I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today, as he is attending the state luncheon for the President of Malta on my behalf. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his declaration that his $10 billion pre-Christmas cash splash would create 75,000 jobs and to his further statement that his latest $42 billion spending package, including another $13 billion cash splash, would support 90,000 jobs. I ask the Prime Minister: would he detail to the House exactly where any of his promised 75,000 jobs have actually been created?
As the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, firstly, when it comes to measures which were announced last October and which flowed through in payments in December and, secondly and most recently, with the passage of the measures which went through the Senate, I seem to recall, a week or so ago, the flow-through effect on the economy will occur during the course of this year. We will also see what occurs with the fourth quarter data for 2008. This is a responsible course of action. The alternative, as recommended by the Liberal Party, is to do nothing.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the government helping farmers in bushfire affected Victoria to get their businesses back up and running?
I thank the member for Corangamite for the question. It is some months since the member for Corangamite and I visited areas in Colac, including the dairy farm belonging to Mark and Sam Billing. Last week my office was in contact with the family. I spoke to Sam. Mark was doing what so many farmers had done; he had started off fighting some of the local fires and, by the time my office spoke to him, he had gone across to Gippsland to help with fighting the fires there. Many farmers around the country have seen that same story and, just as farmers were involved in fighting the fires, they are also part of the grieving and will be a vital part of the recovery.
Last Wednesday and Thursday I visited properties in the electorates of McMillan and Gippsland together with the local members and with Simon Ramsay of the VFF. There has been a constant story across so many of the farms that have been affected by the fires. No farmer, realistically, can insure everything on the property—if you did, you would run into loss even in a good year—and the constant story has been that, if anything has been saved on a farm, it is likely to have been the bits that were insured, as though the fire was almost going after the sections of the properties that were not insured.
We visited Brian and Julie Witchell’s apple orchard in Labertouche. To get a sense of the heat, things that were not flammable at all, like their metal packing shed, had melted to the ground. On apple trees which had not actually been seared by the flames, the apples themselves had cooked till they looked more like passionfruit. But there on the other side of the hill, in the areas that fortunately had not been affected by the fires, you had that sign of optimism with the volunteer workforce. Both there and the following day on a Gormandale dairy farm, there was an army of volunteers—be it on the apple orchard restaking trees or on the dairy farm helping with removing fencing.
But the point made yesterday by the member for McEwen was well made and well taken—that, important as the volunteer effort is, long-term recovery needs to be built on jobs. With that in mind, the money that is available immediately—the $5,000 upfront payment and then the $25,000 for farms and businesses—allows people to at least begin the process of rebuilding on these properties. The concessional loans of up to $200,000 at a 3.2 per cent interest rate—so below the cash rate—allow people to go a step further. Also, the Landcare-style work is of extraordinary importance. I referred to this in the House when I last stood here but, having seen both some of the forestry areas and the farms where there is no sign that there was ever any undergrowth there at all, ironically, in the areas where the fires have now been extinguished, the worst thing that could happen would be a massive downpour, which would simply remove the soil and carry it directly to the river.
I also, when I last stood here, referred to the electorate of Gippsland and the two areas which had come out of EC in September of last year. I said that I would speak to the Victorian minister about getting a request for those to come back in. That request came from the Victorian government, and interim EC assistance is now available in both the Macalister Irrigation District and Latrobe.
I will mention something that gives you a sense of the resilience of some of the people involved. The member for Gippsland and I, as we drove through some of the areas, saw—I think it was in Traralgon—a sign out the front of an area where properties had been completely levelled that the owners had put up themselves. It said: ‘Renovator’s delight. Large skylight. Charcoal interior. Alfresco dining.’ The member for Gippsland and I went to see the owner, who was cleaning up, and asked him if he had put the sign up. He responded, ‘No, my wife put that up. She has got a better sense of humour than me at the moment.’
There are huge challenges ahead, but there is some extraordinary resilience from some incredible Australians who will be leading that recovery.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to an answer the Treasurer gave yesterday regarding the manufacture of $4 billion worth of insulation to be installed in Australian roofs. I quote: ‘There’s no doubt there will be some imports.’ When the Treasurer said that, was it the government’s intention that the $42 billion fiscal package would support 90,000 jobs in Australia or overseas?
The government has embarked on a $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan because it is the right thing to do for Australia. It is a plan of action for the economy at a time of global economic recession. The alternative put forward by those opposite is to do nothing. That is where we have got to in this debate.
On the elements of the program itself, firstly, we have a $15 billion plan—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was not asked about any alternatives, he was asked about Australian jobs.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I am sure that the Prime Minister is quite aware of what the question was. The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
In terms of the contents of the government’s nation-building plan, there is $15 billion of investment in a building program affecting every primary school in the country. We voted for that; you voted it down.
The second element is to invest $6 billion into the biggest social housing investment the country has ever seen. We voted for that; you voted it down.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister was not asked a question about any other issue than insulation. He was not asked about schools, he was not asked about other kinds of infrastructure. I would ask you to bring him back to the question, which was about jobs being imported overseas.
Chris, our imports come from overseas and our exports are sent overseas.
The Minister for Small Business is not helping me. The question at the end of the question referred to the $42 billion package and 90,000 jobs.
The third element of the government’s nation-building plan is our intention to create energy efficient housing for the nation. That is designed to bring about a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to the equivalent of some 49 million tonnes of GHGs, the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road. The means by which we propose to do that is to ensure that owner-occupied dwellings across the country have ceiling insulation. That is why we have embarked upon this practical program.
On the specifics of the program, I draw the Leader of the Opposition, in the interesting new twist in his engagement in this debate, to the comments by the CEO of the Insulation Council of Australia dated 13 February where the CEO says that the package will create around 4,000 jobs, and that ‘the economic multiplier will ripple well past the insulation industry’s raw material suppliers, manufacturers, installers and delivery drivers’. Let us just reflect for a moment, for example, on people who work in the retail sector in Australia. They sell products which are made in Australia and overseas. We last year decided to support retail and consumption by two sets of measures, one in the measures we released in December and again most recently which will flow through in March and April. Why? Because in each and every one of the electorates represented opposite there are shops, small shops, which sell goods that are made in Australia and overseas. But the jobs in those shops are equally important to this government whatever the product they happen to sell, because we take an interest in all those folk who depend on the continuing turnover of economic activity to actually have a job. That is why we did that.
On the question of the insulation industry, again I would draw the attention of the honourable member to the statement delivered by the Insulation Council of Australia. The labour intensity of installing insulation batts is huge. The labour intensity of actually getting the stuff out to households is huge. Material suppliers: the impact there is significant. And on top of all of that we believe that those who are engaged in the domestic manufacture will be advantaged as well. It is the total jobs impact of this measure, the social housing measure and on top of that the school building measure which has underpinned the government’s determination to provide practical support for jobs at this time of the global economic recession. The government has taken decisive economic action to support the economy at a time when we are suffering assault from forces of the global economy beyond our shores. Those opposite wish to sit in their comfortable seats and do nothing.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. What counselling services and psychological support is the government providing for bushfire victims and their families?
I thank the member for Bendigo for his question. He has firsthand understanding of the unspeakably traumatic time that his constituents have gone through, and of course so many other Victorian families. For so many they have lost everything—parents, children, friends, neighbours—and their lives have certainly been shattered. It is going to take a very long time for them to overcome the grief and loss and dislocation from these fires. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for McEwen spoke of this eloquently yesterday.
I want to inform the House that we are working very closely with the Victorian government, in particular their Department of Human Services, putting counsellors, social workers and case managers into the fire affected communities. Centrelink has 88 professional staff in the field already, made up of 39 social workers and 49 case managers. This is an initiative which both the Prime Minister and the Premier of Victoria have been very keen to see put in place quickly. We want each fire survivor to be assigned a case manager to give them one-on-one assistance and to connect them with services, and that will include both counselling and psychological support. From next Monday, we expect to have 80 case managers in the field. That is really all about making sure that people get the support that they need.
The Minister for Health and Ageing, I am pleased to say, has announced that there will be a boost to mental health support for fire victims. She has announced $7½ million extra for primary health services, support and training for professionals, increased counselling services through Lifeline and Kids Help Line, and support for local organisations to help their communities both reconnect and psychologically recover. In addition, we have provided extra money to five family relationship service providers. Each have received $40,000 extra to deliver counselling in the Bendigo area, Seymour, the Healesville and Yarra Junction area up in the north-east, and the areas around Churchill and Bunyip.
I think we can all imagine just how difficult it is for families, particularly children. I have heard some horrific cases where parents had to make very difficult split-second decisions about whether to leave with their children or to put them in the care of others while they stay and fight for their homes. Some children have seen horrific sights away from their parents. It is important that both the children and their parents receive this extra support at this very difficult time. It will be the case that the physical injuries will be healed while the emotional scars take a lot, lot longer for people to recover from. We certainly intend to provide this emotional and psychological support over the long term.
My question is again to the Prime Minister, and I refer the Prime Minister to his previous answer. Why is the Prime Minister so confident that the $42 billion package will support 90,000 jobs, given that when he was asked earlier today whether the December cash splash had created any jobs at all, he said, ‘It was too early to tell?’
The government embraced the Economic Security Strategy last October; payments flowed through in December with the object of supporting consumption, in particular for the retail sector. This was at a time when retail sales across the Western world went through the floor. If you look, however, at what happened in the December quarter last year, data produced by the ABS show that retail trade rose by 3.8 per cent. I would ask honourable members to reflect on where retail sales around the world went in the December quarter last year. Furthermore, all industries had increased sales in December 2008—food retailing, 1.4; department stores, plus 8.3; clothing and soft-good retailing up 5.8; household-good retailing up 9.9; and other retailing, 2.6. Where it is actually apposite is data that I have referred to in this House before from Westfield, which, as you know, is represented both in Australia and in the United States. The Westfield data showed that spending in December 2008 was up 2.5 per cent from the previous year, in contrast with their overseas sales, which were down 14 per cent in the United States.
Mr Speaker, my point of order is on relevance. I have listened carefully and I have not heard the Prime Minister utter the word ‘job’ yet.
Order! There is no point of order.
On the question of the impact of the government’s measures, I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have equated performance in the retail sector with jobs. I know that might be a novel concept for the Leader of the Opposition. With collapsing sales, as has been the case in America, Britain and elsewhere in the retail sector, the huge impact is on employment in those economies and that is already being seen. What we have done is taken action in that sector in order to support the retail community, as reflected by so many of the peak bodies from across that sector and beyond. These are practical steps which have been taken by the government with one objective: to reduce the unemployment impact, which would otherwise flow from the global economic recession. Again, I go back to the alternative: you can have a Nation Building and Jobs Plan aimed at reducing the impact of the global recession on the Australian economy and on families or the Liberal alternative, which is to let the free market rip. We have a strategy; you have an excuse.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of how the Australian government will help support those workers who lose their jobs due to the impact of the global recession?
What is unfortunate about the tonality of the formal contributions and the interjections from those opposite is they seem to delight in the economic pain of others. I would suggest to those opposite that rather than see economic trouble as equalling a political opportunity, they might contribute instead to a positive strategy to reduce the impact on families from this global economic recession, and those whose jobs are under threat through no cause associated with themselves, through no fault of their own.
The government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan aims to do three things. Firstly, it aims to ensure the continued stability of the Australian financial sector—the double bank guarantees which we supported and those opposite in substance opposed. Secondly, there is the $42 billion plan to boost investment in critical infrastructure, including schools and housing, in order to provide jobs in the near term and important infrastructure which we need for the long term. The third part of what we are seeking to do is to support those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. That underpins the announcements made by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and me today here in Canberra.
Firstly, we have announced an additional $219 million to be invested in employment services. This investment will ensure that workers made redundant receive personalised assistance and advice to help them find work as soon as possible. Under the changes, a newly redundant worker will have immediate access to intensive job assistance, equivalent to what is referred to as ‘stream 2 services’, such as: a comprehensive skills assessment, skills development training, IT support and stationery support to help with job applications, targeted referral to appropriate education and training and $550 of credit to the Employment Pathway Fund to pay for items such as computer courses, heavy vehicle licences, safety boots and uniforms.
Secondly, in addition, we have today announced that we will be providing 10,000 new structural adjustment places for retrenched workers through the Productivity Places Program at a cost of $75 million. These certificate III and IV places are additional to the 701,000 places we have already committed through this program. The announcements we have made today build on this commitment and will benefit up to 58,000 out-of-trade apprentices and trainees. The key thing here is to assist people who are finding it difficult to retain their traineeship or apprenticeship under current circumstances.
Thirdly, employees and group training organisations which take an out-of-trade apprentice may be entitled to receive up to an additional $2,800 per apprentice. An additional $1,800 is available for employers to group training organisations taking on an eligible out-of-trade apprentice or trainee. These are three practical measures. The third of them was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister last week. The two that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister for employment and me today. What are they designed to do? They are designed to provide further forms of practical support for those who lose their jobs or whose opportunity for traineeships or apprenticeships are being undermined by the global economic recession.
The government remains resolved to take further action as is necessary to support people and families who are at risk as a consequence of the global economic recession’s impact on them, their families and their jobs. We have a positive plan to support these people under these circumstances as opposed to the alternative, which seems to be a consistent threat of argument from those opposite: do nothing and complain about everything.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, I ask that the member opposite be asked to withdraw that, please.
Regrettably, I am in the position of having heard the word but not really clearly knowing which member actually used the word.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I do not think that it assists the conduct of the House. On this occasion, because I am in this position, I regrettably have to let it ride.
Mr Pyne interjecting
No, I am not going to repeat the word. I do not think that assists. If the honourable member for Sturt wants to take the position seriously that he carries out on behalf of the opposition, that sort of thing does not assist. If whichever member used the word will not come up and withdraw, regrettably I have to leave it at that. In the absence of the member coming forward to withdraw, I will continue with the proceedings. I call the member for Farrer.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the 400 workers who have lost their jobs at Albury based Drivetrain Systems International as well as the company’s 300 suppliers and its locally developed hybrid transmissions left in danger of being sold overseas. Will the Prime Minister live up to his commitment to support the Australian car industry by directing money from the Green Car Innovation Fund to protect the 400 Australian workers and their families?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Any Australian worker who loses their job as a consequence of the current global economic recession—and more generally—is of direct concern to everyone who sits on this side of the House and, I assume, honourable member’s opposite as well. The practical challenge we face is how to deal with each concentration of unemployment—for example, that to which the honourable member refers—and at the same time to provide underpinning support for the economy as a whole.
On support for the economy as a whole, I have outlined to the House before, our $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Secondly, what I have also outlined to the House on previous occasions is our $4.8 billion nation-building plan announced last year, which focused on infrastructure. Thirdly, there is the Economic Security Strategy we released last October, with payments coming out in December. Each of those measures, including in the automobile sector—these levels of support to consumption in the economy—assist overall performance in the retail sector of the economy.
But, on top of that, at the end of last year the government—and from memory it was in September-October—released the $6.1 billion New Car Plan for a Greener Future. As a consequence of that plan, which we negotiated at length with the principal representative of the automobile industry in Australia and their parents abroad, we put in place the most secure investment environment possible for the automobile industry—and, as a consequence, the suppliers to that industry—going out to the year 2020. Honourable members will know the state of the auto industry around the world. The automobile industry in the United States is collapsing. The automobile industry in many parts of Europe is going through the same experience. We have also seen recent reports about the difficulties Toyota and others are experiencing within Japan. This is the reality—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about what action he would take about 400 jobs in Albury. He is not being relevant to that specific question, and I would ask you to draw him back to it.
Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
Mr Abbott interjecting
The member for Warringah is warned!
In response to the state of the auto industry and the auto supplies industry, wherever they are located across the country, the fact is that it is a consequence of what is happening in private credit markets. We are acting to stabilise those private credit markets, because they in turn affect the ability of consumers to buy and to access finance. On that particular note, I would draw the House’s attention to a further measure taken by the government to assist with the motor vehicle financing industry—problems brought about by the withdrawal of up to 40 per cent from the market as a consequence of the withdrawal back to the United States of various auto finance firms. Again those opposite would argue, by their interjections: do nothing about the withdrawal of those historical participants in the auto finance industry. This government is prepared to have a go, to step up to the plate and to try, to the extent possible, to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of private participants within that sector of the finance industry. That measure, plus a $6.1 billion new car plan to provide certainty out to 2020 and, on top of that, the underpinning measures contained in the Nation Building and Jobs Plan in its various stages since the end of last year: that is what we have done. Each step of the way, without virtual exception, we have been attacked by those opposite.
I note the look of glee on the face of the new Manager of Opposition Business as he and so many of his colleagues seem to take great political delight in the challenge of unemployment which now descends on the Australian economy as a consequence of the global economic crisis. We are putting forward solutions. You are simply contenting yourselves with politically opportunistic criticism.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today participants in the Inter-Parliamentary Study Program. The group includes secretaries-general and other senior staff from 15 legislatures around the world. On behalf of the House, I wish them a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline new training options for workers who have been retrenched?
I thank the member for Bonner for her question. I know that she is deeply concerned about training and skilling in her electorate and in the nation generally. As the Prime Minister has been making clear to the House, the government’s Economic Security Strategy and the Nation Building and Jobs Plan are about supporting jobs in this country. With those additional supports for jobs in this country, the government also recognises that, as a result of the global financial crisis and global recession bearing down on our economy, there will be and there have been jobs lost by Australians. The government has therefore taken a series of practical measures to assist those workers.
Last week I announced a new measure to support apprentices who find themselves out of trade. The Prime Minister and I had the opportunity to meet some young apprentices this morning. If you meet those young apprentices and you imagine a circumstance where they are one or two years into their training and find themselves without a job through no fault of their own, then obviously you would want to extend assistance to them so that they are able to secure a new opportunity in order to complete their apprenticeship. That is what our package that I announced last week is about. It devotes around $150 million of new resources to create new incentives to give those apprentices an opportunity.
In addition, as the Prime Minister has outlined to the House, we announced today some new measures for redundant workers to access employment services. We have also announced—and it is my pleasure to give the details to the House—10,000 new productivity places for redundant workers. These training places build on what is already a very successful program, and they bring the total of available productivity places to 711,000. These places are there to enable people to access training in areas where skills have been short. For those workers who do find themselves redundant, we believe that the employment services measures and access to training places—with the 10,000 new places announced today—will make a practical difference and that is what we seek to do. Clearly, with the global financial crisis and global recession bearing down on this nation, the government is taking decisive action to cushion our economy from its full effects. The measures announced today are part of that.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the government’s spending spree over the last three months alone: firstly, the $15 billion COAG agreement, which the Treasurer said would ‘create 133,000 jobs’; secondly, the $10 billion cash splash, which he said would create up to 75,000 jobs; thirdly, the $4.7 billion infrastructure package, which he said would create up to 32,000 jobs; and fourthly, the $42 billion spending package, which he said would support 90,000 jobs. Treasurer, where are these 330,000 jobs you say will be created and supported?
Mr Randall interjecting
The member for Canning is warned!
I thank the member for his question. We have had a demonstration in this House today of how little the opposition understand about the state of the economy and how little they have to offer in terms of an alternative to cushion the Australian economy in the circumstances of a global recession.
Last October we put forward the Economic Security Strategy to support up to 75,000 jobs. We put it forward for a very good reason. And a few weeks ago we put in place the Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support up to 90,000 jobs over two years. This is a very important point that those opposite just do not seem to understand, so we are going to go through it very clearly. They have not done their homework, they do not understand the nature of the challenge, and the consequence is that they do not have a positive alternative for Australia. The other consequence is that they are now opposing a stimulus to the economy, which will support jobs for Australian workers, without putting up any alternative whatsoever. This package will support jobs for Australian workers.
The opposition somehow think that if we provide a tax bonus or if we provide support to a pensioner or a carer it has nothing to do with job creation. I would have thought it was Economics 101 that if we stimulate demand in the economy and that results in people having employment along the supply chain, as the Prime Minister was saying before—in stores, in service industries, in cafes, in the transport sector or even in the ports—then that is important. But the opposition do not think it is important. The great party of business, as they proclaim themselves to be, will not support any measures which support business. They will not support any of them. So what we get in the House is point-scoring. We get nothing but point-scoring because there is no positive alternative.
The two packages that we have put together—the Economic Security Strategy and the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—have been modelled by the Treasury, and those estimates are there.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the government have been given five opportunities to say where any of these jobs have been created. If the Treasurer cannot answer the question—
The member for Sturt will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
I will take the opposition through the facts—the facts they try to distort, the facts they will not listen to and the facts they will not acknowledge. Fact No. 1: the Economic Security Strategy of last October was estimated to lift growth by between one-half of one per cent and one per cent and support up to 75,000 jobs.
Mr Ciobo interjecting
The member for Moncrieff is warned!
Fact No. 2: the Nation Building and Jobs Plan was estimated to lift growth by around one-half of one per cent in 2008-09 and by three-quarters of one per cent to one per cent in 2009-10 and to support up to 90,000 jobs. They are the facts; they are laid out for everybody to see. They are acknowledged by the business community. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and ACCI all acknowledge this—but not the federal opposition. They are so far out of touch that they do not understand the importance of the fiscal stimulus or the investments that we will make on a temporary basis to support employment in the Australian economy. I will tell you why. It is because the Leader of the Opposition does not walk in the same shopping aisles as the average Australian.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order—and it does go to relevance: I asked the Treasurer to explain where the 330,000 jobs are.
I remind the member for North Sydney that, in what was quite a lengthy preamble that went across a number of the government’s economic measures, on the basis of the way in which this House has worked, the Treasurer is being relevant to the whole question. The member for North Sydney knows that when he was in his previous position we had discussions about whether we should allow the amount of debate that we do allow in answers. The standing orders only indicate that in questions there should be no debate. Regrettably, it has been the past practice of this House that there has been a lot of debate. Again, I am in the hands of the House about whether we want to constrict those matters.
I was making the point that the Liberal and National parties in this House are simply out of touch with the everyday lives of average Australians. The shadow Treasurer said only last week that Australians have never been richer. That is what he said only last week. Despite the fact that the stock market has halved in value in recent times, his view is that the champagne is still flowing. Of course, when you have the opposition led by a merchant banker and lawyer for merchant bankers, it is no wonder that they are so far out of touch.
This government is dedicated to supporting jobs and cushioning the Australian economy from the impact of the global recession, and we will do everything in our power to achieve that. It would be so much better for the nation if there was some agreement from the opposition in this House on this critical national interest question. The public is crying out for some unity on this question. We have the support of the business community. We have the backing of the IMF. We have the support of most market economists. Why don’t we get the support of the Liberal and National parties in this House? It is because they want to play a bit of point-scoring politics—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, you did ask the Treasurer to conclude his answer and he is acting in defiance of you. Would you please ask him again?
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. Again I say in a self-critical way, regrettably I have not really defined ‘conclusion’ but I invite the Treasurer to conclude his answer.
So this government will not be diverted by the opposition from doing everything within its power to support jobs for Australians. We understand how important jobs are in this environment and those opposite do not. Only the Liberal Party could make the former ‘Minister for Job Insecurity’ their Treasury spokesman. Only the Liberal Party could do that.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Samoa led by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Hon. Tolofuaivalelei Falemoe Leiataua. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Afio maia.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Employment Participation. What additional measures is the government providing to support Australian workers who are made redundant?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question and his ongoing interest in jobseekers in his Queensland electorate. Today the government has taken further decisive action to assist those Australians who will be unlucky enough to find themselves out of work as a result of the global financial crisis. I have to say that it is very unfortunate to hear those opposite relishing the fact that we may have Australians losing their jobs in the near future.
