure that those who need our support the most in the community actually get it—real long-term adjustments that will make a real difference for seniors.
The implementation of Labor’s election commitments in this budget will provide an average additional annual benefit of $400 for aged pensioners and seniors. Recently we introduced into the parliament a bill to pay aged pensioners and seniors a $500 bonus, with 2.7 million seniors benefiting from this measure—that is, $900 extra for millions of seniors on top of other measures, which makes a huge difference. This bonus will be paid before the end of the current financial year, 30 June 2008. These bonuses come on top of an increase in the utility allowance from $107.20 per year to $500 per year. I note that the first quarterly instalment has been paid to aged pensioners and seniors already, in March. These important financial measures come on top of an extension of the telephone allowance, new dental funding for concession card holders and petrol vouchers for volunteers who use their own transport in helping others in the community. There are more dollars for carers and aged care as well. But still more needs to be done—I acknowledge that, we acknowledge that and we have taken the first steps.
One of the most pressing issues now affecting all Australians—in fact, affecting just about every country in the world, and we have seen in the media in recent days what is happening in the UK, in France and globally—is the price of petrol going through the roof, and this is hurting ordinary people. While the opposition get on the petrol bandwagon, for 12 years while they were in government they did nothing that would ease the pressure in the long term. They talk about taking just a few cents off, but the reality is that with the huge price differences in major cities around the country a few cents is insignificant. While it might seem good for a day or a week, the reality long term is that when there are price gaps of 20c to 30c between bowsers at different places it is a matter of being informed by having that information readily available to make the right choice and get 20c rather than just a few cents off.
Our government will introduce a national FuelWatch scheme to improve the transparency in pricing and promote competition. It is a tough decision being made in the face of some strong criticism, but there is also some very good backing. There will be some very good outcomes that give consumers choice for the first time to understand where the cheapest prices are. If the fuel companies and those selling at the bowser want to compete, want to play by the rules and want to provide people with a fair and decent price at the bowser then let them use the system. Let them attract customers and get people to their service stations by keeping the price low and competitive. That will ease the pressure on people paying too much for petrol at the bowser, unlike just sitting back and saying. ‘We’ll remove some excise and give you a few cents off.’ That would literally disappear into thin air within weeks or months if the global rise in petrol prices were to continue as it is now.
On the issue of housing affordability, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you would know and understand that the western corridor in Queensland is booming, and my electorate is probably the fastest-growing electorate in the country. This rapid growth and expansion comes with some unique challenges of housing affordability and access to broadband and road networks and a whole range of infrastructure and social issues. It is obvious that it is becoming harder and harder for first home buyers, especially with rents going the way they are. The Rudd government has committed $2.2 billion to do something about housing affordability—again, something the previous government did not even acknowledge. We are not just acknowledging it or just having an inquiry or a summit—
You are!
we are backing it up with funding of $2.2 billion. It is another first step. It is all right for the opposition to say, ‘You’re having a summit; you’re having an inquiry,’ but we are following through. It is called follow-through. Do that, get the right information, invite the community to participate and then do something about it. In the budget we are also providing $1.2 billion over four years to assist first home buyers and committing $623 million over four years to the National Rental Affordability Scheme. That is on top of $8,000 annually for 10 years for people who build investment rental houses and keep rents 20 per cent below market rate. Housing affordability is front and centre. We are committed to it and we are doing something about it.
In the past I have talked a lot about broadband. I talked about it in opposition but I am going to talk about it in government as well. Areas in my electorate, such as greater Springfield, Sinnamon Park, Forest Lake and new estates around Acacia Ridge, have been neglected for many years. It is a difficult job that we have to do. It is a long-term job; it is not going to be fixed overnight. Most people understand that, but you need to take the first steps. You need to invest; you need to understand the problem. The Rudd Labor government is committed. We will make a difference in these areas.
Nowhere could you go where infrastructure is more critical than Queensland. Queensland is a booming state and the Rudd Labor government will continue to commit additional resources to Queensland. We have given over $826 million in nation-building roads and rail projects in Queensland, including more than $63 million to make an early start on election commitments. There is an urgent need to fix a whole range of Queensland’s overstretched road networks. The reality is very simple: when a state like Queensland has net migration of between 50,000 and 80,000 every year from the southern states, it puts the pressure on. They are coming to live in the western corridor, and no amount of roadworks can possibly keep up with the pace, but we are committed to doing it and will continue to do it. Particularly with the Ipswich Motorway, I am very pleased that we have met all of our election commitments. I am glad to see there was $5 million advanced for planning for the Dinmore-to-Goodna upgrade.
Mr Truss interjecting
Order! The member for Wide Bay will have his opportunity to speak.
We have committed millions to it. We will continue to deliver on the Ipswich Motorway. We will meet all of our election promises and commitments for a full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway ahead of time. Work is going on right now, and it will be completed ahead of time. Those on the other side, the opposition, had 12 years to do something but they did nothing. Well, they did a little bit just before the last election, which they lost, but they did nothing overall.
On urban planning, we understand the issues. I do not have the time today to go into all the detail, but I can assure you that in my electorate we understand the issues very acutely.
I will end by speaking briefly on schools and what we call the education revolution. It is a bold step in the right direction, and this budget has moved on with that commitment. One of the biggest commitments we have made in the budget is to the future of young Australians, our children, through investing in their education. We have called this the education revolution and have committed billions of new dollars towards ensuring that all of our schools are properly resourced to deliver the best possible services to our kids. We recognise that all of our kids, regardless of what school they attend, deserve the very best. The old debate over school funding is dead. The new debate is about how much more we can do to acknowledge properly the work of our teachers and to ensure that the highest level of educational standards are met. This is Labor’s first budget in 12 years. It is a great budget, and there will be many more to come. I congratulate the Treasurer on a fantastic job.
The Treasurer concluded his budget speech by saying this was a Labor budget, and he was right. This was a typical Labor budget, being the biggest spending budget in Australian history and the biggest taxing budget in Australian history. It was also an occasion for Labor to get square with all of the people that it hates. It was payback time. The people on their hit list included those who had been successful, people in small business, the tourism industry, stay-at-home mums, people who live in rural and regional areas, people who produce ethanol and believe in alternative energy, people who have private health insurance and self-funded retirees. All of these people have long been on Labor’s hit list and they all suffered in Labor’s first budget.
The government spin doctors and circus ringmasters told us that this was going to be a Robin Hood budget that took from the rich and gave to the poor. Is a large family that needs a people mover rich? Is a family living in a remote area and needing a four-wheel drive for the dirt roads rich? Are families who work 80 hours a week to earn $75,001 in six months too rich to need some help with their babies?