The government has announced a package of measures worth $300 million that will help newly redundant workers to get back into the workforce as soon as possible and indeed to improve their skills. In addition to the extra 10,000 places under the Productivity Places Program outlined by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister earlier, today I can inform the House that all newly redundant workers will be eligible for the intensive and personalised employment services. I will quote Toby Hall from Mission Australia. In response to the initiative today he said:
These changes are very welcome. ...
… … …
I’m confident that these changes will deliver quick and positive results on the ground, ...
Mr Hall from Mission Australia is correct: we know that rapidly connecting people with employment services will make a big difference in terms of the opportunities people have to find work. Current arrangements under the Job Network provide help with a jobseeker’s resume and only one contact within the first three months, but from today all workers who are made redundant will be eligible to access intensive and personalised employment services. These services include: a comprehensive skills assessment, a referral to training in areas of skills need for those retrenched workers, a personal plan to employment, and indeed $550 for each jobseeker for goods and services to be spent on improving their opportunities to find employment.
These initiatives are also consistent with the employment reforms the government made to take effect from July 1. Further, although the Job Network has four months to go—that is, before the contracts that were entered into by the previous government with employment providers expire—I have brought forward other changes to assist redundant workers. From today, new rules will apply to the jobseeker account to provide broader and more effective support.
The Rudd government recognises that many Australians, as the Prime Minister has said, through no fault of their own, will find themselves out of work in the weeks and months ahead. Unlike those opposite, we will not leave them behind. We will support them through better resources and extra opportunities to retrain and upskill. While the global financial crisis is of course not within the control of any government or any nation, we are acting decisively and we are acting early to make sure that retrenched workers have every possible chance to find work in the future.
My question is to the Prime Minister and it refers to an answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition a little earlier in relation to the $10 billion cash splash before Christmas. The Prime Minister in that answer said:
I would ask honourable members to reflect on where retail sales around the world went in the December quarter last year.
If you have collapsing sales, as you had in America, Britain and elsewhere in the retail sector, the huge impact on employment in those economies has already been seen.
I refer the Prime Minister to the Office for National Statistics out of the UK. It says:
Retail sales volume in the three months November to January rose by 1.5 per cent compared with the previous three months.
I ask the Prime Minister to explain the modelling which was the basis for spending $10 billion of Australian taxpayers’ cash before Christmas.
If the member for North Sydney thinks that the United Kingdom is some sort of employment bonanza at the moment, I think he needs to read the Financial Times more carefully.
You said it.
Can I say to the honourable member that if you look at the employment density—
That is not what you said.
Order! The member for North Sydney has asked his question.
of the retail sector in this country and in most Western economies, it is of fundamental importance to support the vibrancy of the retail sector. Now that the member for North Sydney has posed this question, I would ask him to reflect long and hard on whether he was serious about his statement:
The market has made everyday Australians richer than they have ever been—even with this economic downturn.
How out of touch—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister said ‘collapsing sales, as you had in Britain over the December period’.
The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
Here is the proof that he—
Government members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that that be withdrawn.
Order! There is some disquiet about a comment that was made as I was talking over the member for North Sydney, inviting him to sit down. If there was a comment that caused that reaction, I can only assume that it should be withdrawn. The difficulty for me is that, clearly, I was trying to get the member for North Sydney to sit down and did not hear the actual term that was used. But it might suit the convenience of the House if it was withdrawn, because it was outside of the standing orders in that the member for North Sydney did not have the call and it has caused some disquiet.
I withdraw and ask the Prime Minister to correct the record.
Mr Speaker, on the point of order: it might assist the House for them to know that the opposition would be prepared to make time at the end of question time for the Prime Minister to correct the answer.
Mr Speaker, could I enquire of you about when points of order are disorderly, when they are constantly ruled out of order, and—
That is a question to Mr Speaker.
Now is the time to take it. I am raising a point of order. It appears that the Prime Minister is unable to answer a question without having several points of order taken.
I believe I now have two instances to give illustration to a point I wish to make. This is not a time for general discussion about the way in which the House is proceeding, and I believe that both the member for Sturt and the Chief Government Whip’s contributions were in that way. Has the Prime Minister concluded?
Yes.
On the point of order that was made where it was reflected that I had denied the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer, I am not sure, given that there were two points of order after the conclusion, that we have actually achieved anything. But, again, valiantly, I illustrate this as something that appears to have the disquiet of both sides of the chamber about the conduct of question time. I just wonder when the House, through its processes, might wish to revisit question time.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on the government’s investment in rail infrastructure in the December nation-building package and how the work on these rail projects is progressing?
I thank very much the member for Shortland for her question. Over the next six years, we will be investing some $3.2 billion in upgrading and building rail infrastructure. This is record investment that will create and sustain more than 1,400 direct jobs. Our investment, over half the period, is more than double what those opposite spent in this area of infrastructure.
In December we announced $1.2 billion for the Australian Rail Track Corporation, rolling out an additional 17 rail projects right across the country to enhance freight movement and to create local jobs. Work has commenced already, and already hundreds of jobs have been created. The nation-building package will result in not just direct jobs in terms of on the site of where the railway works are taking place but also indirect jobs. It will result in 2.2 million new concrete sleepers, locally manufactured and installed, with 65 jobs in Wagga, which those opposite are opposed to; 60 in Mittagong that they are opposed to; 60 in Grafton that they are opposed to; and 50 at Geelong that they are opposed to. Those on that side of the House take comfort in unemployment. On this side of the House, we are investing in infrastructure and jobs. Our largest investment is $1 billion—
I rise on a point of order. The minister made an offensive comment, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Again, I think that it was by way of including debate within his answer. Some members might find that they have difficulties with this—that in the order of a debate they would have dealt with it by way of debate. But based on the way in which we have dealt with these matters in previous parliaments and in this parliament, I do not think that it is something I am going to ask the minister to withdraw. I would just say this general thing: that it would be helpful if there was less debate in answers, as such debate causes these reactions. I do understand the reactions, but I do not believe that under the standing orders it is something that can be easily dealt with.
I am talking about direct job creation as a result of economic stimulus and as a result of this government’s activity. Our largest investment is $1 billion in the Hunter, creating 650 jobs in the Hunter region. And work is taking place right now in Maitland and in Muswellbrook. But it is not just in the Hunter—it is also in Wodonga where I went and turned a sod with the Victorian Premier for a bridge that is being built for Albury and Wodonga on the Wodonga to Seymour duplication line.
But the fact is that all of these programs have been opposed by those opposite. Each and every one of the government’s initiatives has been opposed by those opposite. Those on this side of the House are not prepared to just sit back and watch the impact of the global financial crisis. We are getting out there with direct investment in infrastructure—which is creating these jobs in local communities.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. How many SAS soldiers have been disciplined or sacked for daring to raise concerns about your government’s demands for debt repayment of up to $50,000? Does the minister believe that the SAS soldiers who speak out on this issue should be sacked or disciplined?
The key point here is that the member for Paterson asked me a question relating to a determination by the independent Defence Force review tribunal, and the implementation of that decision by the Department of Defence—
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Order! I simply say to the member for Paterson that I will listen carefully to the minister. I understand that he is raising the question of relevance. I will listen carefully to the minister’s response to today’s question.
When the impact of the implementation of that decision on the special forces soldiers came to my attention, I immediately directed Defence to suspend any recovery action. I was advised, as late as about five to two this afternoon, that that suspension remains in place. I told the House last year that I would fix this problem. In addition to directing Defence to suspend the recovery payments, I have also directed them to fix the problem. I have been frustrated that Defence has been so slow to fix the problem, but on 18 February the Chief of Army, who has intervened in this issue at my request, issued a directive which will suspend the operation of the tribunal’s determination both retrospectively and prospectively. I reaffirm my commitment to this House that no—
I rise on a point of order. I did not ask him about the pay. I asked him about the disciplinary action, as per this email, threatening military staff that if they raised it with their members of parliament they would—
Order! The member will resume his seat. The member for Paterson has asked his question. He has been given a great deal of latitude. He should sit—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting
I will be the decision maker on that, Minister.
I repeat that I directed that any recovery action be suspended. That suspension remains in place. I repeat my guarantee to this House and to all special forces soldiers who may have been—
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Order! The Member for Paterson will resume his seat.
I repeat to all those who may have been caught up in this incident that I remain committed, and in fact I guarantee that no special forces soldier will be financially disadvantaged by the implementation of the independent Defence Force tribunal’s determination of March 2008.
I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The minister has not addressed one point in the question.
Order! The minister has concluded his answer.
Then I seek leave to table the email order for people not to address—
Mr Albanese interjecting
Order! Leave is not granted. The member will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Paterson will withdraw his comment.
I withdraw ‘gutless’ and I call him scared.
Order! The member for Paterson knows that he must withdraw without—
Mr Speaker, they have not answered the question at all and now they refuse to allow—
The member for Paterson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Paterson then left the chamber.
Reluctantly, because this has import for everybody in the chamber, I now issue a general warning. People will understand this is the first time I have used this device, because I think it is a fairly crude device when, on occasion, only one side or sections of the chamber have been at fault.
The left side.
Reluctant as I am to do it this way, whoever made that comment has one hour.
The member for Solomon then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House of further responses from small business to the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan?
I thank the member for Franklin for her question. I look forward to travelling to Tasmania in the next few weeks and working with her in supporting jobs in her electorate and in Tasmania more generally through the small business community there.
When I was last speaking to the House about this matter I informed it of some of the endorsements of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan. They included, from the Council of Small Business of Australia, the statement that it is ‘a confidence boost for small business’. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia described the plan as a ‘timely shot in the arm for small business’. We heard from the New South Wales Business Chamber, which said it was ‘a shot in the arm for the New South Wales economy’. Master Builders Australia chimed in, describing it as ‘a welcome boost for the building industry’. The National Farmers’ Federation described it as an ‘economic jumpstart’.
These are glowing endorsements, but I can advise the House of further correspondence that has been received by the government, including from the Combined Small Business Alliance of Western Australia—not known for its strong affinity with the Australian Labor Party. In a letter to the Prime Minister, copied to me and to the Treasurer, it says:
Dear Prime Minister,
With reference to the $42 billion economic stimulus measures ... in particular the small business and general tax breaks, you and your government are to be commended for your initiative in your endeavour to address the nation’s dire economic circumstances. We appreciate and support your government’s consideration for the small business sector and, whilst we fully understand that these initiatives are not a “silver bullet”, we believe they will make a contribution to alleviating the plight of small business in these difficult times.
The Pharmacy Guild of Australia indicated that it welcomes the tax break for small business and—importantly, in the face of other comments that we receive—says:
The measure comes at the right time to encourage community pharmacies to make productive investments ...
Indeed, they join with Restaurant & Catering Australia, who said:
The small business tax break … may just be what our small businesses need to convince them to buy that new piece of equipment in this market.
It seems that just about everyone in Australia supports the small business tax break and the Nation Building and Jobs Plan except the coalition. The Leader of the Opposition, on 12 February, said in the parliament:
It should be obvious to the government, had it any experience with small business, or business at all, that in times like this there will be small businesses particularly which will not have the need or even the cash flow to purchase new equipment.
That flies directly in the face of the comments of Restaurant & Catering Australia, who welcomed it as a boost for investment, and comments from the Western Australian business chamber and other organisations.
I advise the House that the Treasurer’s and my office are getting a large number of inquiries from small businesses seeking information on how to take advantage of the investment tax break. Also, Treasury has set up an email address to respond to small business inquiries. It is: investmentallowance@treasury.gov.au. I am further advised that last week Treasury was getting around 30 to 40 inquiries per day and the tax office was getting around 20 to 30 inquiries per day. So much for the coalition’s criticism that small business will not be able to take advantage of this tax break, when we are getting so many inquiries from small businesses that are very keen to do just that.
The Nation Building and Jobs Plan supports small businesses. It supports independent contractors. The problem is that the only jobs the coalition members support are their own. I am advised that there was another brawl in the party room today between supporters of the member for Higgins and supporters of the Leader of the Opposition—a very vigorous debate. The trouble is—otherwise it would not be so important, Mr Speaker—the voting pattern of the coalition in the Senate is being determined by the animosities of members of the coalition, leading to very poor decision making—
I note that you have given a general warning, Mr Speaker, but I do raise a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked a legitimate question about small business; he was not asked a question about matters to do with the opposition. I would ask you to draw him back to the substance of the question.
At the point in time, the minister cleverly had tried to make his comments relevant, but I will listen carefully to the conclusion of the minister’s answer.
The point I am making is that the decisions of the coalition in terms of their voting behaviour in the Senate are being driven by the ambitions, animosity and avarice of coalition members, and that is not in the national interest. They are behaving in their own personal self-interest, and while they behave in their own personal self-interest the Rudd government will continue to govern in the national interest.
Mr Dutton interjecting
The member for Dickson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
An opposition member—Why?
The answer to ‘Why?’ is: under a general warning. Provocative or not, it is permissible under the standing orders as they are framed at the moment, regrettably.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. How many serving SAS soldiers stationed at Campbell Barracks in my electorate of Curtin have been hit with debt repayment notices regarding their salaries and how many thousands of dollars have they been forced to repay?
The reality is that Defence cannot give me those numbers—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I remind honourable members that the Minister for Defence has the call.
so farcical—
Can I hand you a shovel?
The member for Mackellar will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Mackellar then left the chamber.
so farcical is the state of the systems we have inherited. This is a question—
On a point of order, if this minister does not know how many soldiers—
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat—
are being expected to—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Curtin then left the chamber.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order. I am reliably informed that the minister is 20 seconds into his answer. Minister.
Those issues go to a range of problems, including ICT problems and the inflexibility and lack of capacity of those systems and, of course, the informal process which was granting special forces soldiers competencies without a formal course. That is just a fact. I reaffirm my commitment to ensure that nobody wrapped up in the processes of the implementation of the defence force review tribunal’s determination will be adversely affected by this series of events.
I should say this: the opposition needs to be very careful here. There are a number of people who regularly incur overpayments and therefore debts. Some of them originally were wrapped up in the review tribunal’s determinations. They are no longer affected, because I have suspended that recovery process and they will be fixed. Others have debts for other reasons, and the opposition needs to be very careful to differentiate between those two or three or four or five different sets of people. My recommendation to the opposition is to stop playing politics with our special forces soldiers.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and the Minister for the Status of Women. What has been the impact of the government’s first home owner boost on the housing market? What is likely to be the benefit of further stimulus measures in the housing sector?
I would like to thank the member for Blair for his question. The global financial crisis has seen a downturn in the housing and construction sector, threatening the jobs of many Australians. That is why this government took early and decisive action in October last year to support jobs in housing and construction. I think it is fair to say now that the first home owner boost is having an effect, especially as it has been combined with low interest rates. In fact, the member for Blair was telling me in his own electorate, at the mobile offices that he has every weekend, that interest from first home buyers in our first home owner boost has been very strong and that the newer suburbs in his electorate—suburbs like Brassall, Raceview and Flinders View—are becoming hot destinations for potential first home buyers.
First home buyers have taken up the benefit of the first home owner boost in great numbers. In fact, I have recently received the January data on the number of people who have taken up the first home owner boost. By the end of January nearly 30,000 people had taken up the first home owner boost. Indeed, 6½ thousand of those are in the member’s home state of Queensland. Other figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirm these very positive signs. The ABS housing finance data for the month of December showed a 6.4 per cent increase in the number of new home loans to owner occupiers compared with the previous month. What is even more encouraging is that there was a 15.1 per cent increase in loans to purchase new dwellings, with just under a 10 per cent increase in loans to construct new dwellings—all very positive numbers. It is great news for the building and construction sector, but of course it is also great news for those young Australians whom this government is helping into the housing market.
Increased activity in building and construction is not just good for the building and construction sector; it is good for the people who make all the supplies, like bricks and tiles, that go into building those new homes. It is also terrific for the retail sector. People do not move into a new home without buying a new refrigerator or new carpet or new tables and chairs. All of these jobs are very important.
The comments from industry have been very supportive. One example is Nigel Satterley, the chief executive of the Satterley Property Group, a major builder in Western Australia. I can hear some Western Australians talking about the Satterley group. Nigel Satterley contacted me this week to say:
Since the introduction of the first home owners grant, things have improved significantly. On Saturday I visited the southern suburbs two busiest builders display centres. They were a lot busier than they had been and it was an extremely hot day. Our land sales offices had good inquiries and we are on track to sell 200 residential lots net in Perth for the month of February. The first home buyers grant is continuing to work and assist in the Perth property market’s soft recovery.
Stockland are saying that about 65 per cent of their trade is now for first home buyers in residential sales, and volumes of sales are up by 25 to 30 per cent in areas like Craigieburn in Melbourne’s northern growth corridor. The Housing Industry Association are saying that, if it were not for large interest rate cuts and the federal government’s temporary boost to the first home owners grant, significantly slower growth rates would have been forecast for 2009-10 and 2010-11. Harley Dale from the HIA says:
The First Home Owners boost, mortgage rates at a forty year low, and the housing components of the Federal Government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan have the capacity to deliver a moderate recovery in residential activity.
The government has a plan to support jobs in the housing and construction sector. The first home owners boost as well as the construction of 20,000 new community and public housing dwellings will keep tradies in work, keep contractors busy and keep apprentices employed. It will also help Australians who are struggling in the private rental market. The measures are good for jobs, they are good for the economy and they are a great help to many Australians who need a roof over their heads.
On behalf of the members for Curtin and Paterson my question is to the Prime Minister. What action has the Prime Minister personally taken to fix the appalling SAS pay scandal since he stood in front of our soldiers in Afghanistan on 22 December and told them, ‘I’m going to go home and spend Christmas with my wife and three kids and you’re not’? What does the Prime Minister say to the wives and kids of SAS soldiers serving in what he described as ‘the hellhole of Afghanistan’ whose pay has been docked and who have incurred debts because of the scandal his incompetent government refuses to fix?
In reference to the honourable member’s question, if he were to stand as I did, and other members have, with our forces serving in that environment and the dangers that they face, then the response—and the right response—to those brave soldiers is to say, ‘We are going home to Christmas, to be with our families, and you are going to be here.’ That is exactly what I said and the honourable member knows that. I would suggest that the honourable member seeking to ‘render’ my remarks in the way in which he has done reflects on him in a particular way.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a former serving officer who has stood overseas in operations with our soldiers—although I was wearing a uniform, sir—I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his comment as he seeks to make a personal reflection upon my service in our country’s uniform.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister has the call and I ask the Prime Minister to take some recognition of the comments just made by the member for Fadden. I say to the House that often there are things that occur on the run—and this nearly gets me entering into the answer that the Prime Minister is giving—that in other circumstances are given different interpretations. I think that it is fair, whether it was a point of order or not, that I gave the opportunity for the member for Fadden to put the point that he has made. I think, if we leave it at that and get back to the matters that have been raised with the Prime Minister, it will assist the House.
As the honourable member has raised this, let me quote to the House the paragraph to which he refers. This was me in Afghanistan to the troops assembled:
It doesn’t make it any easier to be apart from them—
that is, your family—
at this time of year. I’m going to go home and spend my Christmas with my wife and three kids and you’re not. And I understand that’s hard.
But you know, at this time of year in particular, as the families of the nation settle down around a Christmas tree and share presents, the nation will be thinking of you as well.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The first part of the question was: ‘What action has the Prime Minister personally taken to fix—
There is no point of order, because the Prime Minister has concluded. I would remind people that there is a general warning.
My question is to the Prime Minister. What further steps is the government taking to lift organ donation rates across Australia?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Earlier today there was a gathering here in Parliament House of people directly engaged in the great challenge of organ donation—those who are waiting for the donation of organs, those who are from families who have already provided organs and who know the distressed circumstances associated with that, and medical professionals who seek to support families in both circumstances as well.
As honourable members in this place will know, right across Australia as we speak today 1,800 individuals are currently on organ donation waiting lists. Because of that, the nation has a responsibility to improve the current set of arrangements which have seen our donation rates not improve for many, many years. The consequence, as I am advised by those presenting material to the gathering earlier today in parliament, is that some three Australians lose their lives each day waiting for the donation of organs to occur.
As a nation we can do better than this. For those reasons the government, at the end of last year, announced that we were going to invest $151.1 million over four years to reform the national organ and tissue donation system in order to save lives. There are five elements to this: first, $46 million to introduce a coordinated and consistent approach under the leadership of a new independent national authority, the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority—this is now up and running; second, $67 million to employ trained medical specialists to work closely with emergency department and intensive care unit teams in selected public and private hospitals across Australia and other staff dedicated to organ donation; third, $17 million in new funding for hospitals to meet additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation; fourth, $13 million towards raising community awareness; and, fifth, $2 million for counsellors to support donor families.
Today, together with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McLucas, I announced also the composition of the 15-member advisory council, which will be headed by businessman and double lung transplant recipient Sam Chisholm. This is a good initiative, and I thank all those who are now going to be members of this advisory council for their work. It is important that we get this done right.
This is an important measure for families right across the country and, if there is one single thing which can be done this day, on the day when this council has been appointed, it is as follows: to draw home again to every family in the nation the importance of getting your organ donation records in place, to have the conversation with your family about the need for organ donation, to resolve that in advance and to make sure the records are set in order so that, if and when a tragedy arises, this current terrible shortfall in organ donation in Australia can be reduced from where it is now. So my appeal through the parliament to the nation is: let us again seize this opportunity to raise awareness across the country; let us do so through the activities of this day and week, which draw the nation’s attention to this important need to lift the overall donation rate. We will be doing our bit through the nation’s media, in a focused television advertising campaign, to get this as much as possible on people’s personal radar screens, but at the end of the day it boils down to a family conversation. Those family conversations have to be had if we are going to make a difference.
Honourable members would have seen a little girl in the media recently—and she was here with us today—named Cordelia Whatman. She is one or two years old—a tiny tot—and in the nick of time she received the procedure which she needed last year. It is wonderful to see her skipping around like a normal one- or two-year-old, and that was not really a prospect for Cordelia last year. But, you know, across the country there are 1,800 little Cordelias, and there are a number of them with us today who are still on that waiting list. So the government has acted through the parliament to establish this authority. We have provided the funding necessary to support its work, but we also need consciousness raised in each community. I would appeal to each member to do what they can in their community to lift the donation rate. It is really important to make a difference for those 1,800 Australians who, as we meet here today, are waiting for a phone call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the appalling handling of this SAS pay scandal, which has seriously undermined the financial security of our SAS soldiers and their families, will the Prime Minister advise the House of whether he retains full confidence in his Minister for Defence? In answering that question, will he take the opportunity to withdraw the shocking slur he has made against the integrity and the service of the member for Fadden?
This government is determined to do everything within its power to ensure that the members of the special forces, and the members of the Australian Defence Force in the broad, are paid and remunerated properly. Secondly, as the minister has correctly said, none of those members of the special forces would suffer any level of financial disadvantage whatsoever. Thirdly, the government therefore has absolute confidence in the minister’s handling of this matter. It is being done the right way, with the Chief of Army in control. It will take time to fix, but fix it we will.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the Minister inform the House on the implementation of the government’s new Energy Efficient Homes package? How will this assist the government’s comprehensive approach to climate change?
I thank the member for Wills for his question. The Rudd government is committed to a prudent and responsible course of action for addressing the challenges of the future, and that includes a significant implementation of substantial energy efficiency measures as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Critically, that also means bringing through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to begin reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions at least cost as we address the significant challenge of climate change with a $4 billion investment in Energy Efficient Homes, a package that is already supporting jobs and that has supported jobs since the day it was announced—3 February—and there is more to come.
The opposition blocked this plan and, in doing so, they were blocking ready-to-go jobs. But, unlike the opposition, Australia’s insulation and solar hot water industries were on the starting blocks ready to go. The Prime Minister has referred in question time to the CEO of the Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand, who has said:
Making energy efficient homes more affordable and accessible to all Australians is vital for the prosperity of our industry and has far reaching flow-on benefits for Australia.
The fact is that installation and distribution provide the biggest intensive labour application for installing insulation in the ceilings of homes. This was the package that the opposition blocked, and they continue to run it down.
Energy efficiency remains a key plank in the government’s overall approach to addressing climate change. It is an approach that is built around a consistent and coherent policy position. When we look to the opposition, they seem to have fractured into a coalition with about six or seven positions on one aspect of dealing with climate change, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. They are contradicting one another, they are contradicting themselves. I note that the opposition leader, who started off supporting emissions trading, as recently as 15 December described the government’s emission reduction targets as ‘a very significant cut’. He said:
I wouldn’t be misled by the fact that five per cent, for example, looks like a low number.
I note that some commentators have picked up on the fact that on the 23rd of this month he said that the CPRS would be ‘an ineffectual scheme’ because the cut in emissions is going to be very low. So he has gone from ‘very significant’ to ‘very low’ in two months.
Then there is the opposition spokesman on emissions trading, the member for Goldstein. He has a famous view on climate change, given that he regards it as a communist conspiracy. Who could forget his remarks in 2006 that climate change was:
… a leftist fad that will divert resources away from other more needy areas of the economy.
After the fall of communism, it [global warming] has become a cause celebre for the left.
More recently, only on 19 February, the member for Goldstein was floating the idea of a carbon tax.
Do something without the notes.
Order! The member for Cowan will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Cowan then left the chamber.
Then on Lateline he said that the opposition supports a higher target than the government whilst at the same time he was spruiking the benefits of energy efficiency. So here is the member for Goldstein: a climate change convert despite describing it as a left-wing fad, an energy efficiency convert despite lining up two weeks ago to block the largest rollout in Australia’s history of energy efficiency.
They talk about trajectories when they talk about greenhouse gas emissions, but the coalition has got a position which is carbon taxes, lower targets, higher targets. Of course, finally we can always rely on a timely outbreak of the foundational position of scepticism. Senator Minchin reminded us yesterday when he took the ABC to task for referring to carbon dioxide as pollution. According to Senator Minchin, it is ‘grossly misleading for the ABC to describe carbon dioxide as an air pollutant’.
Hear, hear.
‘Hear, hear,’ they say on the other side of the House. I need say no more in this answer. But I will go on, because at least Senator Minchin has been consistent. He was a sceptic in government and he is a sceptic in opposition, but the rest of the coalition’s position on this matter is hopelessly contradictory.
The government has an employment component of the Energy Efficient Homes package which will put ceiling insulation into the homes of 2.7 million households. It is undeniable that from day one it was the insulation fitter who said on ABC radio:
Our own company had to lay off a shift in one of our plants just before Christmas. We’ll be putting that shift back on.
The Rudd government delivers in supporting Australian jobs. That is exactly what the Energy Efficient Homes package is already delivering.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, under standing order 51, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise it since the member for Hinkler brought to my attention a specific instance of his privilege being breached due to the actions of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Education. I am raising it on behalf of the coalition because I wrote to the Speaker about this matter Thursday week ago. The Speaker returned my letter and I am happy to table—in fact I will table without any leave being required—the letter I wrote to the Speaker on 11 February, the letter I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister on 11 February, her letter to members and the outrageous questionnaire that she also sent out, the 2007 guidelines for Investing in Our Schools and the 2008 guidelines for Investing in Our Schools.
The Speaker returned my correspondence today indicating that he wished to have a specific instance where a member had been unable to carry out their duties as a member of parliament because of the change of guidelines and the potential breach of privilege. It is the view of the opposition and my own view that the participation ticking box requirement of the Deputy Prime Minister and the changes to the Investing in Our Schools guidelines are a breach of the privileges of the House. They are unprecedented, and they have been changed. I ask you respectfully under standing order 51 to consider the submissions—
What about your flagpoles?
The guidelines were changed, Mr clever Leader of the House. The guidelines that I am tabling today make it absolutely clear—and I am happy to point out in the submissions to you, Mr Speaker, that the guidelines were changed in Investing in Our Schools to require that a member of the Australian Labor Party be given precedence in the opening of all Investing in Our Schools programs. That was not the case under the Howard government. The new guidelines require that the department be the people who run the events at schools and they require that the school should not invite the member or their local member directly. It is the first time; those guidelines are unprecedented.
They go on to say, ‘In 2008 an Australian government representative is a member of the Australian Labor Party.’ Putting aside the question of whether this is a breach of the Public Service Act—requiring that members of the Public Service be members of the Australian Labor Party—I do make the submission to you, Mr Speaker, that this is a breach of privilege. I ask you to consider giving precedence to a motion to refer this to the Privileges Committee forthwith.
I will take on board the matters that have been raised. I will consider the documents that the member for Sturt has tabled and I will get back to the House as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker, yesterday you suspended me from the House for an hour. I understand you then made some comments about warnings not necessarily being given. But under the written record of the House in Hansard it says that I was warned. I would ask that you rectify the record.
On page 35 in the draft Hansard it does indicate on the top of the second column:
The SpeakerI warn the member for Lyons.
All I ever said was: ‘Member for Lyons!’ Regrettably for the member for Lyons, research has found that—and there was a sort of nod and a wink to tell me that this might be brought to my attention—on page 27, again in the second column, the Hansard reads:
The Speaker—The member for Dickson will resume his place.
It then goes on italics:
Mr Oakeshott interjecting—
This arises because of a misspeak by myself where I go on to say:
The member for Lyne will be prompted to get up and go somewhere!
That should read ‘The member for Lyons’. Both those corrections will be made.
A document is presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the document will be recorded in the
by leave—We are a resilient people. Our history shows that Australians can pull together in a crisis and come out stronger. The wild bushfires and floods across our nation in recent weeks have brought devastation, but they have also inspired courage, resilience and compassion. In the face of our tragedy and loss, our determination to ‘get on with it’ is extraordinary. These virtues and our strength of spirit will help us get through the great economic challenge of the global financial crisis.
Our key trading partners around the world, including China and Japan, are reporting sharp contractions in their economies, resulting in reductions in the demand for our exports. Many Australians are feeling the effects of the global economic downturn. There is no question that we face tough times.
While our unemployment rate is still low by international standards, it rose from 4.3 per cent last July to 4.8 per cent last month. The Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook forecasts an increase in unemployment to seven per cent by June 2010. This represents 300,000 more Australians out of work than in December 2008.
Unemployment is not just an economic loss; it is a human tragedy that turns the lives of ordinary Australians and their families upside down. The Rudd government know that beyond the job losses, the reduced hours and the fierce competition for jobs, there are people struggling to hold on to their homes and their aspirations. Our commitment to the Australian people and to the nation is to act now and provide effective support to those affected by a turbulent and tough global economy. Under these conditions, the Rudd government continue to take action to support Australian jobs by stimulating our economy and investing in the skills Australians need for the future.
We have taken unprecedented action through our $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which will stimulate economic activity in every local community across the nation and provide assistance to people and households on modest incomes. We are investing in training so that people can up-skill, giving them a better chance of getting or keeping a job and benefiting the nation in the long term. The training investment by the Rudd government will counter the likely reduction in business investment in training and skills development as many businesses feel the full effects of the global financial crisis.
While the global financial crisis is not within the government’s control, we can and must intervene early to reduce its impact. That is why the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have announced that the government are committing a further $298.5 million to ensure that from today, for the next two years, newly redundant workers will be eligible for intensive employment services. Access to these services will become available from 1 April 2009. From now to 1 July, this early access will be provided through existing Job Network services, with redundant workers able to access Job Search training immediately, instead of waiting a minimum of three months. Providers will be able to purchase services and training for job seekers through a $550 job seeker account credit.
From 1 July, this assistance will be provided through the Rudd government’s new employment services, which are currently under tender. Workers made redundant will receive immediate personalised assistance, career advice, referral to available training places and Job Search help. They will have access to a personal employment pathway plan that will set out the services and training that they need to find and keep a job. The employment pathway plan is underpinned by a $550 credit to pay for the specific assistance that job seekers need.
In addition to early access to personalised employment services, we will also invest a further $75 million in 10,000 new training places at certificate III level and above in the Productivity Places Program. These additional 10,000 places will bring the total number of extra places for displaced workers to 20,000 and ensure those who are vulnerable have the skills they need to adapt to changing economic circumstances and meet the labour needs of employers now and in the future. The $2 billion Productivity Places Program is a major long-term commitment that will deliver more than 711,000 training places over five years. Training places will continue to be allocated to job seekers and existing workers wanting to gain or upgrade their skills.
While unemployment is rising, we still witness many sectors of the economy suffering from the lack of suitably skilled workers. These new training places will provide an opportunity for redundant workers to re-train in areas of skill need. In providing 20,000 extra, targeted training places, the Australian government is addressing the challenge of supporting those who may need to re-skill or up-skill following retrenchment. The government is committed to making a difference to the prospects of ordinary Australians by investing in their future.
Receiving assistance earlier will help Australians who lose their jobs get back into the labour market as soon as possible. We know that connecting people quickly with employment services makes a big difference to their chances of finding work. This early intervention will ensure that people stay work ready, that they retain or improve their skills and are well placed to find employment.
This new package will add to more than $4 billion that we are investing from 1 July in new, more effective, employment services. Today’s announcement clearly demonstrates that the new service can be adapted to changing labour market circumstances. We are offering demand-driven employment services that are timely, practical and flexible. We are also increasing skills and training opportunities. The new employment services will assist each job seeker commensurate with the level of disadvantage they face. It is critical, even more so in these difficult times, that we do not allow the most disadvantaged to be pushed further to the back of the jobs queue. In contrast with the current Job Network, the new services will provide streamlined access to assistance and more support for job seekers to gain skills needed to fill existing and future vacancies. Given the current employment outlook, the government cannot leave the Job Network as it is, even for the next four months, and will immediately make existing Job Network services more flexible and more effective.
The job seeker account has been underutilised for years because of the burdensome red tape attached to it by the previous coalition government. The existing job seeker account will have applied to it the new Employment Pathway Fund principles. The new rules will mean providers will be able to support job seekers in a broader range of vocational and non-vocational assistance, like counselling or rehabilitation, to address their individual barriers to employment. Employment service providers will also be able to move credits between sites when they need to and, to further remove red tape, will require only an invoice or receipt for purchases of less than $300. The Job Network quarterly service fee will also be adjusted to reflect increased job seeker case loads, recognising that job seekers should have access to quality services despite the failings of the outdated Job Network.
For many Australians, the experience of looking for work will be new. Indeed, some have never experienced unemployment in their working life. As a government, we know that strength comes from giving all Australians a ‘fair go’—a fair go at a great education and a fair go at decent job opportunities and training. The government’s investment in these key areas is an investment in the nation’s future productive capacity and will ensure Australian job seekers remain connected to training and the job market.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Boothby to speak for 9½ minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Boothby speaking for a period not exceeding 9½ minutes.
Question agreed to.
I am very pleased, on behalf of the opposition, that the government has taken up the concerns of employment service providers, peak groups, other stakeholders and the opposition about the lack of early intervention for the newly unemployed under Labor’s employment services model. The opposition have been highlighting the lack of early intervention in the Rudd government’s new employment services since August last year. Shortly after seeing the exposure draft, we identified this problem. In a media release on 7 August last year, the opposition highlighted that under new employment services there would be nothing more than assistance in writing a resume and information on the local labour market for the majority of new job seekers for the first three months of unemployment.
Almost six months ago, in the last ministerial statement on employment services, we demonstrated that only 12.8 per cent of resources for employment services would be provided for stream-1 job seekers, who are the majority of new job seekers. We now know that 61 per cent of new job seekers will be stream 1. We said that reducing the early intervention for employment services was risky, inflexible and showed a lack of foresight. Unfortunately, there are now 80,000 more Australians who are unemployed since August, when we first warned of the problems with Labor’s new employment services. In question time the minister talked about his decisive action, but we all know that the action could have been more decisive. It has taken almost seven months to get to this point.
How did we get here? The Minister for Employment Participation took the job at a time when the unemployment rate was 4.2 per cent and there were 493,600 Australians unemployed. Now unemployment is 4.8 per cent and there are 540,200 Australians out of work. If you look at some of the research done by former senator John Black, you can see that regional unemployment has risen by more than 1½ per cent over the last 12 months in a number of regions across Australia, especially in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton in Wide Bay and the Gold Coast. As Saul Eslake said, unemployment rising by more than 1½ per cent is indicative of a recession.
In 1998, the previous government introduced the Job Network. It was highly successful. It reduced unemployment from 7.7 per cent in May 1998 to below four per cent in February this year. Not even a year ago, the minister, in a foreword on a discussion paper on the future of employment services in Australia, said:
The Job Network ... is no longer suited to a labour market characterised by lower unemployment, widespread skill shortages and a growing proportion of job seekers who are highly disadvantaged and long-term unemployed.
In a nutshell, the government designed an employment services model for a period of full employment. They made an assumption that people who were job ready would be able to find employment themselves. They were quite proud of putting the resources towards the people who would find it hardest to have a job and of addressing issues like creaming and parking. They were responding to the job market of 18 months ago. The problem is: we have an employment services system which is delivered by a mix of private sector and not-for-profit providers. That means that it is absolutely critical that the government get the balance right in the investment in job seekers and in the incentives for employment services providers. So, Minister, you came up with the wrong model at the worst possible time. It has been very obvious to employment service providers, to the opposition and to everyone except the minister—until now—that this model would not work in a climate of rising unemployment and weak or negative jobs growth.
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting
The minister should be aware that general warnings stay in place.
The $298.5 million extra into employment services is welcomed by the opposition. This will help to address the problems with the new employment services model. However, it is almost exactly the amount which was ripped out of employment services in last year’s budget, where the Rudd government cut funding to employment services by $279.8 million. So they cut it last year and they are having to put that money back in. They are putting back in what they were planning, only last May, to pull out.
I would like to speak briefly on the measures for apprentices, worth $155 million, which were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister last Thursday. During the recession of the early 1990s we saw the numbers of apprentices fall from 161,000 in 1990 to 120,000 by 1993. We do welcome the incentives being paid to employers and group training organisations. We think they are the right people to pay the incentives to. We also think they are focused on the right place—on the completion of apprenticeships and also on the out-of-trade period. The main issue that we have is the small amount. There is a real contrast between $42 billion, which we are told will support 90,000 jobs, and $150 million, which we are told will support 60,000 apprentices. This is either extremely well targeted or it will not work. But the opposition are prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt, and we will monitor its effectiveness closely.
The government have not, to date, introduced any specific youth unemployment initiatives, and it is very disappointing that they have not. In the last 12 months, we have seen 57,400 jobs for 15- to 19-year-olds lost from the Australian economy. This has been a silent tragedy. We hear nothing about this from the Rudd government. We hear nothing about this from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and we hear nothing about this from the Minister for Employment Participation. Anyone who is old enough to remember the last recession will recall the devastating impact unemployment had on school leavers and on teenagers looking for their first job. University graduates would complete their courses and then find that there were no jobs available. Parents were desperate to find or even pay for an apprenticeship for their children. There were hundreds of applicants for every job advertised. We saw the unemployment rate for 15- to 19-year-olds looking for full-time work rise from 14.2 per cent in July 1989 to a high of 34.5 per cent three years later. Having more than one in three teenagers unable to find work was a national tragedy.
In the last recession it was younger workers whose jobs were most vulnerable. Sadly, those who were born during the last recession may become casualties of the next one. To avoid this generation being locked into a jobless future, it is critical that the federal government is proactive in addressing youth unemployment. There are already some ominous signs. We are already seeing falls in the number of teenagers in jobs and rises in teenage unemployment.
In the package that has been announced, there is nothing specifically for school leavers and there is nothing for young people who have never had a job. It is critical that the government provide more early intervention and work experience opportunities for job seekers in their teens and early 20s to help them make a successful transition from school to work. Without early intervention for those who are out of work, the social cost of inaction may well be a lost generation of school leavers who have never known work and will struggle to maintain continuous employment. I seek leave to table my media release of 7 August 2008, ‘Too little too late’, which highlights these very problems.
Leave not granted.
Before we proceed with the MPI, could I remind members that a general warning was given at question time and it does carry until the end of the day.
The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government’s stimulus packages to protect Australian jobs
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I am a tad disappointed today that the Treasurer sent a boy in to do a man’s job. I am quite sad that the Treasurer chooses to debate me on a TV program but not in this place, the house of the people. One of the reasons that it must be a little bit embarrassing for the Treasurer is that when he stated, just before Christmas, that he was in the business of creating jobs by spending money, I thought to myself at the time, ‘This man has form.’ It has been only in the last few days that I have had the opportunity to read the Treasurer’s speech in 2004, when he was the new shadow Treasurer, and he said:
We’ve had a wonderful run of prosperity. Average incomes are up half as much again. Household wealth has doubled. We’ve created two million jobs in the last fourteen years.
So not only is the Treasurer claiming that he is going to create 75,000 jobs; he is trying to claim credit for the two million jobs created during the 10 years of the Liberal-National government. I say to the Treasurer that his hide is no smaller than and no more sensitive than that of a rhinoceros. The Treasurer’s hide is like that of a rhinoceros. He claims to have created 75,000 jobs out of a $10 billion spend before Christmas. Ironically, the Prime Minister got himself befuddled in question time today. He claimed that that money had helped to stimulate retail sales, unlike in the United Kingdom, where, he claimed, retail sales had fallen. Little did he know that, in fact, retail sales in the United Kingdom had risen—and they did not have to have a ₤10 billion cash splash immediately before Christmas.
I want to take this opportunity to lay down the foundations for the narrative of the Rudd government’s economic mismanagement of Australia. I want to go to the starting point, which is the legacy that was left by the previous coalition government. The coalition government left the Rudd Labor government with a record of real job creation. Two million new jobs were created in Australia between 1996 and 2007. The Prime Minister calls us neoliberals. Well, if creating two million new jobs in Australia is the work of a neoliberal then I plead guilty to being a neoliberal. If increasing the real wages of Australian workers by more than 22 per cent over 11 years is the work of a neoliberal then we are all neoliberals. The real wages of Australians have increased under the coalition government, yet they seem to be perilously close to decreasing under a modern Labor government.
Of course, the Labor government has form in government. It was the Hawke-Keating government that took great pride in deliberately reducing the real wages of Australian workers. When we come to the budget, the inheritance received by the Rudd Labor government was a budget that was in a strong, sustainable surplus. Even when it was identified by the then Treasurer, the member for Higgins, in the Intergenerational Reports that Australia was facing structural deficits into the future, the coalition government took the hard decisions to put in place the basis for ongoing surplus budgets. And what happened? Labor came into government, and when Labor comes into government they cannot help themselves; they are very good spenders.
Why do I say that? There is no better evidence of the capacity of the Labor Party to spend than in the last few months. Since the last budget, the first Labor budget, the Rudd Labor government has committed to $80 billion of new spending above the budget. They say that that is necessary to address the global financial crisis. But you cannot look at the extraordinary fiscal stimulus package in Australia in isolation. You need to look at two other factors. The first factor is the foundations upon which that stimulus package was necessary. When you compare Australia with the United Kingdom and the United States and every other OECD country, you can identify that the foundations upon which Australia has entered into difficult economic times have been far better than those inherited by every other country
In a recent report, the assistant governor of the Reserve Bank identified that a comparison of the discretionary fiscal easing in certain countries illustrated that Australia was at the higher end—meaning that the Rudd government spent more by comparison with other countries in greater financial distress. Discretionary fiscal easing in the United States was over two per cent of GDP, in the United Kingdom it was over one per cent, in Germany it was 1½ per cent, in Japan it was 1½ per cent, in China it was over two per cent, in South Korea it was over two per cent, in Taiwan it was over two per cent and in Australia it was over 2½ per cent. So the Rudd Labor government has spent more than most other comparable countries at a time when Australia’s foundations are better than any of those other countries.
On top of that, at the same time you cannot ignore the relationship between a fiscal stimulus and a monetary stimulus. The easing of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank is at extraordinary levels, even by the admission of the Governor of the Reserve Bank before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics last week. The significant easing in monetary policy by the Reserve Bank had to work in partnership with a fiscal stimulus. There has been a four per cent drop in interest rates in Australia—from 7¼ per cent to 3¼ per cent today—and they still have the capacity to go down further. But even the Reserve is now sending a message that it is time to wait and see. The significant easing in monetary policy, combined with the massive fiscal stimulus by this mob over the last three months, means that Australia has gone faster and further than any other comparable country. I say this to the government and to the Treasurer: you would want to hope that this is a 100-metre sprint because, if it is a marathon—and every economic indicator is saying that it will be—there will not be any fuel left in the tank when it is most needed. That is my concern and that is the concern of the coalition.
Let me take you back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the election of the Rudd government. The Rudd government’s immediate task was to try and rubbish the economic inheritance that bequeathed to them a very strong economy with strong economic growth, very low unemployment, a significant budget surplus and no government debt. In fact, we left money in the kitty. More than $60 billion was left in the kitty. So the government was not only free of debt but actually had significant net assets.
How that changed. The first thing the Prime Minister did was declare the first of many wars. We had wars on obesity; we had wars on binge drinking; we had wars on pokies—we have had wars on everything—and we had a war on inflation. The war on inflation that the Prime Minister declared was the war that actually cost Australians significant amounts of money because that was effectively egging on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates. I have taken the opportunity to have a look at the statements of the Reserve Bank on 7 November 2007, 5 December 2007, 5 February 2008 and 4 March 2008. On all occasions the Reserve Bank put the words of concern about inflation ahead of the concern about the looming global financial crisis, and this is even after it became perfectly obvious that the global financial crisis emerging in United States credit markets—in fact in global credit markets—would have a profound effect here.
By egging on the Reserve Bank, by declaring a war on inflation, the Labor Party deliberately slowed the Australian economy at exactly the wrong time. At a time when everyone else in the world was running away from the beach because there had been an earthquake out to sea, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan were deliberately encouraging people to run down to the beach to observe the looming tidal wave.
The member will use the appropriate title for people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that was exactly the wrong medicine for the Australian economy. Not only were they talking about slowing the Australia economy; the measures they introduced in their own budget were inflationary. They increased taxes on the car industry. Look at the car industry today. It was the government of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that deliberately took a baseball bat to the car industry in the May budget at exactly the wrong time.
They had another initiative that was clearly inflationary: changing the private health insurance rebate. Of course it was going to be inflationary. What was the impact? We are yet to see just how far premiums will increase, but have no doubt they will increase way beyond the existing inflation rate. Then there was the alcopops initiative. That was all about raising revenue, all about raising prices and all about raising inflation. Yet they claimed their budget would be anti-inflationary—that it would put downward pressure on inflation. The contradictory messages coming out of the Labor government caused confusion and distress in the Australian economy and caused confusion and distress for Australian consumers. That is the net impact when you do not have economic leadership based on sound fundamental principles—when you not do not have economic leadership that is based on hope and confidence and when you do not have economic leadership that is responsible and measured—but rather befuddled economic speeches, statements and moments from the Treasurer. They talked about the inflation genie being out of the bottle. They said, ‘This is bad, really bad.’
We heard those horrific statements in October last year. If there were any confidence left in the Australian economy amongst small business and amongst consumers, the Prime Minister sapped it all—he took it out; he vacuumed up any confidence left in the Australian economy with his overblown rhetoric and his continuing war footing on the economy. Of course he made inappropriate responses. He went too far on the government guarantee. He went too far in a range of measures, including the $10 billion stimulus package. We supported him at that time because we believed him to have evidence that would justify such an extraordinary measure. Over time we have discovered that, no, he did not have any evidence but in fact he was focused on other things—political things. We now know that the recent $42 billion package has in part been focused on the Queensland election so that the cheques can be received by Queensland householders during the course of the election campaign. That is just a coincidence—there is no relationship!