The reality is that Labor’s budget did not take from the rich and give to the poor; it will hurt the poor. It will hurt the poor more than anyone. It will hurt the poor when one million people are added to the public hospital queues as a result of Labor’s attack on private health insurance. It will hurt the poor because this budget does nothing to help them pay their mortgage, to lower food prices or to reduce petrol prices. The budget will create 134,000 more unemployed. The budget delivers nothing for pensioners and it takes the seniors card away from self-funded retirees. There were no tax cuts for these people, just longer hospital queues, higher rents and higher food prices.
The reality is that, yes, this is a Labor budget. It has failed the Australian people as Labor budgets have failed them in the past. It has demonstrated yet again that Labor are completely unable to effectively manage an economy. They inherited an enormous surplus. They copied the tax cuts committed by the previous government. They spent a proportion of the heritage that they received from the good management of the previous government, and as budget follows budget under Labor that heritage will be further eroded. As the economy runs down, as it always does under Labor governments, the budget surpluses will turn into deficits. The slush funds that have been put aside will be drawn on to try to keep future Labor budgets afloat.
This was a budget that was very much about spin. We were told that there needed to be a new tax on mixed drinks because that would attack binge drinking. But that has been exposed as the phoney assertion that it is. The reality is that figures as late as today have shown that there has been a 20 per cent increase in the sales of higher alcohol content spirits as a result of these tax changes. People have simply changed their drinking patterns and their purchasing patterns and they will get double the hit for half the tax. This was not a well thought through measure; it was a classic example of Labor’s busy spin doctors suggesting that what was, in fact, about binge taxing was really about binge drinking.
This particular budget will do nothing to address key issues of inflation. I was interested that the Labor Party announced a five-point plan to deal with inflation. One of the key elements of that five-point plan was to build more infrastructure. The reality, of course, is that that, of itself, will be inflationary in the short term and it will take many, many years before the benefits of that increased infrastructure flow through into better pipelines and therefore lower inflation.
We do need to spend more money on infrastructure—I am wholeheartedly supportive of that—but it is surprising, therefore, that in the budget, where I have heard the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government boast about the increased commitment to roads and to rail, Labor between now and 2013 will actually spend only about half as much on roads and rail as the previous government had committed. Labor has only identified $15.5 billion worth of road and rail projects. We had committed over $31 billion. The minister for infrastructure acknowledged as much in the parliament yesterday.
The centrepiece of this budget are three new slush funds: the Building Australia Fund, a health fund and an education fund. The Building Australia Fund steals $2 billion from the Communications Fund set up from the proceeds of the Telstra sale that was to be used to provide new technology in perpetuity in areas where it would otherwise not be profitable or possible. What Labor have effectively done is to steal the money intended for future generations to provide new technology for people living in rural and regional areas and, for that matter, some parts of outer metropolitan areas where it is economically difficult to provide the latest technology. They are stealing that money to provide a replica of existing technology in the cities. Where is the $2 billion actually going to go? They have acknowledged that they need $4.7 billion for their Connecting Australia program, although the latest estimates suggest that to provide fibre to the node to 98 per cent of the Australian population will properly cost closer to $100 billion, not $4.7 billion. The reality is that country people who have had the OPEL contract axed will have no access to high-speed broadband for a minimum of five years even if the Labor Party are ever able to deliver on their promise in relation to fibre to the node. The establishment of this slush fund includes $2 billion put aside for regional Australian telecommunications.
We are told that the balance of the money is to be spent over a range of infrastructure projects. However, during the election Labor made a whole range of promises to build roads—the previous speaker referred to one—and we were told that all of those were going to be funded without question. Labor have set up Infrastructure Australia, which is supposed to assess projects on their merits and ensure that the very best value is obtained for the available money. Yet every project that Labor promised during the election campaign is going to be immune from the Building Australia assessment. That money will therefore be committed to and taken out of the Building Australia slush fund before they have even done the assessment process.
The reality is that the only real funding provided for roads in this budget is for planning, studies and examinations. A classic case is the F3 to Branxton in the Hunter Valley, where Labor are about to fund the 28th study into the traffic needs of the area rather than getting on with the project upon which $100 million has already been spent to acquire land and to plan and ensure that that vital piece of road infrastructure can be built.
Labor are taking $500 million from the funding of the Bruce Highway, much of which is in my own electorate, to spend on other projects, even though they know that this project has been classified by the Automobile Association and, indeed, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics as the highest priority road project in Queensland. There have been more than 30 fatalities on this road in recent times, yet Labor have taken money away from the project to spend on others without any scrutiny from the Building Australia Fund or any other independent assessment. They have simply moved off in their own direction.
Of course, not all this money is going to be spent on roads and rail. The Building Australia Fund—if there is any money left in it after Labor has fulfilled its election promises—is going to be shared around amongst all kinds of infrastructure projects. The reality is that it will not go around. It will take a year or more, probably two years, before any commitments are made as to how this money will be spent and that will be on the eve of the next federal election. Those who describe this fund, the health fund and the education fund as Sussex Street slush funds have got it right. The reality is that this is money that is being put aside to fund Labor’s next election campaign. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the people of Australia; it is all about a desperate attempt by Labor to get itself re-elected whenever the next election is held.
I refer also to the education fund. More than half of the money in the education fund has actually been taken from our universities endowment fund. It is not Labor’s new money at all. It is closing down a fund that was to provide money in perpetuity to build infrastructure at our universities. It is going to spend the capital as well as the interest for a range of pre-election commitments. This is classic Labor governance: do nothing year after year, talk about planning and studies—more than 100 reviews have already been commissioned—then just on the eve of an election suddenly get the bulldozers to move or provide some money for a grant in a key marginal electorate. That is the way Labor governments operate at state level. The photocopier for the plan has been moved to Canberra and we are seeing exactly the same kind of strategy here. It is a government about spin and about the image of the Prime Minister—making sure that his ties are correctly chosen by the right butler; making sure that he moves with appropriate entourages around the world, with a fleet of aircraft to meet his every need. Labor creates that kind of image rather than actually doing constructive things for the Australian people.
Country Australia took a particularly savage hit in this budget. In the first announcements of budget cuts by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, more than three-quarters of the cuts were to rural and regional Australia. One-third of the people got three-quarters of the cuts; the cities were left largely untouched. Country people are always on Labor’s hit list. Kevin Rudd said on election night that Labor would govern for all Australians, but seven million Australians who live outside the capital cities found in the very first budget that they do not count in Labor’s eyes. In three key areas alone—regional development, communications and agriculture—Labor stripped $1 billion from regional and rural Australia. Labor abolished the Regional Partnerships and Growing Regions programs, saving $436 million. But it only put $176 million back for regional development, and nearly all of that money has been committed for Labor’s election promises—projects like the Fort Street school rort and the respringing of the Canberra dance hall, which would never have stacked up under any kind of proper scrutiny or independent assessment.