We must ask ourselves: where to now? I can say that the biggest losers from the Rudd Labor government are going to be the workers of Australia. The workers of Australia previously enjoyed low unemployment. The workers of Australia previously enjoyed high real wages. The workers of Australia previously had job security. Every initiative of the Rudd government to date has been more focused on politics than it has been on the economics of the nation. Everything they have said and done has focused on the next vote rather than what is right. There are costs in that—the great bill that is going to come out of that political equation and that political question will be paid by the next generation of Australians.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. You can change the organ-grinder but the same old tunes keep beltin’ on out—it is the same old approach from the opposition. The telling moment, the final straw that broke the camel’s back for the former shadow Treasurer—
Is this your job application?
Order, member for Mayo! Is this your job application to get chucked out? I would be careful.
The straw that broke the camel’s back for the former shadow Treasurer, the member for Curtin, was when she said that the Liberal Party’s approach to economic management at this time of global financial crisis was to wait and see. That was it. That was the final gaffe. That was the bridge too far that drove her colleagues to say, ‘It’s time to go. You’re fired.’ And what do we see from the new shadow Treasurer? The same approach. We heard it just then. They were different words. Sometimes he even says ‘wait and see’—or a more fancy way of saying wait and see sometimes. We see the same bankrupt approach from the opposition. On Sunday we saw the new shadow Treasurer on Insiders say that the government’s stimulus package was too big and badly targeted. He said:
But you see when you spend all the money that is available, when you reduce the amount of petrol you have in the fuel tank you never know what's going to come around the corner and you might not be able to cope with it.
That is a fancy way of saying, ‘You’re doing too much to support jobs in Australia.’ It is a fancy way of saying, ‘It’d be better to wait and see.’
When you look at the performance so far of the new shadow Treasurer and you consider that he was the second choice for the job, and when you consider that he is the fourth person to be the spokesman on economic matters for the Liberal Party in the last 18 months, you might think that, if Andy Warhol were looking at the Liberal Party, he would say, ‘Everybody gets their 15 minutes as shadow Treasurer in the Liberal Party,’ because that is what we see—this revolving door of spokespeople but the same old message, the same old tunes.
The opposition says—and we heard it again—that the December stimulus package was a waste of money. They say it was a cash splash, a sugar hit. By the way, that was the package that they supported. Remember that? Remember the Leader of the Opposition saying, ‘We won’t be quibbling with this package; it has our support’? Now they say that it was a waste of money. We had the Leader of the National Party saying in the other house that it would be spent against a wall, insulting Australia’s pensioners and low- and middle-income families, saying that they would not know how to spend the money, that it would be a waste of money.
The package was all about jobs—supporting Australian jobs. That is what it comes down to at the end of the day—supporting Australian jobs in an environment where seven out of our 10 largest trading partners are now in recession; where the United States has shed half a million jobs a month in the last three months; where in the United States retail sales fell around three per cent for the month of December; where in Japan sales fell by two per cent in December; and where in Germany and New Zealand sales fell by around one per cent. In Australia, sales increased by 3.8 per cent in December. Can you imagine the furore from the opposition if sales had fallen in December, if we had not had a stimulus package? Can you imagine the outcry—the correct outcry—that would come if they were able to say, ‘The Australian government has not done enough to support Australian jobs’? In Australia, retail sales grew in December by the highest amount in eight years. In fact, it was the fourth highest amount we have seen since that statistical series began—the fourth highest amount in the history of that statistical series.
But it is not just about retail sales. We see the efforts of the government to put a floor under confidence in the construction industry—to boost confidence in the construction industry—and we have seen a 15 per cent increase in loans to purchase new dwellings in Australia as a result of the increase in the first home owner grant, as a result of the government’s stimulus package. But these things are not an end in themselves. Of course, they are not; they are a means to an end. They are a means to support Australian jobs.
The House had to put up with the indignity of having to listen to the shadow Treasurer, the former minister for workplace relations, talking about protections for Australian workers, the indignity of being lectured by the man who said, ‘The cabinet did not realise how much pain Work Choices was causing the Australian people,’ and the indignity of having to listen to the member for North Sydney say that job security was better under Work Choices than it is now. Well, the Australian people have seen through that argument.
But the House does not need to take the government’s word for it when it comes to the effect of the government’s stimulus packages on Australian jobs. The House does not need to take my word for it or the government’s word for it. Just look at what the experts say. Dr Gruen, executive director of the macroeconomic unit in Treasury said:
... we have evidence that the package stimulated consumption. We have strong reason to believe that that would have led to more people being employed than would otherwise have been the case.
The shadow Treasurer quoted the Governor of the Reserve Bank, but, sadly, I have to report to the House that he left quite a few out. He left this one out:
Growth will be stronger than it would have been without those actions. I do not think there is any doubt about that.
That is what the governor said about the government’s actions. Sara Hoenig, the economist with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, said:
If there were any doubts about the efficacy of the government’s fiscal stimulus packages and Australian consumers’ willingness to spend, the December retail sales report is a clear rebuttal.
The same goes for the government’s second stimulus package. David de Garis, an economist from the National Australia Bank, said it was:
A sizeable fiscal stimulus and, I think, appropriate in the circumstances both in terms of the size of the stimulus and also its construction.
Those well-known socialists down at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:
Such is the scope of our current economic difficulties that this package, combined with monetary easing, is absolutely essential. The size of the package at 2% of GDP in 2009 is appropriate and in line with our estimate of what is required.
And, again, we come to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who said that he was comfortable with the government’s approach.
The Governor of the Reserve Bank specifically rebutted the narrative of the shadow Treasurer, who argues that we are spending too much now. The Governor of the Reserve Bank pointed out that, if you do not act quickly enough, if you do not stimulate the economy at the right time, if you leave it too late, you will be creating bigger deficits and more debt down the line. The shadow Treasurer’s narrative then is an argument for more unemployment and more debt—because, if you do not stimulate the economy, you will see unemployment go up, you will see profits go down, you will see tax revenue go down and you will see deficits and debt go up. The Governor of the Reserve Bank is not the only person who has pointed that out. Saul Eslake has said:
... history ... suggests that the ultimate fiscal cost of episodes such as the present one ends up being considerably greater if appropriate ameliorative action is delayed.
So we have the shadow Treasurer and the former shadow Treasurer singing from the same song book, but a tune completely out of touch with what is going on—a song out of tune with the economic reality in Australia and around the globe; a song out of tune with every economic expert in this country; a song out of tune with the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The shadow Treasurer is singing from the same song book as the former shadow Treasurer. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Let us look at the composition of the packages. We have dealt with the quantum of the packages, but let us look at how the government’s stimulus packages have been constructed. We have taken the view that, as well as stimulating the economy, these packages provide an opportunity to invest for the future. These packages are an opportunity to invest in Australia’s children. Seventy per cent of the government’s second stimulus package is by way of direct investment. That compares with around 30 per cent for the stimulus package in the United States. So there is 70 per cent by way of direct investment in the future. There are areas where this can be spent quickly but they are areas that have been underfunded for so long—for example, level crossings in areas of high accidents. We all hear about level-crossing accidents, and we all hear the cries from the community: ‘Why can’t we have more boom gates?’ For years, governments have said, ‘We can’t afford it.’ We are taking this opportunity to make a step towards improved and safe level crossings.
Our most important investment is in our schools and in education. What does the opposition say about that part of our stimulus package? The shadow Treasurer said:
Well let me tell you, we wouldn’t be spending $14 billion on school halls. I mean that is a phenomenal amount of money. $14 billion … That is just ridiculous.
Let me respectfully point out a few things to the member for North Sydney. Firstly, school halls are no longer just about school assemblies. Any honourable member who goes to the schools in their electorate knows that those schools with school halls have learning areas, performance areas, or exercise areas in their school halls. They are an important part of the school community. They are not just about assemblies. And every principal will tell you that their school is poorer without them.
But the other thing I would point out to the member for North Sydney is that he either completely misunderstands, or completely misrepresents, the government’s investment in schools—because it is not just about school halls. There is a little thing that I might introduce the member for North Sydney to. It is called a school library. It is quite important. It is about giving the kids a chance to learn in the best possible environment. It is about investing in schools with second-rate or third-rate libraries and giving them a first-rate library that they deserve. It is also about science labs and language labs. It is about those primary schools that already have a good school hall and a good library being able to get rid of demountables and rebuild their classrooms. That is what this investment in schools is about.
I say to the member for North Sydney in all seriousness and with respect: perhaps schools in the North Sydney electorate are not too badly off. Maybe they are doing okay. Maybe he thinks they do not need this investment. I think he is probably wrong but maybe he thinks that. But come out to the rest of Australia, come out to the electorates in rural Australia that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry goes to and sees. Come out to the electorates in Western Sydney and western Melbourne and the western suburbs of Brisbane. Come out and see whether the school principals in those areas say, ‘We don’t need this money,’ and ‘This amount of money is ridiculous.’ See if they think that this is a ridiculous investment in Australia’s future. I think the member for North Sydney might be the one who will be educated. I think the member for North Sydney might get a wake-up call. I think the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer, might realise that he is the one being ridiculous and that this is not a ridiculous investment, it is an appropriate investment. I think the member for North Sydney needs to be reminded that it is not just investment in hard infrastructure in roads and in rail that creates wealth, but that investment in our kids creates wealth. Investment in our schools creates wealth—and not just now and not just tomorrow. It does not just stimulate the economy now; it stimulates it for years to come. It is the member for North Sydney who needs to be educated about that. It is the shadow Treasurer who needs reminding that the Australian government is determined to invest appropriately in our schools, and that we do not think it is ridiculous.
We then have the opposition saying, ‘We want tax cuts. We do not agree with all this money being handed out. We want tax cuts.’ We do not know what sort of tax cuts they want. The Leader of the Opposition has said that we should bring forward the tax cuts that are due to be paid later in the year and the year after. The former shadow Treasurer argued for ‘broad and sweeping tax cuts that will increase the tax base and increase tax revenues’. I would invite the new shadow Treasurer to disassociate himself from those comments while he has the opportunity. The shadow Treasurer might want to point out that he does not believe that tax cuts actually increase government revenue. I have heard some of the opposition say, ‘We want tax cuts like those in President Obama’s stimulus package.’ But the tax cuts in the United States stimulus package are temporary rebates. They are not dissimilar to the payments in the Australian government’s tax package. So we find the opposition hopelessly at sea under the member for Curtin and equally at sea under the member for North Sydney.
What the Australian people are looking for is leadership. They are not looking for a government that says, ‘We will wait and see.’ They are not looking for a government that says, ‘We will wait until the economy is as bad as Britain or the United States or anywhere else before we act.’ They are not looking for a government which says, ‘We will observe the patient in intensive care before we administer first aid.’ They are not looking for a government which says, ‘We don’t believe that important and urgent action is needed now to protect and support Australian jobs while people are still in employment and before it is too late.’ They are looking for a government that acts. The opposition simply sings the same old tune—too much, too soon. We say it cannot be soon enough.
Today the opposition raises a matter of the highest public importance—jobs, jobs, jobs. The jobs in question are not those of the members opposite; they are the jobs of those in struggling families. They are the jobs of people who were once part of working families. They have lost that job, and their families are now struggling. They are people who do not know when their next work opportunity is going to come. And how much worse is this going to be in the weeks, months and years ahead? Clearly, the government has no idea. Their incredible mismanagement of the economy has turned around a once booming economy—the star in the economic sceptre of the world. An economy admired across the globe has been turned around so that we are now in deficit, in debt and have little hope of an early recovery.
Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I am a proud Queenslander, but I am sorry to say that there are a group of Queenslanders who have been letting the side down lately. They are a gang of four: the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd; his Treasurer, Wayne Swan; the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh; and her Treasurer, Andrew Fraser. It seems they have conspired to drive Queensland into a recession and take the nation to record debt. They grew up in the state as I did, and we were always proud of a state that had a balanced budget. We were proud of the fact that the state’s public service had its superannuation fully funded when other governments did not. We were proud of our low taxes and strong growth. We were proud of what our state was achieving.
At a national level, too, there has been a contribution towards building a strong national economy. Queensland is one of the resource-rich states and has led much of the growth in our nation. It contributed very significantly to the $60 billion surplus that was available when Labor came to office in Canberra. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, our fellow Queenslanders, have squandered it all. Only a couple of weeks ago they wanted a $200 billion limit on their credit card to go out and spend more and more. The emphasis of this government is on debt and spending. They have no idea about management and how to restore the nation’s economy.
The Queensland state deficit has exploded to $1.6 billion this year. It went from a surplus to a $1.6 billion deficit in the space of just a few weeks. How humiliating it should have been for the Treasurer to have to confess to the people of Queensland that he had blown the promised surplus in the budget and was now delivering a $1.6 billion debt. And the world noticed. Queensland’s AAA credit rating has been junked and the state now faces interest bills about $400 million per year higher because that AAA credit rating has been lost—the proud record of balanced budgets all now nothing. The world financial markets have looked at Queensland, its $70 billion debt and the incompetence of the management of the state government and come to the conclusion that this economy is not worth a AAA rating. In spite of all the coal, the gold, the mineral wealth, the agricultural wealth, the tourism industry—all the wonderful things that Queensland has to offer—it is not worth a AAA credit rating. I note that even Morris Iemma in New South Wales was not able to destroy his state’s credit rating. It might not be far away, but even he could not achieve what has been delivered by Premier Anna Bligh.
The state has a hospital system that vies with that of New South Wales for the title ‘worst in the Western world’. It has clogged road systems; a highly populated south-east area without services and facilities; overcrowded and unpainted classrooms; and political scandals, with recently retired ministers in front of the courts on corruption charges. This is the government that has taken Queensland out of the boom and into the gloom. Queensland boasted about the minerals boom and population growth but did nothing about providing the services that were necessary. As the Australian’s Mike Steketee said today, Labor’s state election campaign began yesterday with Ms Bligh saying that only she ‘has the experience and ability to steer Queensland through the tough times ahead’. He notes:
She forgot to mention that it was this ability that lost the state its AAA credit rating.
Of course, Labor has form in losing credit ratings. Remember that when Paul Keating was Prime Minister of Australia—the last Labor Prime Minister—our credit rating was slashed twice. Labor was incompetent and unable to manage the federal economy then; it is clear the current government is no better. How long will it be before Australia loses its AAA credit rating? How long can we keep filling up the Bankcard and keep our national credit rating at AAA? It is time the Treasurer levelled with the Australian people and made clear to us how long Australia can enjoy its high standing when it comes to borrowing around the world.
The Australian also said:
Voters will see through her—
Ms Bligh’s—
second excuse, too, and realise that Labor is rushing to an election before things get much worse. The party’s pollsters will have told Bligh that the angry mood of late last year, when Bligh copped a hammering in Newspoll, has dissipated with the help of falling interest rates and lower petrol prices. Once unemployment soars, it will be a different story.
She knows that when it soars in Queensland, as it is soaring in other parts of Australia, it will be a different story.
Here we have it: instead of a plan we have a panicked rush to an early state election; instead of sound economic management we have waste and lost opportunities; instead of honesty we have more and more spin. Queensland used to be the last state into recession. It now seems it will be amongst the first. We are likely to see Queensland not only in a recession but with no plan and no capacity to find its way through it. The state is lumbered with a huge debt, and that as well is going to lie on the backs of tomorrow’s workers as they pay higher taxes. Queensland will inevitably lose its reputation as a low-tax state as the workers pay more and more taxes to pay off the debt of the Bligh and Beattie governments. Of course, there will be less money in Queensland—as there will be less money in Australia—to pay for health, education, defence and vital services because the taxpayers of tomorrow, the families of tomorrow, will be paying higher taxes every year to pay for the spending sprees that are occurring at present—the spending sprees that buy a moment of sunshine and will have to be paid back in the future.
Our Prime Minister and our Treasurer inherited from the previous government an economy that was the envy of the world, an unemployment rate trying its best to get below four per cent and a budget surplus of $20 billion, which the Prime Minister has shamefully tried to claim as his own. The $20 billion surplus and the $60 billion of accumulated funds set aside for the future by the coalition have been turned into a projected $118 billion budget deficit by 2012. That is the fault of those who sit opposite. The unemployment rate is already up to 4.8 per cent and is likely to hit six per cent by Christmas.
What have we had? Two stimulus packages now. The first one, of about $10 billion, was going to create 70,000 jobs, but in question time today it was confirmed yet again that no-one opposite can identify a single job that this scheme has created. We now come to the $42 billion package, which is not going to create even a single job. The Treasurer and the government have not even claimed that it will create a single job. All it is going to do is sustain 90,000 jobs. Divide that number into $42 billion and it is pretty close to half a million dollars per job—a pretty expensive sustaining process.
The reality is that, instead of the packages actually creating and sustaining jobs, unemployment is going up. There are more people out of work. The stimulus packages are creating more unemployment, not more jobs. So far, Labor has promised to create 330,000 jobs through their various stimulus packages, but in fact unemployment has gone up by over 300,000. The unemployment figure has gone up by more than the number of jobs the government claims it is going to create. Contrast that with the two million jobs created by the previous government and you get a measure of the difference between good economic management and the rubbish that this Labor government is already pushing on the people. (Time expired)
There is an old adage in this place: the louder the bark the less you usually have to say. We have just seen two very good examples of it, one from the LNP member across the chamber, who did not actually refer to or speak to this MPI but, with rank opportunism, attacked the Queensland state government because there is an election on. How about actually dealing with the issues at hand right here in the Commonwealth, the issues that are affecting everybody in Australia, not just those in Queensland?
What a load of confused rhetoric we got from the former minister for cutting workers conditions and stripping away their rights. I have to say that the new shadow minister for the Treasury portfolio, the member for North Sydney, does put on a good show. There is no question of that. We all have a good laugh; he is a bit of an entertainer. But the sad part of his performance is that it comes at the cost of jobs. I do want to congratulate the member for North Sydney on his appointment to the shadow Treasury portfolio. I say to the member: give it your best shot, because the points of difference between the government and the opposition could not be any greater or any better differentiated.
While I am on the subject of the shadow Treasury portfolio, I want to wish him luck, because it has already claimed two scalps—the scalps of Julie Bishop and Peter Costello. They are both victims of the shadow Treasury portfolio. The member has a larger-than-life reputation, but he will need more than just huff and puff in coming into this place if he wants to provide a positive alternative or support the decisive action of the government on the impacts of the global financial crisis on the Australian economy and more importantly on people, on families and on jobs.
With that in mind, can I say how disappointed I am at this MPI. This MPI is an attack on our economy, it is an attack on families and it is an attack on jobs. I do understand the need that the opposition has to simply oppose, but it should do so in a constructive manner and in a manner that does not actually make matters worse. While in government, the mob on the other side were feverishly working up arguments, saying that we talk the economy down. I do not agree that that was the case, because I do not believe we talked the economy down once. The very first thing they did when they got into opposition was do everything in their power to talk the economy down. While the Rudd government is out there feverishly working to sustain Australian jobs and help families, the opposition just wants to play games. We just saw evidence of it, with one of the LNP members deciding that he would have a go and attack the Queensland state government and not actually address the MPI put up by his own side.
While the government offers up its second stimulus package, its second round of supporting and creating jobs and helping families to dampen the full impact of the global financial crisis, the opposition just carps and whines. While the government does everything it can to help families, schools and business, the opposition is busy arguing with itself on leadership, portfolios and self-interest. Nothing could have been made more clear in the policy approach to Australia’s and the world’s single biggest and greatest downturn in history than the comments of the former shadow Treasurer, Julie Bishop. She was asked on radio what the opposition would do, what was going to be their policy. If they were in government today, what would they be doing? Were they just going to whine and carp and complain and whinge? What was their alternative? Her answer was very simple. She said they would sit and wait and see what happens. None of us can afford that—not one of us in this place and not one of us in Australia. In other words, what she was saying is that they would sit and wait for jobs to go, for business to fail, for families to lose their homes, for schools to struggle and for the Australian economy to falter like the rest of the world is faltering. This position was simply not good enough for anybody in this place or anywhere else.
Although the former Treasurer was in the end removed from her role because of her views and her failure in this very technical, very difficult portfolio area, she was professing the views of her leader. Her views are the views of the Leader of the Opposition. She was not acting alone in her comments. She was acting in concert with and with the support of the Leader of the Opposition. She paid the price but it is the Leader of the Opposition that continues the mantra of ‘just sit and wait’, because at every opportunity the opposition does everything it can to destroy the stimulus packages that the government are putting up. No clearer evidence of that is available than the sheer fact that they all voted against the package. They voted against the $42 billion. They did not want the money. They did not want it in their schools; they did not want it anywhere else.
I started by saying that there was a massive differentiation between the government and the opposition. There could not be a bigger difference between what we want to do in Australia’s national interest and what the opposition want to do in their own self-interest. The greatest difference between the government and the opposition is simple. It is that we have a strategy and we will work hard to deliver that, and the opposition just have an excuse.
This MPI is as spurious as it is disingenuous. The whole point of the stimulus package in the first place is to protect and create jobs. You will hear all sorts of numbers about where the jobs are being created. Yet every speaker on the government side explains exactly where those jobs are. They are being created in schools through construction; they are being created in industry, where money is being invested; they are being created in small, medium and large businesses; they are being created in industry, in innovation and in clean technologies; and they are being created in retail. They have been created right across the board. The opposition come in here carping on, repeating the same mantra over and over and over: ‘Where are the jobs being created?’ You have your answer: they are being created right here, right now in the Australian economy, not somewhere else but right here in every community—in large communities, in small communities. In every community where there exists a school there are jobs being created right now.
If the opposition do not believe us, they can ring up a school principal and ask them what they think about the package. If they do not believe the government, I ask every member in the opposition to ring up a builder that they know and ask where their next job is coming from and if the government stimulus package is not helping—if the public housing policy we have got and the creation of 20,000 new homes over the next two years is not helping. I can tell you what they are telling me in my electorate, and I know what they are telling government members in other electorates. I know what those very same people would be telling members of the opposition in their own electorates: ‘Get out of the road, do something positive for the country and help the economy.’
But all we hear from the other side is doom and gloom and rank political opportunism. We get LNP members in here who have no mandate whatsoever, and if their numbers purely as reflected in Queensland determined the sort of mandate they would have in this place they would barely register a hiccup on the Richter scale. Self-interest can often cloud the mind on what is right and what is wrong, what needs to be done and what needs the goodwill of all Australians—even for politicians. But it is regrettably clear that the opposition has lost direction and has lost focus on the national interest in favour of self-interest. If the opposition cannot understand or will not support measures the government is putting in place to sustain or create jobs, it just proves how out of touch they really are and how out of touch the Leader of the Opposition is with ordinary people and the economy. I suppose it is a case of ‘once a merchant banker, always a merchant banker’.
For the rest of us here, there is much work to be done: to fix and build infrastructure; to build schools and invest in children’s education; to invest in public housing; to invest in the construction industry and build new homes, including through first home owners grants; to invest in older Australians and families; to support innovation and invest in our universities; to invest in green and clean technologies; and to support training, job creation and new training for the job opportunities that are coming in the future and are needed now. We are reducing red tape and bureaucracy, to support small business and other measures through the tax system. We are supporting industry through increased grants to create more jobs. We are supporting the real estate sector through incentives to families and, while there are almost too many to list here today in the few minutes that I have got, the government is working very hard to at least protect families and workers against the very worst effects of the global financial crisis.
The shadow Treasurer stumps up to the pulpit in this place and preaches doom and gloom, loud and full of huff and puff, but in the end says nothing at all. When the opposition talks about the ‘cash splash’, what are they talking about? Are they saying that we wasted the $10 billion on ordinary families and pensioners? Is that what you are saying—that we wasted it on pensioners? When the opposition talks about the ‘cash splash’—the $42 billion in schools—are we wasting that on children’s education? I think not. (Time expired)
As I have watched over the last few weeks and months as the government has expended billions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds, has blithely turned a $20 billion surplus into a $20 billion deficit and has in the process recklessly run up a $200 billion debt for the people of Australia, I have been reminded of some lines from that musical Evita, about the wife of the Argentinean leader Peron:
When the money keeps rolling in you don’t ask how
Think of all the people guaranteed a good time now
… … …
And the money kept rolling out in all directions.
It captures the government’s program: spend, spend, spend. And, if you do not have the money, we will borrow millions and billions of dollars in order to give it to you so you can go and spend it, and in turn the next generation of Australians can repay the debt and the interest on that debt.
What we have seen in this latest $42 billion package is turning a surplus of over $20 billion into a deficit of over $20 billion. And, on top of that, it is compounded by deficits running into the future and a burgeoning Commonwealth debt to which we can add the debts of each state in Australia—debts being run up by Labor parties in government in those states. This is the greatest debt at a government level that Australians of any generation will have to bear.
Mr Rudd says he is doing this in response to the global financial crisis. He would have some credibility if his past actions indeed led to an outcome which is understandable and believable. But last year the Treasurer, Mr Swan, and Mr Rudd were telling us that inflation was the major problem facing the Australian economy, and they were egging on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates. We were subsequently to find out that the very time those interest rates were being run up was the very time when the economy indeed was changing.
So we have got this package, which is ostensibly about—we were told—creating jobs for Australians. In December we were told that $10.4 billion would create 75,000 jobs, $4.7 billion in another package would create 32,000 jobs and $15.1 billion in the COAG package would create 133,000 jobs. In the space of a few weeks the Commonwealth government was spending some $30 billion to create, we are told, somewhere in the order of a quarter of a million jobs, and yet the latest unemployment statistics—data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics—show that unemployment in Australia has risen. Not one job.
Yet, more recently, there was another $42 billion which we were told this time is to support—and we have avoided the word ‘create’ now—another 90,000 jobs. We are being told that this money, this $72 billion of taxpayers’ money—they will have to pay it eventually—is being used to create 330,000 Australian jobs. Yet, when asked, the government cannot point to one job that has been created. We know that the hard data from the ABS shows us that unemployment indeed has risen in Australia. That is the situation we are in.
There is a benchmark by which this government will be judged, and that will not be in the assertions that are being made in this debate on the other side of the chamber; it will be in the hard data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. As unemployment rises—which everybody, even the Reserve Bank and the Treasury, concedes it is regrettably going to do—by 300,000 or 400,000, when the unemployment rate goes to over seven per cent, then we can look back on the assertions of this government that it was going to create 330,000 jobs. It is total nonsense. Again, in the words of Evita, we will be left lamenting:
Where do we go from here?
This isn’t where we intended to be.
Sadly, that is the situation that this government is putting Australia into. It will be judged not by its assertions but by its performance, and if its performance is such that unemployment continues to grow in this country then that is what it should be judged by. (Time expired)
I certainly want to add my voice to oppose the sentiments expressed in this matter of public interest brought forward by the new shadow Treasurer. What is clear is that what we have heard today simply reinforces something that I have thought for a long time—in fact, for a bit over 12 years—and that is that the coalition just do not get it. They do not get government and they do not understand what an important role government plays in developing and stimulating our economy. They wasted 12 years in government. They created a GST, they sold off the farm, particularly Telstra, and they also governed through one of the most significant revenue booms, the mining boom, that we have seen in this country and at no stage did they actually understand that that revenue was needed to invest in our economy and to build economic security for the future. They never, ever get the point that investment supports communities and builds an economy.
That is why this government has created this very specifically targeted stimulus package. It does a number of things. It supports jobs because it builds infrastructure for those things that we need to build our future sustainability and our communities. It is investing in education, building infrastructure in our schools, which will support jobs in those local communities now and will also provide the skilled workforce that we need for the future. It is building social housing, which again is supporting the very much needed stimulus within our construction industry right now and also providing necessary housing for those who are most vulnerable and those who are homeless in our community. And of course it is also supporting jobs in the insulation industry, which once again not only sees more jobs created in that industry but actually reduces energy consumption in this country and supports our future environmental sustainability.
This is the point that the opposition, when in government and now, have never, ever got. They wasted 12 years of opportunity. We know merchant bankers love the phrase ‘money makes money’. I would like to paraphrase that and argue also that jobs create jobs. What is important is: if you stimulate the economy and provide both very necessary spending and infrastructure packages that create more spending money for people in our community, you support not only those who need that cash injection but some very significant industries within our economy right now—that is, the retail sector and the accommodation and food services sector. We heard the leader of the Liberal-National Party in this place talk about the Queensland economy. Well, in the Queensland economy over 20 per cent of jobs are in the retail, food services and accommodation sectors. In my electorate of Bonner, over 16 per cent of jobs—in fact 11,043 jobs—are in those sectors.
You cannot tell me that by encouraging people to go out there and spend in those sectors we are not supporting jobs and stimulating the economy. In fact, we heard the shadow Treasurer, prior to his promotion, talking about staring into the eyes of children and asking them about future debt. I would like him to stare into the eyes of the 16-year-old kid who loses his casual job at Coles and cannot get a new cricket bat. I want him to tell the university student who can only eat because of their part-time job in a local restaurant that he does not care about that job. I would like him to tell all of those people in the Westfield shopping centres, the small business strips and the major shopping centres that their jobs are not worth it, that they actually do not care. It is usually women, young people and those most marginalised who work in those jobs and that is why the opposition do not care about that sector of the economy. It is very important. The opposition say, ‘Wait and see.’ They say it is a marathon. You cannot win a marathon when you are behind the pack. (Time expired)
Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am continuing my contribution on the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 here this evening, which Hansard will record I began last evening. Last evening I spoke generally on the royalties regime. I said that the royalties have been set at 18 per cent, that Australia has something like 40 per cent of the world’s uranium deposits, that the use of uranium in power generation saves the world something like 400 million tonnes of CO2 gases per annum and I spoke about the benefit to our economy. I was progressing towards speaking further on the bill. I note that it was such a riveting contribution that the member for Brand has again made sure he is in the chamber to hear my contribution this evening. I have just made a quick appraisal of his contribution because he was the only speaker from the Labor Party on this bill. I notice that, as much as I am sure he has a particular view, he stuck to the party line, saying that he does not want to see it outside the three-mines policy.
I didn’t say that!
I must not digress, because I only have 15 minutes left.
Mr Gray interjecting
Pardon?
Digress as much as you like
I’ll bet you would like me to. As I said last evening, the fact is that Western Australia has an abundance of potential uranium mines because it has an abundance of proven and unproven reserves of uranium. We think that there is an opportunity to do something about that, particularly as the new Barnett government made it very clear that, on election, it would give approval to mining of uranium in Western Australia. As I said last evening, it was interesting that the Carpenter government ran a very strong anti-uranium mining campaign, thinking—I understand from reading the commentary—that it would have a big effect, particularly on the female voting demographic, in the latest Western Australian election. It did not, because the Labor Party lost and the cobbled together coalition, now under Premier Barnett, is in power. So it obviously did not have the effect that Mr Carpenter thought it would.
In fact, the case in Western Australia is such that approval has been given to mine a deposit which is the fifth-largest known deposit in Western Australia. It is called the Mega Uranium deposit and is at Lake Maitland. It is a project in the eastern goldfields, about 100 kilometres south-east of Wiluna, and it is estimated that this deposit is worth somewhere between $1.3 billion and $4.6 billion, depending upon the uranium price at the time. Of course, we have the normal suspects. We have Greens MP Giz Watson saying in the state upper house that she vows to fight the company’s bid. The shadow minister for mines, Jon Ford, has said that Labor remains opposed to uranium mining in Western Australia, although I do note that some of his colleagues in the same house, such as Vince Catania, have a different view, as does the Minister for Resources and Energy in this place, the member for Batman. He finds it quite interesting that many of his colleagues are so opposed to uranium mining when they see the benefits to the world in power generation and that countries that are particularly deficient in energy stocks are obviously moving towards generation through the use of nuclear means.
The Australian Uranium Association has previously identified eight major deposits in Western Australia. I have already listed one of them. Leaving Western Australia unable to mine uranium for some years has been described by the association as ‘economic vandalism’. When making the announcement that he had lifted the ban, Premier Colin Barnett said:
WA prides itself as a world leader in mining, yet an outmoded and philosophical objection to uranium mining was put in place, denying the State a significant economic opportunity.
To put that into context, it is a bit like your state of Queensland, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, saying, ‘We are not going to export coal because it is going to produce all these terrible greenhouse gases in other countries.’ If that were the case, and we had that ‘not in my backyard stuff’, I suspect we would see the pollution in China heavily reduced if it was not burning a lot of Queensland coal. But, no, the other side seem to be absolved from the pollution issue of using coal but still have this left-wing obsession about producing power from what is essentially a clean, non-polluting material source in uranium. We hear all the arguments against it such as: how about Chernobyl? How long ago did Chernobyl happen? Since the effects of Chernobyl and the leak at Long Island, there has barely been a recorded leak anywhere else in the world. In fact, the Chernobyl factory in the USSR, as it then was, could be thought of as an FJ Holden in comparison to the nuclear facilities that are built now, which are absolutely state of the art and highly technologically efficient. I will speak more on that later in any time remaining.
We know that more countries do move to nuclear power because their demands grow. It has been made very clear, for example, that France is building something like its 61st nuclear reactor because it is so energy deficient. France produces about 70 per cent of its power from nuclear means. There are countries all throughout the world using nuclear power. For example, recently I visited a nuclear facility in Argentina. Argentina produced its first nuclear reactor in 1953. That was the year I was born; that is how old the technology is. The Argentineans had to come here just recently, because we are so bereft of this technology, and help to upgrade Lucas Heights. We had to get the Argentineans in because we do not have any local expertise in this area. Argentina is a country that, for lots of different reasons, is reasonably energy deficient as well. They are expanding. While we were there they told us that they were building two further facilities.
I have already mentioned Mega Uranium, and there will be jobs that will come from it. We have heard previous members talking about jobs. In this current climate we need more jobs and, with falling prices in commodities hitting Australia, particularly in a resource-rich state such as Western Australia, extra jobs would not go astray. We have just had 3,400 jobs cuts at BHP Billiton, the majority of them in Western Australia. There were 450 cut at Ravensthorpe and 300 at Mount Keith. This will cost the Western Australian government about $200 million in mining royalties from Ravensthorpe alone. While WA plans to open up its uranium market, creating jobs when they are most needed, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, who has decided to put her hand up and go to the people this week, is blinded to the needs of her own state. She is staying in the way of the development of uranium mining in Queensland. So Queensland still has this philosophical ban, which can only harm the economic wellbeing of Queenslanders. Uranium mining creates billions of dollars of export revenue and thousands of jobs. It is estimated that Queensland’s vast reserves of uranium would increase its export revenues by $1.9 billion in the period to 2030—a fair bit of money and obviously something that the Queensland people would want to take on board.
Selling uranium not only meets the energy needs of many developing nations but drastically cuts their carbon emissions. For India, nuclear power can supply 35 per cent of their domestic power. There is a report which says—and we need to put this in context, because it is a very important statistic—Australia produces 1.5 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. That is not a lot in the whole scheme of things—1.5 per cent. Yet if we were to sell India the uranium they wanted to generate the electricity they need from uranium rather than coal, it would totally offset the carbon emissions that Australia produces. Let me say that again: if we allow India to use our uranium instead of generating power through coal, Australia would totally absolve itself of its 1.5 per cent of emissions by offsetting it with what happens in India. I would have thought that was a pretty sensible proposition, and this can happen in other parts of the world, but for some reason India is on the black list.
The five countries that are allowed the A-bomb, the nuclear bomb, are China, Russia, the US, Britain and France. We say we will not sell to India because they are currently having a fair old blue with Pakistan on their borders, largely out of Kashmir, yet it is okay to sell to those other countries. I can understand us not selling to Pakistan, because Pakistan currently is in a very parlous situation, particularly on its northern border with Afghanistan, and is seemingly quite unstable. Yet India, as it says in this article from the Age on 28 January, ‘has demonstrated a responsible attitude by not spreading its nuclear expertise’. We know that Pakistan actually had some of its scientists helping to advise Iran, so Pakistan was quite irresponsible.
Certainly we would not be trying to sell uranium to North Korea, because of their threats and their jingoistic behaviour to the rest of the world. But there is India, a Commonwealth country, a democracy, and we are saying: ‘India? No, no—you can’t do that.’ Yet what has India done just recently? Only recently, according to the same article from the Age, India did a deal with Kazakhstan, one of its chief competitors in this area, and signed a civil nuclear pact allowing supplies from the uranium-rich Central Asian country to fuel the nuclear plants in India. So Kazakhstan is going to sell its uranium to India, but we are so holier than thou because of the ideological left-wing bent of the Labor Party that we are not going to sell it to them—and who are we harming? Ourselves. We are economically harming ourselves, because exports not only produce jobs but bring foreign earnings. But it would be not only economically responsible but, as I said, environmentally responsible. It is noted by even Tim Flannery, who I will come to in a moment, as a means of reducing greenhouse gases.
The coalition continues to support the previous government’s commitment to selling uranium to India, subject to safeguards being put in place. If you can get a deal and a safeguard arrangement which India say they will enter into, why wouldn’t you do that? I just find it quite unbelievable. In fact, another article I have speaks quite clearly about the confusion surrounding the Labor Party’s position on uranium sales, because it:
… has the potential to damage Australia’s credibility on nuclear diplomacy. If the Government wants to play an active role in improving international nuclear safeguards, it needs to adopt a more consistent approach.
Again, this is a comment from an article written by Daniel Flitton in the Age on 28 January. In other words, its credibility on this issue is being eroded because of its inconsistent approach. So I say to those opposite: we are largely talking about the royalties arrangement for the uranium in the Northern Territory and setting aside a percentage, but we could be doing this all around Australia. As I said, Olympic Dam is one of the biggest resource pits in the world, providing a massive amount of income to this country. There are lots of olympic dams around the country and there are lots of deposits in my state of Western Australia that have not even gone any further than being pegged because of the previous bans, and yet here we are, so out of touch with the power generation of the rest of the world.
The clean coal technology that is being touted by the Rudd government has not happened. In fact, they really have not put any money into it and there is nothing happening on that issue. Australia has a massive amount of gas reserves, but when you put it in context it is only three per cent of the world’s known reserves. It is still a massive amount of gas, and we know that Woodside is looking at its next Pluto train in the Pilbara, but we need to have a number of alternatives—and not just alternative energy sources like solar and wind but baseload power which will come out of facilities such as uranium reactors that will produce electricity to meet Australia’s energy needs.
In the Australian on 5 February 2009, scientist Tim Flannery, the former Australian of the Year, went so far as to say that the government’s approach to selling uranium to India was immoral. He said:
Australia’s moral position of selling them—
India—
coal, which is a bloody poison, but not selling uranium doesn’t make any sense.
… … …
… there’s no doubt coal is a much more damaging prospect for India than uranium.
How about that!
In the last few seconds I have, the issue I want to discuss is uranium storage. Australia is well placed to store spent uranium. We are keeping isotopes in hospital basements, and that is not the way to store spent nuclear material. We need a decent storage regime. (Time expired)
The Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 is welcome legislation. It puts a formal and automatic proposal in place for a royalties regime in the Northern Territory, which of course is still a Commonwealth territory in terms of the mining of uranium. In the same breath as doing that, the government are admitting that ‘uranium’ is no longer a dirty word. We survived for all those years with their three mines policy, and the difficulty of changing that in the Senate was just outrageous. Suddenly, this legislation openly admits that the government have changed their policy on uranium mining, and the comments that the member for Canning just made in that regard are very sensible. His was a very pragmatic analysis of the situation.
I will now take the opportunity to look at some of the difficulties that still exist and at how there can be significant abuse of the authorisation and approval of these particular mines. The government speaks primarily about the management of a royalties regime. It has been acknowledged in the offshore oil industry for a long time that it is more sensible to have a profit based tax than an ad valorem tax, whereby it is a tax per tonne. The latter does not let the community share in the good times and it does not protect a lot of mineral deposits in the bad times, when a fixed ad valorem rate per tonne can be very expensive. A profit based tax for the oil industry was decided on, as I recollect, in the early years of the Hawke government, with the approval of the opposition. It is a much more practical approach because it is a form of income tax, with variations. So that is a sensible approach.
We look at the circumstances confronting Australia today and see the very significant retrenchments that are occurring in the mining industry. The Ravensthorpe mine, which was closed completely, is a classic example of that. One would think that there would be better initiatives for employing the sort of people being retrenched in the industry. The member for Canning has made the point that there could be opportunities were uranium mines to open promptly. Of course, some have been discovered, but most have still got a lot of approval processes to get through before those displaced mine workers could have an alternative job. The $42 billion stimulus package will not do that, unless they want to be checkout chicks or have some skills in cottage construction. As we know, many of the miners that are being retrenched are those on the construction side of the industry. They are the first to go when there is a cutback and they need job opportunities that are not catered for in this $42 billion package—although maybe some of them could become fitters of pink batts! The sorts of jobs that would suit these people are not being encouraged.
There was a major campaign during the period of the Howard government to change the tax laws—and tax, of course, is fundamental to this legislation—to encourage exploration, picking up on a Canadian tax arrangement. Dedicated exploration companies frequently declare losses because they are constantly spending money in looking for new mineral development opportunities. As such, they have losses which, under our tax law, accumulate in their books. Of course, these companies are of no benefit until they make profits, which may take a long time, and so that does not make investing in exploration very attractive for the typical investor. The Canadian process is to have what they term a ‘flow-through share’. It is the reverse of franked dividends, where the dividends are franked. Instead, where a company does not have to pay tax, the shareholder does not have to pay tax either. In this case, the company can allocate its losses from a tax perspective to the shareholder, which of course can be very attractive to the shareholder as a style of investment. There are many examples where people have participated in those sorts of tax friendly schemes.
It appears to me that if we want more people out there looking for uranium—now we have suddenly made it a good mineral rather than a bad mineral—then in fact it is time, in this particular environment, to consider tax assistance through the flow-through share principles for the broader mining exploration industry. I take this opportunity with this legislation to argue for that. When it was being promoted to the Howard government, the mining industry was booming; there were plenty of profits to be made in exploration and there was no need to give this concession. In the present economic circumstances, it certainly should be considered and, of course, it would contribute to further exploration in the pursuit of uranium. Uranium is in demand around the world and, again, as companies move away from carbon based sources of energy and on to uranium, you get a very serious increase in demand and the profits associated with that. That is good for the nation because the nation gets royalties, for which this legislation is designed, and a lot of jobs are involved, particularly in the development of these mines, as we have learnt in recent times. So there is every reason for the government to be out there doing everything it can in the wider context to encourage exploration.
My state of Western Australia was, under the previous state government, identified in the international mining industry as the toughest place in the world to do business because there was a total collapse of public policy in the approvals process. To its credit, the newly elected government has given that high priority and is trying to sort it out. But, as we read in the second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum, the distribution of royalties is reasonably complex, because the Commonwealth will remain the collecting agent. They will provide the full amount collected to the Territory government and then it has an obligation under the Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory, introduced in the years of the Fraser government, to make a pro rata payment to Aboriginal interests.
That is fine, but I have to draw to the attention of the House correspondence I have had with the minister for Indigenous affairs on behalf of Indigenous persons residing in the northern part of my electorate, soon to be inherited by the member for Kalgoorlie, who has just entered the House. In that area the Indigenous people are complaining about the collapse of due process within the land and sea council—in that case, the Yamatji Land and Sea Council. I have further problems of a similar nature but in an entirely different area, which I will not mention, in the southern area of my electorate with the great southern land and sea council. The point I am making to you is that, if we want to get into the business of exporting uranium, if we want people to be out there investing in exploration and employing people in that process and creating assets for people in the future, which may be needed to pay off a couple of hundred billion dollars worth of Commonwealth government debt, we have got to get some smooth transitions, and one of the great hurdles or logjams is within the Aboriginal approvals process. Here is a circumstance where the government is passing legislation to ensure that Aboriginal people associated with a particular area of land where mining development might occur get the equivalent amount of money in a trust fund that applies to the Territory government.
But the evidence is that they cannot make up their minds. The Yamatji council, and other land and sea councils operating within my electorate, meet once every three months—and only if they have enough money left in their budget to travel to some locality for that purpose. You cannot say to people with money willing to invest: ‘Come along to Australia and start investing money, form a company and buy the appropriate equipment; the worst thing that can happen to you is that you find something.’ I say that because it is when you find some minerals that you are in real trouble, because all of a sudden every possible authority in the country descends upon you—the heritage people and the environmental people. The piece of land has been there forever but it is only when someone finds something of value that all these other parties become interested. I guess it was highlighted by the extensive debates we had in this place about Hindmarsh Island in South Australia, where it became blatantly obvious that a group of individuals, not Indigenous, who wanted to prevent the development on that island co-opted a group of Indigenous people to claim all sorts of outrageous, as it turned out, cultural changes relating to the island—amongst others, all the local women were going to cease having babies if it was interfered with in any further way. I might add that people were living all over it at the time, but there was no marina and other things that have been developed since. What I am saying is that in that case it was real estate, but when we get back to uranium mining, which we are trying to simplify in terms of administrative procedures in this bill, all of a sudden activists stir up trouble amongst Aboriginal people, as they have in the past, and all of a sudden the development does not go ahead.
Major mining companies around the world, considering they are involved in Africa and many other countries, are very sensitive to these issues. They do not want to trample on the rights of Aboriginal people. But, when they are being manipulated by other parties for purposes that are unrelated and are often denied the royalties for which this legislation is designed, that is an outrage. The nation loses and people do not get jobs. What has occurred in Western Australia with INPEX is that the traditional landowners have got nothing because the state government at the time was unable to come to a conclusion regarding the provision of a site for an LNG process and they have gone to the Northern Territory. They do not have any Aboriginal problems in the Northern Territory because it is going to be built in Darwin. But these people do not get a cent because other people, partly in the higher echelons of the land council structure, messed it up.
Indigenous people in Geraldton have come to me with that complaint. There could be uranium out there—there have been spot finds in the past—but there is iron ore and all those developments. These people have come along and said, ‘There’s an opportunity for us and our people.’ One bloke, an Aboriginal person with a university degree, said, ‘We want to get out there and start businesses servicing and being employed by these mining companies.’ The Yamatji Land and Sea Council meet occasionally but not very regularly to give approval to these matters, and typically, at the end of the meeting, because some family interest has not been accommodated, they do not come to a conclusion. It just leaves people who are trying to develop our country and make investments in a very difficult period hung out to dry, so they pack up and go. I have other reasons to raise a similar issue. It is nice to have the royalties regime in place, but there will not be a cent paid out if all these processes are so deleterious to the development of whatever the find has been that it will not happen.
The member for Canning made the point about isotopes when it comes to low-level storage of radioactive products. Unfortunately—and, I think, unwisely—with uranium, if you are unfortunate enough to need to be injected with radioactive isotopes for the tracking of certain diseases or infirmities that you might have, when the doctor who administers that injection takes off their rubber gloves and disposes of the syringe, that becomes low-level radioactive waste. It is stored all over the capital cities of Australia because we are still fighting and arguing about where you might put a storage facility in the middle of a desert for our own domestic waste of that nature. When you get to plutonium and things like that, there may be other difficulties, but there is very little of that. You could probably pack that in a 44-gallon drum.