Existing agriculture programs worth $334 million have been replaced with climate change programs worth just $220 million. Labor has provided no funding at all for an alternative to the scrapped OPEL contract—$959 million essentially taken directly from regional Australians. Broadband is unlikely to be available to people for at least five years and probably longer. Labor did extend the coalition’s Broadband Guarantee, at a cost of $271 million. That is welcome but it does not meet the hopes and aspirations of people in rural and regional areas who had expected that by now, under the OPEL contract, they would be starting to get the broadband speeds that city people take for granted. So this has been a devastating budget for people who live outside the capital cities. Once more, they know that there is no hope that their concerns and legitimate interests will ever be taken seriously by this government.
Labor’s long list of hates extended through to people in small businesses and to people in the tourist industry, where programs were slashed substantially. New taxes have been imposed, particularly taxes on people leaving and arriving in Australia. We desperately need to encourage people to come to Australia to keep our tourism industry strong, especially at a time when world fuel prices are high. Labor’s response to that is to increase taxes on people coming to Australia and then also to slash support for the tourist industry in its promotion and in its support programs for Australians in those industries.
They have also attacked a number of important social programs. Stay-at-home mums have never been considered a priority by Labor, and this budget has really demonstrated Labor’s priorities. Rich families who put their children into child care will get an increased tax rebate. They will get an increased tax rebate as long as they put their children into a childcare centre. However, the changes to the family tax benefit income test mean that a mother who earns no income at all and stays at home will get nothing. So a stay-at-home mum who earns nothing will get a significant cut in this budget, but a rich family which puts their children in a childcare centre will get significant tax benefits. This is typical of Labor’s approach to social policy. They believe that children should be raised in childcare centres and that families who take the decision to raise their children within their own environment should be penalised. I think it is an ill-thought-out and very foolish policy. I know that childcare centres do a good job and, to the best of their ability, provide care and support for children, but families which choose to make the sacrifice to be a one-income family and families where the mother or the father spends their full time raising the children also need support. They should not be penalised by a deliberate budget strategy. The coalition’s policy was to try to make that choice possible for families and to make it as taxation neutral as possible. What this government has done is to ensure that families who want to stay at home and look after their children are going to be seriously adversely affected.
This particular budget does nothing for people who were expecting the government to do something about petrol prices, after promising it would. It does nothing to provide any confidence that the government was sincere when it said it would put downward pressure on grocery prices. The reality is in fact that this government is putting upward pressure on grocery prices. Its proposals to introduce new taxes on the transport industry are quite incredible. At a time when fuel prices are going up, this government actually wants to increase the taxation on the transport industry. That will flow through to every item on every shelf in every store around the country. It will have a particular impact on the manufacturing industry outside the capital cities because of the extra cost of transporting products to the marketplace. It will also have a radical impact on industries such as tourism, where people will have to pay more to visit Australia’s leading tourist attractions.
The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has produced a budget of confusion. Labor says that it will fight inflation, but it introduces a whole range of new inflationary taxes. It is a budget that Labor says will build new infrastructure, but decisions will not be made for years and, in reality, the total expenditure on infrastructure will actually be less. It is meant to be the budget that addresses skills shortages, yet skills-building programs have been cut or abolished. Regional programs that have created and maintained jobs in some of the nation’s most hard-pressed communities have been abolished. Labor has inherited an economy that is the envy of the world, but it is so caught up with its short-term slogans, its slick spin, its vendettas and its hit lists that it has created a visionless mess.
Some taxes go up, some go down, but the losers in this budget will be the very people who Labor claims it supports. The losers in this budget will be successful people, small businesses, the tourism industry and, as I said earlier, stay-at-home mums and people who live in regional areas. The government have attacked key new industries in the ethanol sector. They have axed programs like the remote renewable energy program, which provided opportunities for people who live in remote communities to switch to renewable sources of energy. They have slashed all the support for the ethanol industry to try to drive out of business those who might seek to provide alternatives to expensive oil imports into Australia. And, of course, they have mercilessly attacked private health insurance, which will put an enormous burden on the public hospital system and indeed those people who are already waiting for essential care. This is a budget that attacks the poor. It hurts people in regional Australia, it is a disaster for this country but it is indeed, as the Treasurer said, a true Labor budget.
I want to primarily discuss the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills—the budget—in my capacity as a parliamentary secretary and talk about development assistance issues, but before I do I want to briefly make some comments about some national issues and some issues particularly relating to my constituency. The fundamental long-term political significance of this budget is that it has already changed the public understanding of economic management. The economic responsibility equation has changed already and it is reflected in the opinion polls and also in public discourse. The irresponsibility of the spending of previous budgets and the irresponsibility of the spending proposals of the alternative budget is remarkably apparent. It is unwise to underestimate the capacity of the public to see through these things. That in such a short time the Treasurer has been able to establish a lead in the polls on the issue of responsible economic management is a very significant transformation of the political landscape as a result of this budget.
Of course, the debate around budget measures has provoked the usual flurry of short-term, post-budget diversions, with the immediate displacing of the important, and a phalanx of sanctimonious hypocrisy has come forward. We have had people claiming that putting a tax on luxury cars is a terrible imposition, when they are the same people who supported a tax on luxury cars for a decade. They are simply saying we should not change it from 25 per cent to 33 per cent. They are standing up and railing about the definition of luxury cars when the definition has not changed; what has changed is the rate. We hear the most sanctimonious hypocrisy, and it is galling but common. I think we need to cut through all the smoke and haze that surround the immediate, which causes great media frenzy but is of no lasting significance whatsoever, and go to the core of the budget, which is about economic responsibility, nation building and equity. From a national perspective, I am very proud to be supporting the budget.
From a local point of view, mine was the constituency where the alarm about what might happen was very great because of the alarmist talk that was going on about the catastrophe that would befall Canberra as a consequence of the budget. The alarmists have been proved wrong. We are a sector and a city that has taken a bit of a hit, but we have stopped relying on an unsustainable level of spending and got back to a spending base on which we can build. We could not sustain real spending increases of four per cent. Of course it was good in the short term for people in my constituency, and I enjoyed the fact that it meant that there was virtually no unemployment in my constituency. It was a very positive thing, but everybody knew it was unsustainable. We are now moving to a sustainable base.
I welcome the fact that in parallel with this budget and reflected in it is a major review of the role of the National Capital Authority. I do not wish to divert this speech to a discussion about the merits of that—we will deal with that when the review is concluded—but everybody in my constituency knows that I have been very critical of some aspects of the performance of the National Capital Authority. I welcome the review, I welcome the changes and I look forward to the process continuing.