I am making the point that in this industry we need to get rid of the myths, but also, in terms of the fact that Aboriginal people, as provided for in this bill, are going to be one of the major beneficiaries, it is about time that their decision-making bodies became effective and efficient. Furthermore, and in the broader context, I have argued all my life that if—to give my analogy—you were to go to the hotel tonight, get drunk, get back in your car and drive it, you would have committed an offence and the police would deal with you accordingly, but you do not ring up and ask the police, ‘Can I go to the hotel?’ Why is it that, in so many areas of development, we have all these preliminary requirements and hurdles that people have to jump over for years? Usually they cannot even do them all at once; they have to go and get an approval from the heritage people, then they have to go and do an archaeology study and then, when that turns up a couple of little chips of rock that might have been the point of a spear, that is a major matter of concern. They talk about middens. Middens are waste dumps. We do not give a special cultural heritage value to the ones we create—landfill.
The whole point about it is: why do you have to go through all these things—heritage and environment—before you can mine? Why doesn’t the law as it is written apply so that you commence your development and comply with the law and, just as when we visit a hotel or any of the other examples I could give, you only get into trouble when you break the law? Furthermore, you should get judged by a person competent in the law, whereas all these preliminary processes are usually judged by public servants with no legal training whatsoever and often a high degree of bias as to what they believe is right. I happen to live on the Swan River, and I am just trying to build a new house. In the process of getting that approval, which only took a year, I was asked what colour I was going to paint it. I felt like saying ‘purple with pink spots’. When you have public servants interfering to that point in development, I do not think it is in the public interest.
The Aboriginal people are entitled to their royalties, but we have to make sure that they are not the reason that they never get them. I think that is a very important part to be considered in this legislation, but I welcome the fact that the government and of course the government of Western Australia have now approved of uranium mining. (Time expired)
I am pleased to speak today on the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008. The purpose of this bill is to apply a uniform royalty to all new uranium projects in the Northern Territory. In terms of royalties, this bill will make the development of uranium resources consistent with that of other minerals in the Northern Territory. The bill applies to prescribed substances under the Atomic Energy Act 1953, which, in addition to uranium, specifies thorium or ‘an element having an atomic number greater than 92 or any other substance declared by the regulations to be capable of being used for the production of atomic energy or for research’. Thorium has the atomic number of 90 and uranium the atomic number of 92. The elements thereafter in the periodic table are referred to as transuranic and are generally man made—for example, curium and plutonium—and are unlikely to be found naturally, except rarely in tiny quantities. Therefore the practical application of this bill, as the title implies, is for uranium, which occurs naturally in the Northern Territory in highly valuable concentrations, as it does in my home state of Western Australia and, more specifically, in the vast area of the new electorate of Durack.
In 1978 the Northern Territory was granted self-government by the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth retained ownership of uranium and other prescribed substances as defined in the Atomic Energy Act 1953. Uranium had already been mined in the Territory before that date. The first mine was set up at Rum Jungle in the 1950s by the Commonwealth and there were several after that, developed by various interests. The Northern Territory has one currently operating uranium mine, the Ranger uranium mine in the Alligator River region, enclosed by but separate from Kakadu National Park. Ranger has been operating since 1980, and indications are that it will be operating for many years yet.
Uranium royalties in the Northern Territory to date have been determined on a project-by-project basis. Royalty arrangements have been determined individually for each mine, taking into account a range of considerations, including the state of the market, any existing negotiated non-statutory payments to Indigenous communities, loss or damage likely to be suffered by Indigenous communities affected by the proposal and royalty rates determined for other mines. It is significant that this legislation does not pertain to Ranger, which has an existing and longstanding royalty arrangement in place. However, all new mines in the Territory will fall under this legislation in the future.
The Northern Territory has extensive uranium resources, from the Red Centre right up to the Top End. A range of explorers are currently active, and there is considerable potential for a number of uranium mines to develop in the coming years. In 2005 my colleague the Hon. Ian Macfarlane, as Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources with the Howard government, sought to make some improvements to assist development of the Australian uranium industry. He instituted the formation of a steering committee to develop the Australian Uranium Industry Framework. The steering group was guided by the vision of:
A sustainable, safe, secure, socially and environmentally responsible uranium industry, making a growing contribution to Australia and the world’s energy supply well into the 21st century and assisting in reduced global greenhouse gas emissions.
To this end, the group reviewed the exploration, mining, milling and transportation of Australian uranium to support the sustainable development of our uranium industry.
In 2006 the Uranium Industry Framework Steering Group presented its report, containing some 20 recommendations for the sustainable development of our uranium industry. This piece of legislation that we are discussing this evening, the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008, is concomitant with recommendation 13 of the Uranium Industry Framework Steering Group. Specifically, the recommendation stated:
The Australian Government should establish, in consultation with stakeholders, a royalty framework for the uranium industry in the Northern Territory.
The Uranium Industry Framework Steering Group included representatives from government and Indigenous groups, but the majority were from uranium industry or industry groups. As a result, more than 150 industry and government experts contributed to the development of the Uranium Industry Framework. Therefore, it is to be expected that the industry welcomes this legislation, which is directly based on the strong level of industry consultation initiated by the Howard government.
Going back a decade or two, uranium was made into something of a mining pariah by Labor with the introduction of the now infamous three-mines policy. Companies in the Northern Territory can now have the same expectations and certainty about developing uranium interests as they do for other metals. Companies will pay the same 18 per cent profit based royalty on uranium as they do on other minerals under the Northern Territory’s Mineral Royalty Act. For uranium companies, this is a particularly useful simplification of matters when there is a multimineral or polymetallic resource and uranium occurs with the other mineral resources. Industry is also strongly supportive of this legislation because it pursues the profit based model of royalty payments rather than an ad valorem approach. Companies will pay royalties based on profit rather than revenue, which is a strong incentive for the industry, encouraging investment and development. Companies feel this will help ensure maximum longevity of mines, which in turn means longer term benefits for communities with regard to jobs and the economic and social contributions that come with mining developments.
Whilst it is admirable that Minister Ferguson has introduced this legislation, continuing the excellent work put in by my colleague the member for Groom and the Howard government, I cannot help but note Labor’s confused and ever-changing stance towards the development of Australia’s uranium industry. It is also admirable that the Minister for Resources and Energy and his federal colleagues managed to get past the irrational Labor prejudice that prompted the three-mines policy and then the ‘no new mine’ policy. However, this is still a government that says one thing and does another. This Rudd Labor government says it supports the development of new markets and wants Australia to be the world’s biggest uranium exporter, but I question Labor’s overall commitment because, with all this new-found enthusiasm for uranium, only one Labor member could be bothered to speak on this bill apart from the Minister for Resources and Energy. That member spent some time explaining why he thought uranium mining led the way to the world’s best practice in environmental standards, which I do not for a minute question, but elsewhere in his speech he made the comments that his party had a long history of supporting the development of a uranium mining industry in Australia but had from time to time taken positions opposed to uranium mining. Of course, as these positions against uranium mining occurred when Labor was in power, they were quite detrimental to the development of the industry, as my colleagues before me have pointed out.
Parliamentary Secretary Gray, obviously a keen exponent of the industry himself, is in the unenviable position of being in a party which has supported uranium mining in the past, then decided it was undesirable and set a limit of three mines for the whole country, then said there should be no new mines and now, whilst apparently endorsing the industry on a national level, could only find two members to speak in support of this legislation and has allowed state Labor governments in two states with rich uranium resources to enforce and go to election on uranium mining bans.
I take this opportunity to bring to the House’s attention a particularly blatant example of Labor’s confused and contradictory attitude on uranium and the nuclear power industry. Labor has recently and quietly appointed a well-known antinuclear campaigner, no less than Professor Ian Lowe, the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, to represent the interests of the general public on an advisory council to ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. ARPANSA is a federal agency that is charged with responsibility for protecting the health and safety of people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation, such as X-rays, and non-ionising radiation, such as solar UV radiation. It is not just about nuclear; it is about the sun, and the effects of ionising and non-ionising radiation. ARPANSA is part of the Department of Health and Ageing and falls in the portfolio of the parliamentary secretary and proud anti-uranium mining campaigner, Queensland senator the Hon. Jan McLucas. It makes me wonder if she is also a proud campaigner against jobs for Australians.
A public poll conducted by Essential Research in January this year shows that 43 per cent of Australians totally support Australia developing nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity—that is more than the 35 per cent who oppose it. I will give those figures again: Essential Research, a reputable company, in January this year did a survey the results of which showed that 43 per cent of Australians supported nuclear power and 35 per cent opposed uranium power. That is what the general public thinks.
Professor Lowe was elected president of the Australian Conservation Foundation in 2004. The Australian Conservation Foundation states on its website:
Mining uranium in Australia poses serious, continuing and unresolved problems and fails to meet key environmental sustainability criteria.
It does not say that you have to keep your head in the ground because you will glow in the dark if you mention the word, but it is in the same vein. This same organisation is currently recruiting, as part of an alliance, someone to do the job of WA uranium-free campaigner. It is an absolute disgrace. I rest my case. How can Professor Lowe represent the interests of the general public? His responsibility is to advise the CEO of ARPANSA how to move. How can Labor think that he does? Yet he will serve in this role representing the public for the next two years. Once again Labor says one thing and does another.
Minister Ferguson is well aware of the potential of Australia’s uranium resources. This legislation supports the development of those resources, and it was the very first point he made in his second reading speech on 3 December last year:
Australia has over one-third of the world’s medium-cost reserves of uranium, which have the potential to make a major contribution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. As the world is moving to a low-carbon future, the uranium industry in Australia is forecast to grow rapidly and could add an additional $14 billion to $17 billion to Australia’s GDP over the period to 2030.
I could not agree more about the potential of our uranium resources. But if the minister is serious about making a major contribution to reducing global emissions then he could hardly do better than to assist one of the largest developing economies in the world, that is India, reduce its emissions and increasing emissions into the future. As I said before, this is a government which says it wants Australia to be the world’s biggest uranium exporter, supports the development of new uranium markets and wants to encourage further resources and energy investment between Australia and India. Selling uranium to India ticks all these boxes. It is mutually beneficial for Australia and India, and the mutual benefits are considerable. This is a government which has made any number of positive comments about our relationship with India and its desire to strengthen economic and trade ties. But the government says it will not sell India uranium even though the Howard government made the decision to, believing the appropriate safeguards were in place. And the Rudd government agrees that the safeguards are in place for the US to do so.
This is an absurd and irrational position for the government to take, even more so when you consider the greenhouse emissions which could be reduced. We all know how frequently and in what glowing terms the Rudd government has spoken about reducing carbon emissions. Selling uranium to India would give the Rudd government the chance to make a significant international contribution to carbon emissions reduction. In 2005 the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre in the US, which advises the Department of Energy, compiled a ranking of per capita fossil fuel carbon dioxide emission rates. This is carbon emissions from fossil fuels per person per year. In 2005, sadly the last and best figures we have, Australia was 10th in the world with nearly five tonnes of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emitted per person per year. We are a developed country and we are at the level of five tonnes per person per year. We have a developed economy, as I said.
India is not a developed economy. In fact, you would be drawing a very long bow if you suggested that India was anywhere near being a developed economy. Many subsistence farmers across the rural areas of India use cow dung as a fuel. They are not connected to electricity. They have no access to electricity at all. However, India is developing rapidly. The critical figure that I have not given to the House at this point is that per capita per annum CO2 production in India is about one-third of one tonne. The point I make and bring to the attention of the House, and members will find it alarming I am sure, is that as India moves to become a developed country the per person usage of electricity will go up exponentially. If all those houses and all those lives were hooked up to electricity made with fossil fuel, how on earth would we be able to do anything serious to reduce global greenhouse gases? The use of uranium rather than coal fired power would make a difference to the level of carbon emitted by India as it grows.
The Northern Territory has important uranium resources and this legislation will assist the Australian uranium industry to develop. Selling that same uranium to India is another way for the industry to develop. This legislation is a step in the right direction for the Rudd Labor government and I strongly urge the government to continue on this path—embrace and encourage uranium mining across the country and take every means necessary to foster an industry which has so much potential for our country both in the current economic climate and in the future. As members of this House, it is our job to do the right thing, and that is not necessarily the most popular thing for the Australian public. We are charged with the future of this country and right now we know that there are more Australians out there who are prepared to embrace a future that involves the mining and, possibly, the generation of electricity using Australia’s uranium. We therefore do not need to throw these red herrings into very reasonable advisory committees who are hell-bent on destroying any potential nuclear industry in Australia. We need to be concerned with income, jobs and the balance of trade. It is our responsibility. We need to look at the issues I have raised here and pass this legislation, and let uranium miners get on with the job.
It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008, which of course is a bill that responds to the concerns of the Uranium Industry Framework members. It addresses commercial concerns of uranium project proponents in the Northern Territory. It establishes a uniform royalty regime of 18 per cent for uranium projects in the Northern Territory, thereby delivering costing certainty to commercial operators in the planning stage. The proposed 18 per cent royalty would make uranium consistent with other mineral developments in the Northern Territory. It will provide for the Northern Territory government, via the Northern Territory Treasury, to collect the royalty on behalf of the Commonwealth, and provide for the Northern Territory judicial system to be used if prosecution or dispute resolution is required.
The opposition supports this bill. We are strong supporters of Australia’s uranium mining industry. As a member from South Australia, I am a very strong supporter of our uranium industry. In South Australia, we have by far the largest known uranium resources in Australia. At this time, more than three-quarters of the known and inferred resources are found in my state. Those resources have great economic potential for the future of my state going forward. Other significant resources of uranium in Australia of course are found in the Northern Territory and in recent times exploration has begun in Western Australia with the ridiculous ban being lifted, and also in Queensland, where of course the ban still exists. I will come back to that.
Australia has 1.1 million tonnes of known uranium—reasonably assured resources of uranium. To put that in context, Australia has a greater share of the world’s uranium resources than Saudi Arabia’s share of global oil resources. So when Mike Rann, the Premier of South Australia, talks about Adelaide becoming the new Dubai, he might not necessarily be wrong. However, of course, many things that Mike Rann says do in the end become wrong.
We are very supportive of this bill. We understand in this time of economic turmoil that for the mining and resource sector this framework is an important way to provide certainty. Certainly for the uranium industry, it is quality in a very short measure from this government, unfortunately, in particular from certain segments of the Labor Party. However, it should be noted that the minister in this respect is a supporter of this industry and has been working away, as I understand it, within his own ranks to convince some of his colleagues that uranium is not the beast it has been made out to be in the past by the Labor Party.
I want to reflect on the value of uranium to Australia and to the world in respect of one of the great challenges facing our country: climate change. At the moment, we are in the middle of a long and difficult debate on Australia’s response to climate change. We have seen the government’s attempts at responding to this by their announcement in the green paper and the white paper of an emissions trading scheme. It is alleged that carbon dioxide pollution is a cause of climate change. The government’s policy in this respect has been to find ways to reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, particularly in energy-producing sectors. In that respect, the previous Howard government made many efforts to encourage both domestic and international sectors to find new ways of using different types of energy. For instance, I understand the largest solar panel powered station in the Southern Hemisphere was being built just south of Mildura. We are also part of the framework which addressed the deforestation in Indonesia.
One of the other ways to address the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere is to use nuclear power. Australia does not at this stage need to have nuclear power. Other countries have quite substantial nuclear power industries. France is a notable one among those. The other one is India. India has a large and growing economy. As the previous speaker, the member for Kalgoorlie, mentioned, it has an economy that is developing very quickly, putting more pressure on their energy needs and desires. In that respect we are a little aghast—shocked, I guess—at the Rudd government’s approach to selling uranium to India, because uranium is an important fuel for developing nuclear energy.
It does come as some surprise that this comes from a government that constantly berates us on this side of the House about our alleged opposition to policies on climate change. They sit on their pedestal and accuse us of being sceptics or whatever other language they want to use today; at the same time they refuse to sell uranium to India, which would enormously reduce the amount of carbon that goes into the atmosphere. We know we cannot solve climate change in Australia alone. We can do what we can in Australia. We can move to more energy-efficient buildings. We can increase the use of solar panels. We can move our industry to a more carbon friendly situation. We can look at issues like emissions trading schemes and so forth. However, we have less than one per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, so we cannot solve the problem of climate change alone.
But a country like India, which is developing very quickly and is very, very large, contributes an enormous amount to the problem of carbon emissions. So it makes very little sense for this government to refuse to sell uranium to India. It refuses on the basis that India refuses to distinguish between sales for the civilian use of uranium—that is, in nuclear energy power plants—and sales of uranium for use in military weapons. This is because India is not a party to the NPT—the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It has its own domestic reasons for that. However, the United States of America has seen fit to find a way to make sure that they can sell uranium to India for civilian purposes, with an investigation regime to make sure that it is not being misused or used for military purposes. This is something which I am sure the Indians—being very good friends of Australia—would undertake with us.
So it makes no sense at all, in my view, to let an issue like the NPT stand in the way of giving India the uranium it needs to develop an industry which will reduce the amount of carbon being leached into the atmosphere. It seems to be an ideological bent of some on the other side that it has had to do so. We know that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts came into public life as a great opponent of nuclear power and uranium mining in this country. Unfortunately, it seems that he is well listened to when it comes to these matters. The basis of the argument is that India would not use uranium for the right purposes. That has got to be the basis of the argument. So it is okay to sell uranium to China. And I am all for that; that is very good for my state, South Australia. It is very good for the economy and it creates jobs. However, to argue that, on the other hand, you cannot sell it to India because they have refused to sign the NPT—when the Americans have already said that is okay—does not make much sense.
So let us look at some facts. The Rudd government is happy to preside over $2.5 billion a year in exports of carbon-polluting coal to India, but it will not sell it uranium. Within seven years, India will become the world’s third largest carbon emitter. Already Australian exports of uranium contribute to a saving of nearly two billion tonnes of carbon emissions by the world’s nuclear industry. They are the countries that we have deemed that it is reasonable to sell to—China, but not India. It is estimated that our potential reserves could save the planet 11 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 alone—significant savings of the gas which is alleged to be causing this climate change. India’s objective by 2050 is to have 35 per cent of its power nuclear generated. But we refuse to help them. We would rather see India continue to contribute to climate change by burning fossil fuels. It is a policy driven by ideological purity; it is not driven by the real need to address climate change. What we see all too often from this government is a political approach to this issue. We have seen it in recent days with the emissions trading scheme. We had an inquiry one day and, the next day, we did not and the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics was hung out to dry.
This is all about the Prime Minister having to placate the left wing of his party on this issue. Many in the left wing of the Labor Party came into politics, became interested in politics, in the early eighties, opposing uranium mining. In previous generations it was Vietnam; in the early eighties that group came in for being opposed to uranium mining. What we have seen in this approach to sales to India is purely ideologically driven. It is detrimental to our country, it is detrimental to our climate and it is very detrimental to my state of South Australia—as I said earlier, we have about three-quarters of the known and inferred resources. In particular, there is the great mine site of Olympic Dam in the north of South Australia, which is one of the state’s greats. I was fortunate enough, in a previous incarnation, to visit my colleague’s seat of Grey with my then boss. It is a fantastic site. It employs many good South Australians. Roxby Downs is a great town. Many good people live in Roxby Downs. In fact, a very good AFL footballer, Luke Darcy, comes from Roxby Downs. But I digress. My point is that Olympic Dam is a great asset for South Australia. It creates many jobs, it is great for our economy and of course the Premier of our state loves to brag about Olympic Dam.
While I am talking about the Premier of South Australia, I must mention that he is a good example of the kind of Labor Party member that I was talking about earlier. In 1982, when he was an adviser to the then Premier, John Bannon, Mr Rann spent some time writing a book about the dangers of uranium. So we see that Mr Rann, the greatest salesman of uranium, only 20 years ago was writing a book about its dangers. That sort of sums up the ideological challenge within the Labor Party with people like the minister for the environment—people who spent most of their lives opposed to uranium mining but have been able to win the way, unfortunately, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister in this respect. I think it is to the great shame of the government that they have taken this decision.
We have a very good relationship with India—whether it be trade, whether it be cricket or whether it be through opportunities for further economic development. Of course, India and China are the two great developing nations of the world. They are facing difficulties at the moment, like all countries are, with the economic conditions; however, they are developing very rapidly. Their middle classes are developing very rapidly, which means they need more generation of power as they grow. We should be helping in that respect, as we help China by selling them uranium for their nuclear power plants. We should do so with India as well, because the figures on the savings are quite significant. I am very disappointed with the approach of the government in relation to the uranium industry, in particular in relation to the sale of uranium to India.
The other aspect I am very disappointed about with the government is that we hear from the great number of Queenslanders on the other side who run the government and who are influential in this place—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others who have taken over from the New South Wales Right, although they seem to be exerting their influence again in recent times—but the only state now remaining which refuses to mine uranium is Queensland. Queensland is now in the middle of an election campaign, and hopefully after 22 March—I think that is the date of the election—we might have a new government that will lift that ban.
We have seen this week the Queensland government lose its AAA credit rating, and it is now $1.6 billion in deficit. It is going to drag on Australia’s economic performance, and of course it is another big debt. But we have seen the ideological approach from the Premier of Queensland on this issue. We know that there is much uranium in Queensland and, if mining were permitted, it would add $1.5 billion to the gross state product, it would generate an additional $204 million in state revenue, it would increase export values from Queensland by $1.9 billion and it would increase Australia’s GDP by $950 million. Can you imagine the number of jobs that would support? That is the new language, of course. We hear about job creation ‘supporting jobs’ these days. It would increase Australia’s consumption by $910 million and it would help avoid 900 million tonnes of CO2 emissions—the equivalent of Queensland being carbon-free for more than five years. If only they would lift the ideological ban on uranium mining.
Nationally, over the period to 2030, permitting uranium mining in South Australia, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland will increase GDP by $14 billion, increase consumption by $12 billion, and help avoid 15 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions—the equivalent of Australia being carbon-free for 20 years. Those are quite extraordinary figures, I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker. So it is a great pity that the Queensland government retains this ban. Fortunately, late last year we saw the WA government’s ban overturned, with the election of a Liberal Premier, with the support of the National Party—and a fine premier Premier Carpenter is turning out to be, as well.
Premier Barnett.
Premier Barnett—sorry. He has overturned that ban and we have seen the WA uranium industry already take steps forward.
Finally, I wanted to reflect on another indication of Labor’s lack of commitment to the uranium industry and nuclear power. It comes on the back of the member for Kalgoorlie having raised it. I understand the member for Kalgoorlie raised the fact that the Rudd government has recently appointed Professor Ian Lowe to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. You might say that it is not a surprising thing to occur; however, you have to look at Mr Lowe’s views on uranium. They are quite extraordinary. He is completely opposed to uranium mining, and you would think that to have someone of that ilk on ARPANSA is a sure sign of the ideological deals that have to be done by—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In relation to Professor Lowe, he was reappointed as president by the previous government, in October 2005.
That is not a point of order. The member has the call and is in order.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your protection. I appreciate that. It is interesting that the minister got up with a point of order when only two people from that side of the House want to speak on this bill. Generally we have quite a long speakers list.
Mrs Elliot interjecting
I do not think that is right, Minister; I think you need to be a touch careful. I know you are in trouble in your portfolio. I have got aged-care homes knocking at the door saying, ‘She’s coming’ and then, ‘She’s not coming’—
Order! The member has the call and will speak to the bill.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being diverted by interjections. It is tempting to raise concerns with ministers who are, I understand, under a bit of pressure at the moment. I do apologise for being diverted.
In summary, we on this side of the House are very supportive of the uranium industry in Australia, particularly in South Australia. It will add to our economy and provide many jobs. At a time when we need to be looking at ways to create jobs, we are all for the development of the uranium industry. I grieve the Labor Party’s approach to this. I know they have ideological problems on this issue. I hope they are able to resolve them so that we can move this industry forward.