The biggest issue for my constituency in this election related to measures involving universities generally and in particular with regard to the ANU. My constituency has more university campuses in it than any other in the country and they are a very important part of what makes the city tick—not just the ANU but the University of Canberra, the campus of the Australian Catholic University, the Defence Force Academy and, outside my electorate but still in Canberra, the campus of Charles Sturt University. All of those are an important part of Canberra and I welcome the establishment of the $11 billion education infrastructure fund. Not only is it bigger than the older Higher Education Endowment Fund; it is better structured. I was worried about that fund. I was pleased when it was set up and said after the previous budget that I welcomed it because it did create some capacity for enhanced funding of universities’ capital requirements, which was necessary. But there was a disjuncture between the investment profile that was needed to preserve the long-term viability of the fund and the capital requirements of the universities. It was better to have it than nothing, but it was not well structured for the purpose. The EIF looks to me to be a better proposition and I welcome that. I welcome the short-term $500 million provided to universities in the lead-up to the budget. That will be reflected in all the universities here in Canberra to which I have referred, other than ADFA, which is separately funded. In particular, I welcome the special recognition for the ANU, which has been disadvantaged by the formula operating for higher education funding for a long time.
I had a community meeting in my electorate recently, one of a series I have regularly all year round, in the Downer Community Centre in the inner north suburbs of Canberra in my electorate. I was pleased to be able to settle a couple of the myths that had spread and been perpetuated in public discourse, particularly as they related to the pensioners in my electorate. There were people who, because of the character of the public debate, seriously thought that their pension was no longer indexed, and I think people had been deliberately setting out to create that impression. They thought they were not going to receive the bonus when in fact they are. They thought there was no increase for them when in fact there is an approximately $1,000 a year increase for pensioners in the budget. So I am pleased that those who attended that meeting were able to leave satisfied—not that everything had been done for them or that we had finished the task of improving retirement incomes for pensioners but because they had been recognised in this budget and we had set the framework for enhanced recognition in the future. They are the local and national matters I wanted to raise.
In the remaining time, I want to focus on the budget as it relates to Australia’s International Development Assistance Program. As a person who has been engaged in this issue all his adult life, who for the 12 months before the election had the responsibility of developing policy alternatives for the then opposition and who now has responsibility for the new government in implementing these programs, this is a very exciting budget document for me. It is a key building block for the government’s long-term strategy to make our development assistance programs bigger and better. In travelling around the country since the budget I have been delighted to find people of different political persuasions, including some very conservative people, who made it quite clear that they had never voted for my party in their life—
And won’t do it again.
I think, in the case of the two I am talking about, that is true—they did not on this last occasion—but who are delighted by this part of the budget and support it. Actually, it took place in South Australia, I am pleased to tell you. They were not from Barker but they were from a very conservative electorate. They did not vote for my party but they think this part of the budget is morally right, is politically right and, I would add, has some significant longer term national interest factors.
I was delighted with the response, for example, at a forum organised by my colleague the member for Kingston. We had a really interesting discussion with a range of people in the community about the strengths and merits of the budget and where it fits in the long term. What the budget papers show, of course, is that in this budget there is a significant improvement in our development assistance funding. We have lifted the ratio of ODA spending to gross national income to 0.32 per cent. While it is still terribly low, significantly this is the highest it has been since 1995-96, when the Labor Party went out of office. The forward estimates show it rising to 0.38 per cent, which will be the highest rate we have had for a very long time, going back to the 1980s. The Treasurer has recommitted us to our election commitment of 0.5 per cent by 2015, which would make our aid budget the highest it has been since 1974-95, as a percentage. We are on track for the biggest increase in the development assistance budget in our history.
When you look at that massive increase—nearly 10 years of scaling up to make up for how far we have fallen behind as a nation—you see that after those 10 years of scaling up, the biggest increase in our history, we will still be a long way below the leading countries in the proportion of our economic assets that are applied to assisting the poorest people. No developed country in the world lives more closely engaged geographically and economically with developing countries than Australia does, yet we have been trailing at the bottom of the pack for a decade in our contribution to development assistance. It is neither morally right nor economically or diplomatically sensible. So we are starting the process of remedying the historic failure of the previous government.
We are also in the process of implementing our election commitments. I will talk about these on subsequent occasions, but I want to mention them today because they are an important part of the pattern of the budget. There is a program which in the short-term will focus on the very important task of dealing with avoidable blindness in developing countries in our region, but it is a precursor to a broader program assisting people with disabilities in developing countries. There is a commitment to scale up assistance for projects around water and sanitation—unclean water and poor sanitation are two of the biggest killers, particularly of young people, in our region—and there is a commitment to assist developing countries to adapt to the challenge of climate change. All those were explicit election commitments that we said we would implement in our first budget, as we have, or that we said we would scale up in our first budget, as we have.
I want to spend the remaining time talking about a particular aspect of our development assistance challenge where we are seeking to not just repair our relationships but transform them. I have the privilege of working with my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Duncan Kerr, on re-establishing good relations with our neighbours in the Pacific, where they have been so badly damaged, and creating a new framework for the future. The Prime Minister has spoken of Pacific Partnerships for Development and he has given that tangible status in the Port Moresby declaration, which he issued during his recent visit to Papua New Guinea. That made significant progress towards repairing our relationship with that important neighbour.
Pacific partnerships for development are very important and the Prime Minister will have important things to say about them over the months to come. This budget makes an important contribution to positioning ourselves as a nation to implement those fine words. Fine words are important. They do matter in relationships, but actions matter more. That is why I want to refer to three specific major commitments in this budget. Only two of them I will be able to talk about in any detail. There is a Pacific regional infrastructure facility, an investment in Pacific public sector capacity and there is an initiative with regard to Pacific land issues.
Can I talk first about the question of Pacific public sector capacity. There is a new $107 million four-year initiative called Investing in Pacific Public Sector Capacity—only $6 million in this budget, scaling up over future years as we develop the framework for the policy. It is designed to strengthen public sector administration in the Pacific. This is not where I would have started before I became more closely engaged with this issue, but it is clear that one of the key constraints on the delivery of decent services to the poorest people in our region is the lack of capacity on the ground to develop policies and then implement them, to deliver services to the men and women of the developing countries of our region such that they get a better life. In the long term we are talking about better education for their kids, better health services and better job opportunities, but we need to create the capacity of the governments to set a framework where that can happen and where the government itself is delivering the services—so that it can be done efficiently and effectively.
We are not going to change this overnight, but we do have a commitment to work with the governments, the tertiary institutions and the training institutions in the region, to build up public sector workforce performance, to enhance the regional training institutions that produce graduates and to enter into twinning, mentoring and similar arrangements so that we will foster strong people-to-people and organisational linkages, which will be good for our relationships, will enhance the partnerships and will also strengthen public service capacity in our region. We will be particularly focusing on training for all levels of the public service—for entry level public servants and for mid-level public servants as they start taking on responsibility, and with specialised programs for the current and potential leaders of the public sector, including formal and on-the-job training and work attachments in Australia and within the region. It is not the glamorous side of development assistance but it is a fundamental thing that we need to do and is an initiative of which I am proud.
The Pacific regional infrastructure facility is something we intend to do initially with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, but we are trying to create a framework where other significant donors in the region, such as the European Union, Japan and possibly China, will come together to contribute within a coherent framework for the regional development of infrastructure. I am not talking just about region-wide infrastructure but infrastructure country by country, economy by economy, in some instances competing across the region to see whose infrastructure proposals have the highest return—economic, social, environmental—so as to develop performance linked support to the basic infrastructure services, in combination with the multilateral development banks and potentially with other donor partners. We are very interested in enhancing the quality of the analytical work that underpins funding allocation and to do it in a manner that is comprehensible locally. It is no good creating a sophisticated black box into which data is put and from which recommendations emerge with nobody understanding the linkage, the criteria or the basis on which they have been made.
We are keen to do that and I have been pushing very hard to make sure that, in addition to the things which we ordinarily think of in infrastructure investment—such as building new roads and new structures—we focus on maintenance. It is the untold story of development assistance around the world—build, degrade, replace. We are not going to continue to do that. Neither is it efficient use of money nor does it send the right economic signals to people whose behaviour we want to change. We want to build these roads so that people will increase production and take it to market on the improved roads that we have supplied. If there is no confidence that the road is going to stay useful for more than five years, you are not going to invest in increased production to take advantage of the market opportunity. We want to look at enhanced analysis and performance links for the basic infrastructure we build. We want to build incentives into the contracts and the mode of operation to ensure that the maintenance is undertaken.
I am please to have the opportunity to speak in support of this budget. As the member for Fraser, I am very pleased to see the things which have emerged within my constituency. As a member of the Labor government, I am pleased to see the national economic responsibility and benefit that is flowing. As the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, I am pleased to see the manner in which this budget has created the foundation on which we can transform our relationship with the countries of our region, discharge our obligation and serve our interests as a generous, intelligent donor participating as a responsible international citizen in the task of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
There is no doubt, if you want to define this budget in one area, that it is a city centric budget and it has been a kick in the guts for people in rural and regional areas. There is no doubt that, when you look at the cuts to the government programs, they have centred on the rural areas which the government obviously do not understand. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry lives in inner Sydney. In fact, if you look at the make-up of the ministry in this Labor government, the ministers are from the cities of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne—forget about the rest of the country. We have one token minister from Western Australia and one token minister from South Australia and they do not seem to have that much influence on what is happening in this country. Again, the rural areas have had the biggest cuts in this budget. Even before the budget, it was announced that the first cuts would be in rural areas.
The government continue to talk about the so-called skills crisis in Australia, yet one of their first actions was to cut funding for agricultural and horticultural apprenticeships. How smart was that? We really need to continue with apprenticeships to upskill people in our rural areas, but one of the first actions of this Labor government was to cut the funding, just as they cut quite severely the FarmBis program—a very successful program in skilling our farmers and people who help farmers in this country. The only way you can get a FarmBis training program up now is to say it is about climate change. There are a lot of other issues in farming besides climate change. I agree with the agriculture minister when he says we need to adapt to climate change. We have always had climate change and we need to adapt to it, but it should not be the be-all and end-all of getting a training program up for the FarmBis program.
When you look at some of the other training subsidies that the government give, it is interesting to note that they say, ‘We’ll give you a training subsidy for something like picture framing, but too bad if you’re in the mining industry, we’re going to get rid of those training subsidies.’ So there is no training subsidy for the mining industry and many of the other important areas where they are needed. One only has to have been at the Mining Council function last night to realise the importance of the mining industry. But this government say, ‘Okay, we’ll give training subsidies for picture framers’—it might be an important minor area of our economy—‘but forget about it for the mining industry itself.’ How dumb is that sort of situation, when you have a government that does not give training subsidies for the mining industry?
Rural and regional communities across Australia are by no means homogeneous. Indeed, there are many great differences across the states and territories in the size of the towns, the wealth and the environment. Even in my own electorate there are great differences. There is high rainfall areas in the lower south-east—30 to 35 inches, in the old terms—but further up north, in the Riverland, for example, the rainfall is only about 10 inches. So it does vary quite dramatically, even around my electorate, in the things that are grown there. But what they do have in common is a small population spread across a vast area, something that I think city-centric politicians find very hard to understand. The challenges this poses for the rural economy and society for the provision of infrastructure and services are immense. Australians, including many in my electorate, are concerned with agriculture. I have a very large agricultural base in my seat—in fact, the seat of Barker has often been termed the most agricultural seat in Australia. We produce nearly half of Australia’s wine—I am proud to say it is the best wine in this country—in areas like the Barossa, the Coonawarra, Padthaway, Mount Benson, Wrattonbully and Lower Murray. We have some fantastic areas in my electorate for wine production.
We also have a very heavy agricultural industry in the traditional areas of beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, horticulture and forestry. Forestry, as I said in my maiden speech, provides about $2 billion per year for the economy in the seat of Barker, so it is a very important part of our economy. We also have very large areas of horticulture. The Riverland, with its citrus, almonds and viticulture, is very important for the economy. Unfortunately, as I have said previously in this House, they are under really severe stress at the moment because of the crisis with the Murray River, which unfortunately this government does not seem to be helping all that much.
We are certainly very much the food bowl of South Australia, if not Australia. What this budget offers for rural and regional Australia, not only in agriculture but also in water and transport, is therefore very important to the constituents in my seat of Barker. It did not take Labor long to show their attitude of ideological indifference and callousness to the needs of rural and regional Australians. Minister Albanese’s decision to abolish the $236 million Regional Partnerships program and the $200 million Growing Regions program is all about a mean-spirited politics of city versus the bush. And they have made great play of some of the problems with the Regional Partnerships program. I do not know of any government program that does not have some problems, but to the best of my knowledge there have been something like 700 successful projects and only a handful of problems with that program. So, on the basis that it has actually been a program that was always going to be a bit risky, in fact many of the things that have happened due to Regional Partnerships would not have happened without the Regional Partnerships program. The decision to scrap 116 Regional Partnerships projects, which were approved by the former government, is a direct swipe at people in the bush. Interestingly enough, in the last 24 hours we have seen one of the biggest backflips that I have ever seen by any government. The government have actually restored 86 of those 116 projects. So, even this new Labor government recognise that many of these Regional Partnerships Programs were in fact very beneficial to Australians in the bush.