I rise to support the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008. I have great hopes that it will increase the prospectivity of the Northern Territory at least in the uranium mining industry. There have been a number of obstacles to the uranium industry in Australia over a long time. These obstacles have been discussed by my colleagues, and I will cover some of them as well. The Northern Territory has only one operational uranium mine, and that is the Ranger mine. The reason it has no more, of course, is that the development of that industry has been impeded by both state and federal Labor Australia-wide.
I do have some reservations about the rate proposed to be charged as a mining royalty. I understand that it brings the uranium industry into line with the rest of the mining industry in the Northern Territory, but a royalty of 18 per cent of net profit seems fairly aggressive to me insofar as the Olympic Dam mine is running at 3½ per cent on production and the Ranger mine contributes 5½ per cent of net profit. While I cannot accurately predict what those sums will be—because profit is one of those very difficult things to analyse from a distance—it is a concern to me that the proposed royalty is as high as 18 per cent. But we will take it as progress, and we are sending a signal to the mining industry that they will have some certainty in this issue and will be able to negotiate with the traditional owners and government knowing exactly where they are heading.
The reason for such a confused approach to the uranium industry and the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia lies squarely at the feet of the Labor Party. The ALP’s approach has been convoluted, inconsistent and totally incomprehensible to many of us—and that is really saying something. The three-mines policy has now, thankfully, been abandoned federally, and I see that as a step forward. It has been abandoned nationally and by the South Australian government and now, we presume, by the Northern Territory government. Of course, it has not been abandoned by Labor Australia-wide. The Queensland government is still opposed to it and, I believe, the Western Australian Labor Party is still opposed—and many of the Australian assets in the uranium industry lie in Queensland and Western Australia. But Labor has abandoned the three-mines policy, at least in a national sense.
The problem we have is the Labor Party’s two-sided approach to the uranium industry. On the one hand they are in favour of mining uranium, but the government of Australia cannot even find enough gumption to sign off on a low-level repository in Australia for medical waste, for instance—and I will come back to that in a little while. On the one hand, they are in favour of mining but, on the other hand, they are totally opposed to nuclear power generation. They are very much like the three brass monkeys sitting on the cupboard. They see no evil, they hear no evil and they speak no evil: ‘We shall not discuss nuclear generation’. My colleague the member for Mayo has just highlighted to this House the opportunities to combat world carbon emissions. Surely, we must at least talk about and consider the one established technology that is capable of delivering real changes to our carbon emissions in the world. The ALP talk of their commitment to reducing carbon emissions, but they are not even willing to debate the technology. Once again, to use a simile, it is very much like trying to get the trucks off our roads but not being allowed to talk about the option of rail. So there is a lack of common sense in their policy stance.
Instead, the government and the Labor Party seem to be fairly convinced that one policy, the ETS, will fix the problem of carbon emissions in Australia. At the same time, they have been spraying money around the economy. Looking back at the $10 billion cash splash just before Christmas, what could we have built with that money in Australia to do something really concrete about reducing carbon emissions? Perhaps we could have considered a nuclear power plant—but that is not the only place we can go. And I am quite happy to state my stance on nuclear power generation to this House. While I have no problems with the technology of nuclear power generation, and would welcome it in Australia, I remain to be convinced that it is the most economic option for us. But we cannot make that decision if we refuse to discuss the option, and that is where the Labor Party is at the moment on this issue. Typically, the government is displaying inconsistency.
In another inconsistency, the government refuses to export uranium to India. As outlined by my friend the member for Mayo, India is a friend and a democracy and will possibly soon be the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. We will not sell uranium to India but we are happy to sell it to nuclear-armed totalitarian regimes. You would have to wonder where we are sitting in this debate.
I have touched on the establishment of a low-level waste repository. This comes back to a local issue. The last proposal in South Australia was that a national low-level nuclear waste repository be built in the Woomera region in the electorate of Grey. Before the last state election in South Australia, Premier Mike Rann ran an appalling scaremongering campaign based on a low-level nuclear waste repository in Australia. It was a cheap, short-sighted stance for political gain. It resulted in a High Court decision banning any future development of a low-level repository in South Australia.
At the time, the Premier said that this waste would damage our clean, green image in South Australia—that this incredibly dangerous waste was too dangerous to be shifted to Woomera, one of the most geologically and politically stable parts of the world, recommended by an independent panel of scientists. It was too dangerous to be shifted there but it still lies in hospital basements around Australia. There is no solution. It is an absolute disgrace that the South Australian government took the stand of opposing the establishment of that repository. In its defence I would say that the current national government, the Labor government, was not opposed to that particular solution—but it was another arm of the Labor Party that did bar it and so now we are looking at a Northern Territory solution.
The same man, Mike Rann, during the Bannon Labor years described Roxby Downs as a mirage in the desert—saying it would never happen; it would never be established. Now, of course, he is a champion of the uranium mining industry. If you had listened to Premier Rann, you would think that he in fact discovered Roxby Downs and was instrumental in its establishment. No wonder the Australian people have no idea what the ALP think about anything to do with uranium. I think the problem the ALP has with uranium is that they have groups within their midst that they have encouraged, for reasons of strength and to enlist people to their cause, who have ideological issues and use inappropriate tools to try and harm others who they see as their political foes. In the end there is a great danger in this: if you encourage way-out views into your midst then in the end you become hostage to them. That is what has happened with the ALP.
While I take some encouragement from the fact that they have gotten rid of the three-mines policy and they are prepared to adopt the new system of taxing the natural resource in the Northern Territory—I see that as a positive step forward—we still have these other problems which I have outlined. I ask them to open their eyes and ears—to fix the issue of the low-level repository in Australia, to get the Indian sales sorted out, to at least get nuclear power on the discussion table and to give the appropriate signals to the industry. We have had 20 years or more of confusion and intellectually bankrupt attitudes to the industry, and it is time to move on. Now it is perhaps a little more popular within the ALP to back a uranium industry in so much as they see it as a way of bailing out a lot of their state governments to provide a revenue flow to them. But if this all means that we are now in a position to encourage the Australian uranium industry, at least in the Northern Territory and South Australia and hopefully in Western Australia, it is a good move and it should be encouraged. I support the bill.
I am pleased to speak on the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 and to support it. This is a relatively technical and uncontroversial bill. It essentially introduces a legislative royalty regime to any future uranium mine in the Northern Territory. Effectively it will apply the existing 18 per cent profits based royalty regime that is prescribed by Northern Territory laws. The current bill that we are discussing in the parliament goes back in some senses to the time of the former industry minister the Hon. Ian Macfarlane. In his time as a minister, in August 2005 he announced the formation of a steering committee to try and create opportunities for, to examine impediments to and to look at how we might be able to develop the Australian uranium mining industry over the short, medium and long term.
It was a very useful committee and a very effective one. When they brought their report down in September 2006, it did make recommendations for a royalty regime in the Northern Territory to be established. Interestingly, the report talks about separate royalty regimes being inappropriate to a growing uranium mining sector as new entrants to the uranium industry are uncertain about their potential royalty liabilities. Of course, that was in the context of a federal government led by Prime Minister Howard that was very much in favour of trying to develop and grow the uranium industry in this country. There have been some interesting developments since the election of the new government in the context of uranium exports, which I would very much like to touch on in my presentation here today in the parliament.
Australia has over one-third of the world’s uranium reserves. This bill gives me the opportunity not only on my own behalf as someone who is very interested in this topic but also on behalf of the constituents of Ryan to shine a torch on the government’s attitude, its mindset and perhaps its values in relation to uranium mining. There has been some hypocrisy in its policies and some glaring inconsistencies. In 2001 Australia supplied about 22 per cent of the world market for mined uranium and about 12 per cent of world reactor requirements. Interestingly, this made some 350 billion kilowatts of electricity per year—equivalent to almost twice Australia’s requirements. So it is certainly no small amount of electricity.
For those who are not aware of uranium I would like to highlight a few technical points which I certainly did not know until I prepared for this speech and learnt some more about uranium, which I found very interesting. Uranium is a very heavy metal which can be used as an abundant source of concentrated energy. It occurs in most rocks in concentrations of two to four parts per million and is as common in the earth’s crust as tin, tungsten and molybdenum. Interestingly, it also occurs in sea water and can be recovered from the oceans. Uranium was discovered in 1789 by a German chemist, Dr Martin Klaproth. It was named after the planet Uranus, which had been discovered only eight years earlier, in 1781. Because of its high density, uranium is used in the keels of yachts and as counterweights for aircraft control surfaces as well as radiation shielding. Being no technical person and certainly not having a full appreciation of science, I note that uranium’s melting point is 1,132 degrees Celsius. I do know, though, that the chemical symbol for uranium is U.
I will go to the more substantive points, which I know most of my constituents in the Ryan electorate will be very interested in because of their interest in matters relating to energy production, the efficient use of energy and how we might be able to make life as easy as possible for people not only in this country but also in other parts of the world where energy is an issue. The world will need a greatly increased energy supply in the next two decades—in particular, from clean generated electricity. Nuclear power provides some 15 per cent of the world’s electricity, almost 24 per cent of electricity in the OECD nations and some 34 per cent in the EU—and its use is increasing. Nuclear power is the most environmentally benign way of producing electricity on a massive scale. Without it, most of the world would have to rely on fossil fuels for a continuous reliable supply of electricity. And we know the damage that fossil fuels do to our environment.
From 1980 to 2006, total world primary energy demand grew by 62 per cent, and to 2030 it is projected to grow at a slightly lesser rate but to grow nevertheless. Electricity growth is even stronger, and is projected to almost double from 2006 to 2030. We all know that there is going to be increased demand from the developing world—particularly from the two countries that have over a billion people, China and India. The demand for electricity is going to be massive and access to electricity has to be one of the major challenges for the world to address in as equitable a way as possible. As I have said in previous speeches in this place, I think energy security, diversity, efficiency and affordability are amongst the top issues confronting the leaders of the world.
The United Nations predicts that our world’s population is going to grow from some 6.5 billion today to nine billion in just over a decade and a half. That is something that we have to be very conscious of in policy development that affects people both in developed and developing economies. Based on this analysis of growth, energy demand is going to be right up there. Growth in energy demand is expected to be 1.6 per cent per year from 2006 to 2030.
Nuclear power generation is part of the world’s electricity mix, providing over 15 per cent of the world’s electricity. In comparison, coal is 40 per cent, oil is 10 per cent, natural gas is 15 per cent and hydro and others are 19 per cent. Interestingly, the World Energy Outlook 2008 report from the OECD’s International Energy Agency highlights that the increasing importance of nuclear power in meeting energy needs while achieving security of supply and minimising carbon dioxide emissions cannot be underscored enough. The 2006 edition—going back a couple of years—also reported that, if policies remain unchanged, world energy demand in the next 20 years is going to be massively increased, by 53 per cent. So there is a trend developing, as reported in the publications of major international agencies, such as the OECD’s International Energy Agency. To quote the language used in the 2006 edition, ‘dirty, insecure and expensive’ energy options will still be the norm if nuclear energy is not considered by policymakers.
As I touched on earlier, over 70 per cent of the increased energy demand is going to come from developing countries, led by China and India. Today, China is the world’s largest CO2 emitter, surpassing the United States. So there is an environmental element to this as well. The World Energy Outlook 2008 report highlights that nuclear power does make a major contribution to reducing the dependence on imported gas and curbing CO2 emissions in a very meaningful way, since uranium fuel is a vast resource. It also highlights, however, that governments must play a stronger role in facilitating private investment and encouraging the private sector to get engaged. But they can only do so with the support of national governments. In this country, this is where I think the national government is certainly not playing ball. The national government really has a lot of work to do to support this industry in this country. Some US$26 trillion is required by 2030, according to the 2008 International Energy Agency report. We are talking about big dollars but it is a big challenge, and I believe we have to take this very seriously.
Today, over 16 per cent of the world’s electricity is generated from uranium in nuclear reactors. This amounts to 2,400 billion kilowatts each year—as much as from all sources of electricity worldwide nearly 50 years ago. To give some sort of context to it, this is 12 times Australia’s or South Africa’s total electricity production; five times India’s and double that of China. That gives an idea of the kind of scale that we are talking about. Some 440 nuclear reactors, with an output capacity of about 370,000 megawatts, operating in 31 countries, generate this 16 per cent of the world’s electricity. About 30 more reactors are under construction and another 40 are planned in certain countries. Interestingly, the countries that make use of nuclear power—Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine—all get 30 per cent or more of their electricity from nuclear reactors. The United States has over a hundred reactors operating, with a capacity of almost three times Australia’s total, and supplying 20 per cent of its electricity. The UK gets almost a quarter of its electricity from uranium.
As I think all speakers have touched on and all would certainly be aware, Australia is not the only country with major deposits. Let me highlight this: there is Kazakhstan with 70 per cent, then Canada and, as is widely known, the United States, South Africa, Namibia, Brazil, Nigeria and Russia. Of course, some of those have smaller deposits, but we are not alone in the world with our uranium deposits—although, as I said at the outset, we have some two thirds of such deposits. Yet the blinkered view of this government is that we should put a lid on who we export to—that we should contain the number of countries that we export our uranium to. I think this is very short sighted. It shows a complete lack of vision, and I think that Australians are paying the price of it economically, socially and environmentally and, in the case of India, also strategically.
Uranium is part of our mining heritage but three mines only are really operating at the moment, and I think this has really got to be revisited. In the five years to mid-2007, we exported some 50,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate with a value of almost $3 billion—a figure that could easily be much greater. Our uranium is sold strictly for electrical power generation only, and the nations which currently purchase Australia’s uranium include Canada, the US, Japan and South Korea and many countries of the EU as well—Spain, France, UK, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Finland. Interestingly, as I said, we export to China—in 2006 a bilateral agreement was concluded with China enabling exports there—but we do not export our uranium to a democratic nation such as India. I think this is a very regressive and regrettable state of affairs to be in. We could easily increase our share of the world market because of our low-cost reserves here and, of course, our political and economic stability.
Clearly, it is a political factor that hinders our capacity to grow this industry, and yet if we were to revisit this policy and to take a different approach we would be able to employ more than the 1,200 people who are today employed in the uranium industry. We have only about 1,200 people employed, with only about 500 in actual exploration. This is just untenable in 2009. Uranium mines generate about $21 million in royalties each year, with the Ranger mine generating $13 million, Beverley generating $1 million and the Olympic Dam some $6.9 million. Corporate taxes, in the context of what they could be to the Commonwealth, amount to only a small figure of $42 million a year. So I strongly encourage the Rudd government to revisit this issue. Despite our well endowed uranium reserves, political factors mean that Canada is well in front of Australia as the main supplier of uranium to the world.
Interestingly, I had a very profound conversation with a gentleman in Queensland. Queenslanders would know who he is but other Australians may not be so familiar with his name—Murrandoo Yanner from the Torres Strait. He is very much an activist Queenslander. We had a very good conversation before Christmas and he came out encouraging the Rudd government—although in the context of our specific conversation, it was the Bligh government—to revisit its policy on not mining uranium. I want to quote from his words in the Queensland papers. He was very colourful in his language but I think very insightful, and I think he has got a lesson to teach some of the people down here with their fancy names, titles and qualifications. He said:
We have nothing and here we have an opportunity for us to climb out of the gutter …
All she has to do is make a policy change, sit on her butt and we will do all the work and she can take all the credit for it.
He is referring there, of course, to the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh. Describing himself as ‘the greenest black fella you will ever see’, he said that ‘anyone with half a brain’ could see that uranium was needed to fight climate change. He went on to say:
We are more concerned with that than anyone on the globe because we have to live with it, not some bloke in a koala suit outside the minister’s office carrying a tin.
I am not sure if there has been some bloke in a koala suit outside the honourable minister’s office, but I am sure the minister knows of Murrandoo Yanner. He is a very articulate man. He has a lot of fire in his belly and he has only the interests of his community and his people at heart. Of course, the context of our conversation was about the closing of the Century mine up in North Queensland, and he was very concerned for their welfare. There is very much an environmental benefit to that, Murrandoo Yanner articulated it in a very fine way and I support that entirely.
I say to the minister, who is one of the brighter sparks in the Rudd government and on the record as supporting an expansion of the uranium industry: let us take the blinkers off and export uranium to India. It is a country that needs our goodwill and needs our uranium more so. In a strategic sense and a larger macro sense they will not forget that, because right now India needs cheaper, more affordable energy to supply its growing economy and to allow its people, including the hundreds of millions of poorer Indians, to develop their businesses. Energy clearly has to be part of the solution. I know that they have asked us formally and informally. We could really develop a great relationship with India. (Time expired)
in reply—I appreciate the contributions by a number of members on both sides of the House to what is a very serious debate. The contributions of members have been wide-ranging, in a lot of ways beyond the scope of the bill. Whilst I do not intend to respond to each of the contributions, especially those by members of the opposition, I will make a few comments in passing. Firstly, in terms of history, it is interesting to note that throughout the period of the Howard government the number of uranium mines in Australia remained three. There was no expansion of the industry, with the exception of a relatively small mine in South Australia. The real expansion of the industry has actually only come to the fore in more recent years because of the question of supply and demand. The reason for that is that one of the benefits of the post Cold War period has been the use of old nuclear warheads to supply resources for the operation of nuclear reactors throughout the world for civil energy purposes.
So let us get a few facts right about the nature of the debate about uranium mining in Australia. In recent years there has been a significant increase in exploration in Australia because there has been growth in the international demand for a primary source of uranium, of which Australia is potentially a major producer. In accordance with that, I note that during the course of the previous parliament the House Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, to its credit, conducted a major inquiry into the state of the uranium industry in Australia. The report of the inquiry received cross-party support and made a number of practical recommendations about the potential expansion of the industry in the foreseeable future. Those recommendations have been taken up by government and, perhaps more importantly, by industry for the purpose of facilitating the expansion of the industry. Obviously, some of the intentions of the companies involved in the industry have now been set back as a result of the impact of the global financial crisis. I say to the House that, as the Minister for Resources and Energy, I will be doing everything I possibly can to work with the representatives of uranium mining in Australia and with state and territory governments to facilitate the expansion of the industry in Australia. I am aware of a number of proposals to go beyond exploration to production, including in the state of Western Australia, as a result of an indication from government that we will do everything possible to facilitate the expansion of the industry in Australia.
Having dealt with a little bit of history—because some of the criticism of the current government has no factual basis; it simply goes to the nature of supply and demand for uranium over the previous 12 years—let us deal with the issue of nuclear power. The government accepts that in some countries, which are not as rich in energy capacity as Australia, nuclear power is a fact of life. I also make no apology for the fact that Australia historically has had a policy that goes to us as a nation being very careful about whom we sell our yellowcake to. That policy is about making sure we have a framework in place to guarantee that we as a nation mine with safe hands and put in place appropriate international protocols, and bilaterals between Australia and those countries that decide to purchase our uranium, which guarantee that our uranium is used with safe hands for civil energy purposes in those countries. The Australian government makes no apology for that.
On the question of India, obviously under the existing Australian government policy framework it is not permissible for us to export uranium to India. That aside, I acknowledge the international processes that have been put in place by the United States, through the global Nuclear Suppliers Group, for the purpose of facilitating greater international monitoring of the use of uranium in India for civil energy purposes. The advances as a result of those considerations by the international community, which have now opened India up to more international accountability than ever previously achieved, are to be applauded. They represent a step forward in the international community’s attempts to guarantee that uranium is used only for civil energy purposes and not for the purpose of nuclear armament. The Australian government has no intention of changing its policies with respect to the existing policy framework, which is clearly aimed at guaranteeing that, at home, uranium is mined with safe hands and that internationally it is used only for civil energy purposes. That will continue to be a debate between us and the opposition. It is not a blinkered view of government when an alternative view could potentially see some supporting the sale of Australian uranium to, for example, Iran—and that is not on.
We must have an appropriate policy framework which guarantees, in what is a sensitive industry, that our uranium will only ever be used for civil energy purposes. I also acknowledge that the development of the industry in Australia must be based on sound environmental requirements. The uranium industry under the current government—and it was the same under the previous government—will continue to be required, as is the case with all mining activities in Australia, to meet what we regard as being appropriate environmental requirements. To do otherwise would undermine public support for not only the uranium industry but mining generally in Australia.
Having said that, I also understand and accept the contributions which pointed to the importance of the development of this industry for Indigenous purposes. In terms of our desire as a government to close the gap, to do something that is economically sustainable for Indigenous communities, our focus is on sustainable economic development, not an ongoing process of government handouts. Successive governments of all political persuasions have now accepted that that strategy failed, that in some ways we have lost a generation from the Indigenous community. My portfolio responsibilities cover mining, energy and tourism, areas often having a focus in rural and regional areas. Our responsibility is to work with industry to guarantee that we engage with the Indigenous community to create as many training and employment opportunities as we can for the further expansion and development of not only the uranium industry but also mining, energy and tourism activities generally.
The member for Kalgoorlie, in his contribution, commented on Mr Ian Lowe’s appointment to ARPANSA. I simply note that Mr Lowe was appointed as a member of the ARPANSA council by the Howard government, then reappointed by the Howard government in 2005 and further reappointed—on the basis of his contribution through those appointments—by the Rudd government in January 2009. So, again, let us get the record straight with respect to Mr Lowe’s appointment.
In conclusion, this bill is directed at applying a royalty regime to all new mining projects in the Northern Territory containing uranium and other designated substances, such as thorium, that is consistent with the royalty regime that applies to other minerals mined in the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Ms Kate Ellis:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As shadow minister for, amongst other matters, youth, I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009.Whilst the bill does indeed contain other measures, its primary purpose is to impose a new tax on the one million students attending universities across the nation, whether the students are full time, part time, studying on campus or external. Whether or not they have a need for the services and activities which the $250 fee is intended to prop up, they will all be hit with what amounts to a new compulsory annual $250 tax, equating to $250 million around the nation taken from students, who can least afford it.
The opposition will be opposing this bill. At a time when students are doing it tough and the government is splashing around $42 billion, including money for a so-called education revolution, they are slugging students with a $250 tax. The bill represents a broken promise—surprisingly!—by the Labor Party.
No!
Yes, member for Casey, it is a broken promise encapsulated in this bill. Did the Labor Party promise at the 2007 election that it would introduce this tax? Did it tell students at universities that it would force them to pay $250? No, it did not. In fact, it did the opposite. At a doorstop in May 2007 the then shadow minister for education, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, said:
No, well, firstly I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.
That was in May, just five months before the last election was called. So not only did Labor not promise to introduce such a compulsory tax, the then shadow minister actually gave a commitment to a voluntary amenities fee. What do the colleagues of the Minister for Foreign Affairs think of forcing increased fees on our university students? During debate on the higher education support bill on 14 October 2003, the member for Wills said:
But there is good news, because Labor will not support any measures to increase fees for Australian students or their families. In my book education is not about how much money your parents have.
The Minister for Finance and Deregulation and member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, said in that very same debate, on the same day:
The reality is that Australian students and Australian families have pretty much reached the limit of their capacity to contribute to their own education or their children’s education.
So, before the 2007 federal election, the current Minister for Foreign Affairs promised not to introduce a compulsory amenities fee and the member for Wills stated that Labor would not support any increase in fees for Australian students. On top of that, we had the current minister for finance state his belief that students could not afford to pay any more. Now, after the election, the Labor Party is introducing a compulsory $250 amenities fee. This proves that any promises the Labor Party makes before an election are absolutely meaningless. It will say and do whatever it thinks will get it elected.
As stated by the Minister for Youth:
… the bill will also provide universities with the option to implement a services fee from 1 July 2009, capped at a maximum of $250 per year to invest in quality support and advocacy services.
The minister went on to say:
Universities that choose to levy a fee will be expected to consult with students on the nature of the services and amenities and enhanced advocacy that the fee would support.