That’s because Kochie got onto him!
That could be so. We had, for example, programs to help the olive industry. In my electorate the olive industry is actually kicking a lot of goals and it has got up to a size where it has become a quite efficient industry. As another example, we built the first phylloxera treatment plant—very important to our viticulture industry—to kill a bug which could have a devastating effect on our viticulture areas. That was another great program that was funded under Regional Partnerships. Improving the water outlet at the Mount Gambier airport for our firebombers was another fantastic way of spending government money. On the very same day that we had those tragic bushfires on Eyre Peninsula in which several people died and we lost a lot of country—and I was very close to the action—a fire started in the forest in Millicent. As anyone knows, if that fire had gotten away, there perhaps would have been even more tragedy than we saw on the Eyre Peninsula. But the fact is that we had firebombers stationed there that were able to be filled up with water very quickly at the airport, which enabled us to put out that fire within minutes. That was a direct result of funding from the Regional Partnerships program. To say that is somehow a regional rort is absolutely ridiculous.
Concordia Kindergarten, in Murray Bridge, is a small community preschool which sought to expand its premises to offer community services and support to families who were doing it tough. Concordia had raised more than $50,000 from local businesses and the community. The Labor state government had put in $70,000 and Concordia was just waiting on a $107,000 Regional Partnerships grant. Unbelievably, Minister Albanese said, ‘Bad luck, we don’t need that community program at all.’ So he scrapped the Concordia Kindergarten expansion and 115 other projects. We now have a community, already short on services, economically suffering from the drought and now facing the situation of the community donations having to be given back.
The other rural and regional communities in my electorate and across Australia will not be able to apply for any new projects, be they youth projects, community projects or other much-needed infrastructure for at least two years. Another 470 Regional Partnerships grant applicants across Australia—and there are many in my electorate—who have been waiting for over six months for an answer on the future of their applications have been treated with absolute contempt by the Rudd government and none of them will be funded. Disgustingly, Labor frontbenchers like transport Minister Albanese and Finance Minister Tanner, who live in inner Sydney and inner Melbourne respectively, have spent the week in parliament scoffing at these various projects that have been funded under the Regional Partnerships program.
This is a callous government which has clearly targeted regional and rural Australians seemingly for no other reason than that they do not live in eastern seaboard cities and are not represented by Labor members of parliament. But let us not lose sight of the fact that somewhere in Queensland there is a dead tree that is about to get a $2.6 million grant approved by Minister Albanese—and I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, know that well. It is getting funding because it is a Labor tree. It is a Labor tree so it is going to get $2.6 million worth of funding! This is a disgrace and makes a mockery of Minister Albanese’s claim that the reason that he scrapped the Regional Partnerships program was the Australian National Audit Office report.
The scrapping of Regional Partnerships clearly shows the more than seven million Australians who live outside the major cities exactly what Labor thinks of them. It is a fact that irrigation is a huge economic driver in rural and regional communities, and it certainly is in my electorate. There are many businesses reliant on the irrigation industry and, as the drought has demonstrated, without water these businesses are doing it very tough. Already job losses and loss of population are having a severe impact on many communities in the Riverland and in the Murraylands in the seat of Barker. The Labor government cannot turn a blind eye to the impact that the buying of $3.1 billion worth of water entitlements will have on rural communities along the river. Under our plan, we would ensure that communities would have restructuring and that farmers would be helped to put in water-saving technologies for more efficient irrigation so that they could get more crop per drop.
But not this government. It seems intent on buying water, not necessarily in the overallocated areas. Often this buyback will not provide anything, because the government is buying entitlements from empty dams and from areas that cannot get an allocation now. It is a Clayton’s buyback—you can see that from the average price it paid for the water. For a decent water entitlement you would be paying at least $2,300 a megalitre, and the buybacks have averaged out at $1,400. Many of these buybacks are vacant uses at the moment, so it has not really achieved anything. The Rudd government’s Water Stakeholder Consultative Committee is more than qualified to investigate the socioeconomic impact of buying water entitlements, and its terms of reference should also be widened to include looking at the exit fees on selling water, which make it extraordinarily hard to buy water out of many areas. These caps and exit fees are very important tools to ensure that expensive assets are not stranded and that communities reliant on irrigation are not destroyed.
My electorate is large; it is 64,000 square kilometres; it is actually 10 per cent bigger than Tasmania—not quite as large as the Deputy Speaker’s electorate, but still a large electorate. It is over 500 kilometres from one end to the other, and for the most part it is not served by public transport like the cities are. People in the bush are reliant on filling up at bowsers to go about their business, to get their children to school, to attend medical appointments and to do their grocery shopping, and these can involve long distances. As far as petrol is concerned, the one thing that the Prime Minister can do right now is reduce the excise on fuel. Every day that Australians fill up with petrol they need to know that under the coalition, whatever the price at the bowser, petrol would be 5½c a litre cheaper. Five-and-a-half cents a litre is a lot of money for a rural family heavily dependent on their car—and they are much more heavily dependent than people in the city. People in rural areas tend to drive at least twice as much as people in the city, if not more so. The 5c tax that the Prime Minister is choosing to place on Australians hits the pockets of rural and regional Australians harder because they are faced with those longer distances and no public transport.
The Prime Minister is trying to deflect attention away from the fact that he does have control over one element of the price of fuel—that is, the excise. If you drive through my electorate you will encounter heavy vehicles. Indeed, the south-east of South Australia is a hub of the heavy transport industry, with its B doubles and articulated vehicles transporting food and household goods to cities and towns across Australia. Labor’s plans to increase diesel fuel excise and registration charges for heavy vehicles will hit rural and regional Australia hard. The transport industry cannot afford to absorb Labor’s increases in fuel excise and registration charges, so the costs will be passed on to the consumer. The government has admitted these rises will flow straight through to consumers and drive up grocery prices for all families. Australian families, working families, will be hit hard with steep increases in prices across the board. For example, it is estimated that the cost of milk will rise by 17c a litre as a consequence of Labor’s slug on heavy vehicles.
With businesses facing closure, many constituents in my electorate held some hope that tourism might hold some salvation. My electorate has much to offer in tourism—unique features such as the Blue Lake in Mount Gambier, the spectacular scenery of the Limestone Coast and the drawcard of wine-tasting in the Barossa and the Coonawarra, to name just a few offerings. The Riverland has a wonderful climate and the magnificent Murray River flowing through it. Unfortunately, it is going through some hard times with the Murray-Darling crisis, not helped by this city-centric government.
The Rudd Labor government has turned its back on the tourism industry, scaling back funding for Tourism Australia, the nation’s peak tourism organisation, plus introducing $940 million in new tourism taxes. How dumb is that? At a time when the tourism sector is dealing with challenges from the high Aussie dollar and increasing fuel prices, Wayne Swan has cut funding for Tourism Australia by nearly $6 million in this budget. In the past, we have seen state Labor governments across the country, but especially in South Australia, slash tourism funding in the face of industry pressures. Now the Treasurer has joined the conga line of inexperienced bean counters.
The tourism sector is sick of being ignored by state Labor governments, and now Australia has wall-to-wall Labor robbing the tourism industry. Staffing levels at Tourism Australia are also being cut back by nearly 10 per cent; however, Labor is choosing to remain silent on this issue. In addition, Labor has effectively halved funding for the Australian Tourism Development Program from $29.9 million to $16 million. This is a major blow for the tourism sector, with the ATDP promoting tourism development in regional and rural Australia on a merit basis, contributing to long-term economic growth and increasing visitor numbers and yield throughout Australia.
People coming to Australia on a tourist visa will now be forced to pay $100 per application, which is an increase of $25, plus $240 for a visa extension, which has gone up from $215. This is highway robbery—slugging tourists more to come to Australia, particularly at a time when the Aussie dollar is so high. Labor is treating tourists like some sort of money-spinner and sending the wrong message to young people overseas.
I rise to speak today on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related legislation and to support the government’s budget. This is the first budget of the Rudd Labor government, which has honoured all its election commitments to take practical action in assisting all Australians—older Australians, working families, those on fixed incomes and everyone in the community—with the rising cost of living. This budget will assist our older citizens and those on fixed incomes, including disability support pensioners and carers. It will assist with the day-to-day living expenses and the living pressures that they face. This budget also introduced the $55 billion Working Families Support Package to assist those families in need of support.
The electorate of Hindmarsh, which I represent, has some 25,000 people aged over 65. We know that approximately 218,000 people born in 1945 or 1946 turned 60 in the 2005-06 financial year, and it is estimated that the number of persons aged over 65 will more than double by 2051. There is no doubt that as a society we should always appreciate the economic and social contributions of our older Australians. In addition to their continued work in retirement, many elderly citizens have worked hard throughout the majority of their lives. Some served our country in times of war and others worked very hard either caring for their family or bringing in a decent income for their family to survive. In four years of being a federal member of parliament I have greatly benefited from the relationships I have formed with many of the older residents in my electorate. It is now time to give something back to the elderly in our society, who have contributed and who continue to contribute to our great nation.
That is why there is a commitment in the government’s very first budget to spend over $4.1 billion to help older Australians. That includes a $500 one-off payment for eligible seniors. With the introduction of superannuation under the Hawke-Keating government—something I am very proud to know was introduced to this parliament by the party I belong to—we have seen an increasing number of retirees with a part pension and of fully self-funded retirees, which is a good thing. We are hoping that as people take up the superannuation that has been offered over the last 18-odd years there will be more people funding their retirements and being self-funded retirees.
Nevertheless, there are still a substantial number of seniors who rely solely on the pension. Many of these people may pay rent and be repaying debt. For many of these retirees access to utilities is of utmost concern. That is why this budget will see an increase in the utilities allowance, the seniors concession allowance and the telephone allowance. The budget will inject $3.7 billion into increasing the utilities allowance to $500 for eligible singles and couples per household. This will aid payment of household costs such as energy, rates, and water and sewerage. This is the first time that the utilities allowance will be extended to other eligible persons on the carer payment, the disability support pension, the widow B pension and the wife pension as well as bereavement allowance recipients in addition to current eligible recipients. An increase in the utilities allowance will address the hardship that is inflicted on pensioners who, in many cases, cannot afford to keep the electricity on in winter. We continuously hear horror stories of pensioners’ fear that they will not be able to afford the ever-increasing costs of their bills. I was shocked to hear of people who in winter sit in the dark without a heater on to save on these costs. The extension of the utilities allowance will assist more individuals and families to make ends meet, especially those in severe financial hardship.
I turn now to the proposed increase in the seniors concession allowance. This will be a welcome relief to great numbers of retirees within my electorate of Hindmarsh and across Australia. The seniors concession allowance for retirees will increase to $500 a year. These payments will be paid every three months so they will arrive in the pockets of pensioners in time to pay their many household bills. The increase in the seniors concession allowance will ease some of their concerns. Those who are eligible and are holders of seniors health care cards will now have additional funds every quarter to ease the pressure of daily living costs. We also understand that one of the challenges facing older Australians is remaining connected to their communities. My electorate of Hindmarsh has one of the largest numbers of single households in the country—mainly older Australians, residents who prefer to remain in their own homes as they age. In many cases, this contributes towards their isolation. As such, the threat of isolation for many elderly residents is very real. It is perpetuated by poor access to information regarding services, events within their local communities and assistance that could be offered to them.
The budget will increase the current telephone allowance by 50 per cent for eligible seniors, carers, people with disabilities and other eligible individuals. This increase will encourage more elderly Australians and others on fixed incomes to go online to remain in touch with family members and community groups. Inevitably, the internet will play an increasingly larger role in seniors remaining up to date with what is happening within their immediate community and the broader Australian community. Statistics continue to show that the fastest-growing audience to take advantage of the internet is the elderly. Whether their connection is through email or updates on community based web pages, this allowance will assist older Australians to remain engaged and will encourage lifelong learning—which many older Australians are taking up at an increasing rate. Those individuals who are in receipt of a disability support pension, who are eligible for the allowance, will also benefit as physical or cognitive disabilities will not be barriers to them keeping in touch with their community. With the benefits of the internet clearly visible, the government will establish a seniors internet fund to encourage older Australians to enjoy the benefits of the internet.
Additionally, the government has committed $50 million to introduce a national seniors transport concession scheme for seniors card holders by 1 January 2009. On this note, when I was first elected, one of the very first people to come and see me was the Hon. Kevin Hamilton, who was the former member for Albert Park. He lobbied me on this—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12.25 pm to 12.51 pm
Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
I rise to speak of the great concern I have for the Indigenous people who live in my electorate of Cowan. I am always very keen to ensure that all children, young people and other residents of Cowan have the opportunity to thrive and make use of the opportunities that society presents. The greatest of those opportunities are education, employment and the ability to better one’s circumstances with respect for the law and the institutions of society. There must also be the will to take advantage of those opportunities. Young people are greatly influenced by the examples set by their role models. If they do not set a good example to take up the opportunities, who will?
This brings me to the situation at the Sydney Road Aboriginal community in Cowan. The community of 60 hectares in Gnangara was established by Ken Colbung in the late seventies, with Commonwealth funds assisting. The plan was to develop a series of ambitious projects, including education, recreation and the preservation of Aboriginal and other Indigenous cultures. The great dreams of the founders have not be realised. The positive opportunities which were envisaged at the start are far from the current reality. The place represents a risk to the 35 inhabitants and it represents a risk to local residences and businesses. It must be closed, and I will now tell you why.
When you visit the community, you notice the look of decay and that no-one cares. There is overgrown grass, poorly maintained or trashed houses, abandoned toys and bikes, and what can literally be called garbage lying around. The once proud school is wrecked, with smashed windows and computers, and books and other hallmarks of education strewn on the ground. This is testament to an experiment that has not lived up to its promise.
Elsewhere there is a yard of wrecked cars, cars without numberplates and a large shipping container secured behind high fences and locked gates. Anecdotal evidence suggests that stolen cars and property are brought into and secured in this area. The thieves, who are residents and nonresidents, see this place as a safe haven where they can stage their crimes and dismantle stolen vehicles and no-one will report to or tell the police what is going on. I understand that stolen vehicles from the northern suburbs are often concealed inside that container until they can be broken up for parts or disposed of for some other gain.
My concerns revolve around the issues of health, child safety and education. I am greatly concerned by what I have seen and the reports I have heard of alcohol and drug abuse, truancy and crime. Concerns have also been expressed about the physical safety of children resident in the community. It is my view that the people, particularly the children, of this community are at risk by being grouped in this one location, closed off by either gates, isolation or intimidation. Children are at risk and people feel that they cannot live safely and prosper. It is also my understanding that social and allied health workers, as well as female Aboriginal police liaison officers, avoid going there at certain times because it is a dangerous place. Furthermore, I have received reports that there is resistance to any investigation into possible criminal activity in the area. Sadly, children are being brought up and exposed to these sorts of examples, and this is not good enough.
One day in Lansdale, near Madeley Street, a local man told me about the day he saw an Indigenous man walk past his home, coming from the direction of the Sydney Road community. He was carrying a short tyre lever, with a yellow plastic handle at one end. He challenged the man, who then surrendered it. I have no doubt what that implement was intended for. I have had more recent reports of burglaries and thefts from residents in Lansdale and in Gnangara. Whilst I worry about the surrounding residents and local businesses, I am even more concerned about the grave risk that the continuation of the community poses to young and impressionable Aboriginal people. It is therefore my view that the community should be closed down. The residents should be relocated into less concentrated housing where the current leadership and negative attitudes will no longer be influential. We should move these people into a more positive and supportive environment where children can grow up without seeing crime and antisocial behaviour as the norm. The land could be better used for an Indigenous aged persons facility or the proceeds of the sales used for the benefit of the Nyoongar people.
I wrote to the state minister, Michelle Roberts, almost three months ago. Her silence and inactivity is an indictment of a state government that pursues a social engineering agenda of legalised prostitution in the suburbs rather than addressing the safety of children and providing an effective public housing system that does not have a waiting list of 17,000 people on it. The last time I spoke about the safety of children in this place I was called a racist and a few other things. But I would like to make it plain that, where the safety of any child is concerned, I will not retreat from the issues because of the political correctness brigade. These truths are self-evident and I will speak these truths.
It is important to recognise the efforts of manufacturers in my electorate of Isaacs, in the south-east of Melbourne. It is fitting to do so this week, which is National Manufacturing Week. It has become all too common to downplay the important role that manufacturing continues to play in the Australian economy. Manufacturing exports were worth over $87.1 billion last year and the sector was responsible for almost 40 per cent of business expenditure on research and development. A strong manufacturing sector is critical to the current and future prosperity of our nation. All of this is particularly true for the south-east of Melbourne, which is the manufacturing hub of Victoria and a key manufacturing centre for the country.
The city of Greater Dandenong and the city of Kingston—substantial parts of both cities are in my electorate—together account for more than one in six manufacturing jobs in Greater Melbourne. Between 2001 and 2006, the number of manufacturing jobs in the city of Greater Dandenong increased by seven per cent. Reflecting the region’s importance to Victorian manufacturing, and Australian manufacturing more generally, six inductees at the Victorian government’s recent Manufacturing Hall of Fame Awards are from south-east Melbourne. One of those inductees is Hilton Manufacturing, which is based in south Dandenong and employs some 190 workers. Hilton is a component manufacturer in the trucking industry and the preferred supplier to Iveco, Mercedes, Kenworth, Volvo, Mack and Western Star. Hilton Manufacturing really is a local success story. It is an example of an export focused company that is building its reputation through constant innovation and strong investment in research and development. Hilton currently exports to Korea, Japan, Sweden and Canada and its exports have increased by a remarkable 250 per cent over the last six years. As proof that the manufacturing sector can adapt to the challenges posed by environmental changes, Hilton Manufacturing is committed to reducing its impact on the environment through energy and water usage policies.
I would also like to congratulate Doug Maxwell on his induction into the Manufacturing Hall of Fame Honour Roll. Doug is the Managing Director of Steele and Lincoln Foundry, which is located in Hammond Road, Dandenong South, in my electorate. It is a firm that he has successfully owned and managed for more than 20 years. In addition to his business success, Doug has contributed significantly to his industry and his community through his involvement in trade, regional and community organisations. He was the founding president of the South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance, he is an active member of the Greater Dandenong Chamber of Commerce and he has been instrumental in obtaining government support to promote and develop the Australian foundry industry.
I would like also to congratulate the winner of last night’s Manufacturers’ Monthly Manufacturer of the Year Award, Marand Precision Engineering. Marand is a leading supplier of engineering products to various manufacturing industries including automotive, aerospace, defence, mining, aviation, rail, food processing, white goods and general manufacturing. Although located just beyond the boundaries of my electorate, this award is further proof of the significance of manufacturing to our region and the significance of our region to Australian manufacturing.
Despite these successes, manufacturing in our region continues to face challenges through skills shortages, through lack of access to advice and research and through infrastructure bottlenecks—all part of the legacy of inaction of the previous government. The Rudd government is working to address these issues. Recently the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research announced the selection of Dandenong as the site of one of the manufacturing centres under the new government’s Enterprise Connect network. Through the Dandenong manufacturing centre, local enterprises will be able to get help to become more productive and more competitive, building new markets and boosting their export readiness. In addition, the establishment of Infrastructure Australia and the $20 billion funding for the new Building Australia Fund will allow us to begin the task of investing in critical economic infrastructure that will allow manufacturers in Melbourne’s south-east and throughout Australia to get their goods to market as cheaply and quickly as possible.
Question agreed to.