In other words, before deciding what types of services and amenities the university can spend its compulsorily levied fee on, it is going to have to consult with students. Who will these students be, exactly? I think they will be a very small group of student politicians. They will be the so-called representatives of the student union, representatives who are elected by, at the very best, 10 per cent of the student population—and more like five per cent if you are at Sydney or Melbourne universities. You can be sure that these student politicians will be representatives, definitely, of their own vested interests and the advancement of their own political careers. They certainly will not be representative of the majority of students on campus because the majority of students on campus do not bother to participate in student union elections. There may be some criticism from the other side of the House on that but it is within the rights of tertiary students to attend a university and engage, or not engage, in whatever activities they may choose—including voting and being involved in student unions.
In addition, the minister, in an attempt to allay any obvious concerns about what such compulsorily levied fees could be spent on, said:
… the bill prohibits universities from allowing the expenditure of any funds raised from a compulsory student services and amenities fee to support political parties, or support the election of a person to the Commonwealth, state or territory legislatures or to a local government body.
This clause is really meaningless. It will allow the compulsory fee to be spent on a whole range of political activities. It does not expressly prohibit funding of campaigns for or against political causes or particular legislation, or of any campaigns that the student unions may run. Nor does the bill expressly prohibit the use of compulsorily acquired funds to be channelled to the student media to promote whatever cause they desire. In fact, this is expressly allowed under the guidelines. Worse still, the new student services and amenities fee guidelines, which are supposed to outline exactly what services may be funded by the new fee, will be tabled as a disallowable instrument—but not until after the bill has been passed. So we are not quite sure exactly what form the guidelines will finally take when they are tabled.
The bill does not prevent student money being taken out of allowable activities and diverted into other, disallowable activities. We saw this cross-subsidisation occur in Victoria when the then government introduced legislation—similar in some ways to the current legislation—which purported to limit the activities that could be funded. They purported to do that by listing the activities, but student unions could take money from an activity which was allowed to be funded by the compulsory so-called amenities fee and could spend it on an activity that was not expressly allowed. In other words, a student union could receive money to run a cafeteria, take money out of the till and spend it on political propaganda. Or the student union could receive money to provide administrative support and use that money to fund the wages of someone who was employed to do that but who in fact spent their time campaigning for the re-election of the union president, for example. The student union could receive funds ostensibly to provide important services—but we all know how much those funds can get eaten up by administration costs. It is quite frightening when you look at some of the figures before the commencement of voluntary student unionism. Monash University collected over $8.5 million in compulsory fees in one year and a whopping 56 per cent of that went towards administration costs. One wonders about the range of activities that would be covered by a very imaginative and creative student union body classifying all sorts of activities as administration costs.
So we have a government who told the Australian people before the 2007 election that they would not introduce a compulsory amenities fee and they are now asking us to take them on trust and pass the bill and then at some later date they will introduce into the House guidelines which outline how the new compulsory regime will work. As they never intended to stick to their promise of not introducing a compulsory amenities fee, so they never intended to prevent political activities, causes and salaries from being funded under this proposal.
Of course, the minister will point to the fee guidelines as some sort of guarantee against the use of compulsorily acquired fees for political purposes, but quite frankly they are not worth the paper they are written on. Firstly, the list of items that can be funded is quite extensive and broad, but in any case, as we know, the content of the fee guidelines is largely irrelevant because, in addition to what has been said, there will be no system of monitoring or policing whether or not the universities comply with these guidelines. That is right: there will be no system of reporting back to the education minister so that judgments can be made on whether this quarter of a billion dollars of student taxes is being well spent. The bottom line is this: there will be no accountability. It will essentially be up to individual students to become the whistleblowers and to raise any concerns they might have about how their amenities fee is spent, and even then they would have to get access to accounts to prove their suspicions, and even then, if a breach is found to have occurred, it is at the minister’s discretion whether any penalty is imposed.
Can it get any worse? Yes, it can. The legislation provides the Minister for Education with the discretion to approve additional amenities and services that may be funded by the compulsory fee. We have the Minister for Education—a former union lawyer, a staunch union supporter and, importantly in this context, a compulsory student union advocate—and she will be the person given the legislated authority to make changes to the guidelines and decide what other services can be funded by this fee. Does anyone in this House honestly believe that the minister—someone who was a student union politician and who was the beneficiary of compulsorily acquired union fees—will actually act to restrain the political and other activities of young left-wing student politicians of today? Of course she will not. No-one honestly believes that.
Mr Melham interjecting
I see my friend across the chamber smiling. The Minister will do the exact opposite. She will do everything in her power to make it easy for ordinary students to subsidise the activist student political elite on her side of politics.
The Minister for Youth and Sport stated in her second reading speech that this bill is not compulsory student unionism. It is a pretty big claim, and it is a false claim. She might like it to be so, and if she is genuine in her wishes then I have some empathy, but when a government is bent on imposing a tax on students to pay for amenities and services that a majority of students will probably choose not to use or, in the case of 130,000 external students, may never have the opportunity to use—they will never have a direct say on what sort of services this money should be put toward—one can only surmise that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. This is compulsory student unionism. If you force students to pay a fee that will fund the political activities of the student union without the students’ consent, you are breathing life into a student union that is unaccountable but financially very powerful. It is like compulsory bargaining fees in the workplace. The union is happy for you not to be a member of its association, but the worker still has to pay a fee—which, incidentally, is often the same amount as a union membership fee.
There are some unintended consequences in this bill for universities. The bill is going to create a huge headache for universities, and I do not think it has been well thought out. Universities, in their desperation to obtain additional funds, may not have had a good look at this bill. Firstly, the SA-HELP loan scheme, which creates a new loan enabling a student to borrow money to pay this new fee, is going to create a massive bureaucratic burden for universities. Secondly, the new representation and advocacy guidelines place new and unfunded obligations on universities. These obligations were never foreshadowed and, disgracefully, they are tied to core education funding. For example, the draft guidelines already require the education provider to effectively fund resources and infrastructure for student unions. What could that mean? That could mean offices, salaries, elections and any other matters that can be considered relevant to the so-called advocacy services. These guidelines are so broadly worded that they could be interpreted to impose virtually any obligation on the university regarding student representation on that campus.
This bill illustrates an extraordinary obsession—perhaps a bit of nostalgia for the education minister and the Minister for Youth and Sport, remembering the good old student days and the fun they had when involved in student politics—to prop up student unions, organisations that currently attract a small minority of students as members. In addition to every struggling student, we are now going to have university administrations also subsidising the political careers and pet issues of the elite class of student activists.
Back in 2005, when the Howard government took the historic step of legislating for voluntary student unionism, there was a huge outcry that student services would collapse, and that has not been the case. It was a historic step for those who believe that freedom of association for students is a fundamental right and that students are mature and old enough to decide whether or not they should join a union and where they should allocate their money. The Liberal Party believed then and still believes that people who are, by and large, adults should be free to choose how they should spend their hard-earned money and what they should spend it on. They should not be forced to pay a levy for services that they may or may not use. The historic Howard government voluntary student unionism legislation in 2005 put a stop to the enforcement of ‘no ticket, no start’ on all university campuses, and it was a great day for many students, many of whom were not politically motivated and still are not politically motivated but were grateful that they could attend a tertiary institution for the primary purpose of achieving their education without being forced to fork out additional funds to the student union.
The bill back in 2005 put the often exorbitant fees back in the pockets of students, allowing them to decide where that money should be directed. We have seen since that time significant savings for students. Students on average have saved over $240 a year and those who have chosen not to become members of student unions have saved on average $318. So we have seen a fall in the cost of union membership, which is a good thing. It forced student unions to be responsive to student demands, make themselves attractive, advocate the reason why students should join them, and also lowered their fees. It has also meant that students’ money has not been diverted in such a blatant manner to political parties and causes in that very blatant way we have seen on many occasions over the past few decades but most recently during the 2004 election, when the National Union of Students spent around $250,000 campaigning against the Howard government.
The accusations that voluntary student unionism has led to the collapse of student services are just bluster of an unrepresentative minority of students. Many services, counselling and medical services for example, are still available at almost every university in some form. In fact, the imposition of this fee and working through the amenities fee guidelines may often lead to a duplication of services at some campuses.
We have seen some interesting activities. For example, the RMIT Student Union produces a radio program on 3CR every week called Blazing Textbooks, which, as its website states, seeks to promote ‘an anti-capitalist perspective on current issues in education from around Australia and the world’. Hardly mainstream, but an interesting perspective to take. And they are entitled to take it, but it shows where their priorities lie. At the same time the website blames voluntary student unionism for the decline in its advocacy services. Any fair-minded person could see that this student union has placed greater priority on producing this radio program and having their bit of ideological fun than actually providing the sort of advocacy services that students would want and that would be relevant to students.
We have also seen a recent example where the student union at the University of Melbourne removed about $18,000 from its clubs and societies budget to give those funds to the National Union of Students. So you tell me where the benefit is for students there, when those who are members of the clubs and societies I am sure would have vehemently disagreed with that money being taken out and given to the National Union of Students. But under these guidelines and under this bill that would be not only a legitimate but a necessary allocation of funds. You could easily argue within these broad guidelines that it was essential in the interests of advocacy and representation of students that the National Union of Students receive even more funding.
The Australian Liberal Party is passionate about freedom, about freedom of association, and it is one of the party’s fundamental tenets. Whether it is membership of a union, an employer organisation or a student representative body, an individual should not be forced to join an organisation against their will. And we should not separate students from the argument of voluntary association. By and large they are adults; they have the ability to decide for themselves. We have always believed it is not up to politicians, it is not up to the minority who are involved in student politics, to decide what is in the best interests of students. We believe that students can best decide that for themselves. But the Labor Party in coming to office at the recent federal election has said, ‘No, let’s turn back the clock, let’s return to the status quo, let’s compel students to pay for something that they don’t want and may not use. Let’s help out those student union friends of ours who are struggling to adapt to the 21st century. Let’s go back to creating a nice cushy cash flow with no accountability and no consequences.’
This bill is a new tax on students. It is a disgraceful return effectively to compulsory unionism. It represents a shameful broken promise. It is poorly drafted and will cause the government far more headaches than it has actually realised. And it treats adult students with utter contempt. It is only a very thinly veiled attempt to reinvigorate student unions, guilds—call them what you like. We in the coalition say no to new taxes, leave students alone and treat them with some basic respect. Student unions can survive and thrive if they are accountable to their membership, if they respond to the needs and wishes of their members. But this bill and these guidelines will not only return to the bad old days of effective compulsory student unionism but they go even further by imposing these draconian obligations on tertiary education providers. I urge the House to oppose this bill. It is regressive, it is a huge cost impost on students, and I hope I do not see it come to light.
I rise to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I want to commend the Minister for Youth and Sport for her championing of this bill in terms of our processes and within this parliament. It is the right thing to do. It is repairing a lot of damage that was done by the previous government, damage that I will come to shortly. I am disappointed that the opposition are not supporting this bill, but I am not surprised.
I think it is important that I tell a story to the House. It is a very interesting story and it relates to the time that I first met the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull. I studied at Sydney university from 1974 to 1976 in economics—that is the main campus—and from 1977 to 1978 I was at the law school. I was not a student politician, though there were plenty of them there—and I will go through some of them; a number of them are in this House. The current Leader of the Opposition was on the union board. There was a student representative council, which the member for Warringah pursued in terms of his student political career. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of the University of Sydney Union board, which was also elected by the students. One of the other members was a good friend of mine, the former state leader of the opposition, Kerry Chikarovski. She is someone who can verify the story that I am about to tell.
The University of Sydney Union wanted to increase the fees. We paid an entrance fee and we also paid an annual fee, and it was a fixed fee. The proposal that came forward from the University of Sydney Union board, of which the current Leader of the Opposition was a leading member and leading advocate of the proposal, was that the entrance fee should be indexed to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and the annual fee should also be indexed to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The annual fee dealt with food and other facilities in relation to the university. I was a member of the Sydney university Labor club. I did not hold a position other than returning officer, which I regarded as the most important position of the organisation! It was our view that the entrance fee was over the top. We took the view that, in terms of services, it was appropriate to increase the annual fee to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings because it went directly to students’ ongoing facilities within the university. We opposed the increase of the entrance fee to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings because the then union board wanted to use that to build an edifice in the Wentworth Building on City Road, similar to the University of New South Wales. It has subsequently been fixed. It was an interesting process. The rules of the union said that you needed a two-thirds majority at the first meeting and a simple majority at a subsequent meeting. A two-thirds majority was obtained for both propositions at the first meeting, but when it came to the second meeting only the annual fee was allowed to be increased to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The current Leader of the Opposition tried to argue that, even though the proposition for the entrance fee was defeated at the second meeting, they could continue to call subsequent meetings until a simple majority carried the proposition. He abandoned that pretty quickly. At times he can be a bit of a kite-flyer.
The reason for the story is that he recognised then, as he should recognise now, that there should be these sorts of fees for student facilities, that indexing them is not a bad thing because it maintains the real earnings for the organisation and their ability to spend, and that there is nothing wrong with the proposition that that fee should apply across the university population. It is only through that that you will get the revenue to be able to deliver the adequate services. So the current Leader of the Opposition took a position as a student occupying a position at university which directly contradicts the position that the opposition is now taking in relation to this instance. That is the reason I relay the story. It helps to have a little history here to see whether people are being consistent over time. The reason we opposed the entrance fee indexation was that we thought we did not need edifices, that it was sufficient at the time.
In relation to the alternative Leader of the Opposition, the member for Higgins, I notice that he is listed to speak in the debate on this bill at a later hour. I do not know what he will say. I wait with anticipation. I appreciate the fact that it is the first time he has spoken on a substantive bill since the election of the new parliament, apart from the valedictory, which was a wonderful valedictory—
What about on your spending package?
If he has spoken on that then I apologise to the honourable member. I did not notice it. But I am glad that he is speaking on this bill, which is the main point because I would like to know what he says. I have in front of me a media release dated 23 March 1999 from the then member for Dobell, the Hon. Michael Lee, in relation to this. The press release says:
When he was President of the Monash Association of Students, in 1978, Mr Costello wrote an article for the student newspaper, Lot’s Wife, in which he strongly and explicitly supported universal union fees.
The press release goes on to quote Mr Costello as follows:
‘The funding, and therefore provision of the various student services, would be impossible unless there were some requirements to pay a contribution towards them the facilities of student unions are only practical on the basis of compulsory contributions ...’
The press release then says:
Mr Costello went on to equate compulsory student union fees with compulsory taxes and to warn against the danger of ‘Government legislation to stop student unions on a permanent basis.’
I am interested as to whether that earlier iteration is maintained by him this evening. What is happening here is that people are bringing the baggage from their student union days into this debate. There is an ideological divide. The Left do not control all the campuses on universities nor do the Right. It is interesting that the member for Higgins was chairman of the Monash Association of Students; the member for Warringah was president of Sydney university SRC; the member for North Sydney was also president of Sydney university SRC, 1986 to 1987; the Deputy Prime Minister was president of the Australian Union of Students in 1983; the member for Sydney held the women’s officer position at the University of Technology, Sydney; and Mr Danby, the member for Melbourne Ports, was president of Melbourne university SRC. I also note that the Minister for Sport was the general secretary of Flinders University SRC in 2000. That all comes from the article in the Australian, which I will take as accurate. I would suggest that that should give each of those members—irrespective of what side of the House they sit on—the knowledge and understanding of what services are actually provided by student unions on campuses.
My experience was that the services at Sydney university were first rate. You could use some and not the others. But in order to make them viable—in order to make the eating facilities at the Wentworth Building or the Holme Building or elsewhere viable—the student union needed to get money in. I am not necessarily defending some of the causes which those unions voted money towards. Some of them I do not agree with; some of them I do. At the end of the day, the way to deal with them is not to bleed those services and, in effect, kill them off through a death of a thousand cuts; it is actually to remove the relevant office holders through an election within the university’s democratic processes. That is why at Sydney university we had changes in the Students Representative Council from the Labor club, or people to the left of the Labor Party, to those associated with the member for Warringah or the member for North Sydney. It was done that way. If you went too far, people organised against you—rather than a government coming down in a crushing way.
What we can now see—and I have been given some briefing notes in relation to this bill—is the impact of the legislation that was passed by the former government. We are told that the previous government’s approach stripped $170 million from campuses. The dental services in places like La Trobe University and Southern Cross University were closed down completely. The University of Technology in Sydney, La Trobe University and James Cook University closed their legal services. In the case of UTS, it not only affected students but also the local community, who had also been able to access that service. The emergency loan scheme once offered at the University of Sydney was closed. At least three universities shut down their Centrelink advice services. Nine universities shut down their student legal and taxation advice services. Childcare fees at La Trobe University rose by $800 a year. Direct funding for sporting clubs was cut by 40 per cent. There are now 12,000 fewer students participating in sport at university, which is a 17 per cent reduction since 2005. In relation to sport, there are obviously other matters that the government and others have submitted on, including people involved with the Olympics movement.
The university that I have the closest involvement with is the University of Western Sydney, and the Milperra campus is in my electorate. It is a university that has campuses in a number of electorates in Western Sydney. I am also involved as Vice-President of Revesby Workers Club, which is a very large licensed club in the area, and we have 34,000 members and 36 sporting and other organisations under our umbrella. One of them is our Little Athletics club, which has 300 members. On Friday nights, they and their parents use the university oval at Milperra. We as a club have poured in tens and tens of thousands of dollars as part of our partnership to use that service. But I have seen a deterioration in the other sporting facilities on the same site. The athletics club erected some lights and recently had to repair them. No disrespect to the university—but they do not have the resources to maintain the facility. A number of organisations are no longer training on the oval or using the oval, so there is less community involvement. These are the direct consequences of taking away a cash pool that the student movement and the university can use to provide facilities across the spectrum.
As I said, I am happy to concede to members of the opposition that, at times in the past, some of these organisations have engaged in inappropriate activity. But I say to them that their solution is not the right way to deal with it. Indeed, in terms of the bill before the House, there is a limitation on what the money can be used for. A set of guidelines has been developed which outlines the range of services and amenities for which the fee can and cannot be used. If that needs to be modified over time as a result of examples that come before it, I think the government should look at that. But there is also a situation where, frankly, the university in many respects is going to be the one that administers it.
I think the minister has done a terrific job. Some might criticise it, but this is not a simple area; it is not black or white. I take offence that sometimes what is being said here is that student unions should keep their mouths shut on political matters. That is an argument that is used in terms of prisoners: ‘Don’t worry about human rights in prisons. If someone is a prisoner—bad luck. It does not matter what is done to them in the jail.’ When it comes to students: ‘Students should be seen and not heard on political matters.’
A number of people in this place got their political education at university. Post university, some have changed the politics they had at university—on both sides. I found that I was not particularly interested in a lot of these organisations at university. They did nothing for me. I did discover the Labor Party, through Gough Whitlam and the 1974 election—which is why I joined the Labor club at university—but involvement was limited. The Labor club is a separate club to the student union; it did not rely on money, but we were involved. That is also where I met the member for Warringah. I have known about his form dating back to the early seventies, and he has not changed. He is a remarkable creature to study.
Have you changed?
I have changed for the better; I have changed for the worse. There is no change one way or the other. At the end of the day, the record speaks for itself. I tell you what, Madam Deputy Speaker: what my history does show is what you see is what you get. That is why I described earlier how I met the Leader of the Opposition. I quite like him. I have always liked him because in our relationship we have had our differences of opinion and we have been on the same side in a number of issues but there has always been respect and courtesy, which is what this is about. What I say to members of the opposition is: it is not about trying to punish people because they are on the opposite side; there has to be a set of principles here where you allow people to practise within certain parameters. Where this bill overcomes a lot of the problems in relation to student unions of the earlier days that those on the opposition benches complain of is that they are not going to be able to engage in those activities. But what we need to do is reinvigorate student activism or involvement, even if it is of only a select few.
Some of the members in this place do not have very representative branch structures, yet they are members of a federal parliament. There might be 140,000 people in your electorate, but when it comes to branch structures there are not many that have more than 1,000—or more than 500. Some might argue you have no right to open your mouth here when it comes to people who select you in the first instance, because you are representative of a narrow clique of people but you are then judged. So I think that the former government made a mistake. I spoke at the time and I said that they made a mistake, and, frankly, the material that has come in since the former government made the change shows that mistakes were made. I say to the House and to the opposition: do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let us go forward with a situation that will help reinvigorate these campuses, which are cash-strapped and cannot provide services unless a bill in this form passes through this chamber and the next chamber.
What I find interesting is people fighting old battles from when they were involved in the student union. I think you are entitled to draw on that evidence. You are entitled to draw on the material, and if the situation is such that you can say, ‘These services weren’t provided and these inappropriate services were’ then there is a way around that. It seems to me that one of your arguments is that you do not like compulsion. Well, let’s not pay taxes; let’s not have driving licences before you can drive a car; let’s not request that people do jury service; let’s not have compulsory voting. You see, compulsion is built into our society at a number of levels and it should be built in at this level, but it should be in a way that has a structure that is accountable, that can be viewed by government from time to time to ensure that it is meeting the principles that we as a parliament lay down.
I commend the bill to the House. I think it is a bill worthy of support and I again commend the minister on bringing the bill forward in its current form. I know not everyone is happy with it but I think it is a good balance.
I welcome the opportunity to talk in this debate on this important bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, legislation that we will oppose for the reasons the member for Indi outlined at the commencement of this debate today. Can I say that I endorse absolutely everything the member for Indi said with respect to the coalition’s position.
I also welcome the opportunity to follow the member for Banks. Many of us here in this parliament know well the member for Banks. He is very passionate. He always puts his case very strongly. He relied on a whole range of his experiences. He cited things going back to the 1970s and 1980s. Having worked with him on a number of committees, the one thing I will say for the member for Banks is that, despite his differences on a whole range of political and philosophical issues with members of parliament like myself, he will not deliberately argue a point he does not agree with or deliberately mislead in any way. Whilst he was able to put his fingertips on a plethora of issues and he has instant recall of every issue going back to his days at Sydney university, which I admire, given that he is a bit older than me—I would not say I had an instant recall of everything back at the University of Melbourne—the one thing he was very careful about and very deliberately chose not to mention was the Labor Party’s position prior to the last election. He would not be comfortable addressing that issue.
This is a critical point. Before the last election, having opposed the Howard government and the views of people like myself that we should have voluntary student unionism, that we should trust every student to decide on their own whether they wished to join a union, having fought that fight, having articulated the Labor Party’s position—which is very consistent with what the member for Banks has had to say today—and having argued that case and lost that case in the Senate and in this House, the Labor Party then had a total backflip. The position that they put was that hand on heart they would not in any way, shape or form introduce a bill like this. As the member for Indi said, on 22 May the then shadow minister for education, Mr Smith, said:
One thing I can absolutely rule out is that I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, particularly a compulsory HECS style arrangement.
He went on to say:
I certainly do not have on my list an extension of HECS, either voluntary or compulsory, to fund these services. So I absolutely rule that out.
The position of that Mr Smith is the same as the position of this Mr Smith. The Labor Party said, ‘Despite what we have always said in the past, and despite how we have voted, we make an ironclad commitment to one million Australian university students that if we are elected to government we will not in any way, shape or form reintroduce compulsory unionism or even a compulsory union fee.’ The Labor Party gave an unequivocal guarantee at that time that, if they were elected to government, the House of Representatives would never consider what we are considering today.
One of two things brought that about. Let us think this through. One option is that the Labor Party, having strongly held views for all that time, and having opposed our legislation, then decided that they were wrong after all and our position was right—and they argued to the Australian people that there was not a cigarette paper between us. But, having won the election, they decided that they were wrong about changing their mind and reverted to their old position. That is ridiculous. This minister and members of the Labor Party opposite cannot stand and support the bill they have put forward in this parliament without acknowledging that they did not believe what they said to the Australian people before the election and that what we now have before us is a calculated broken promise. I would have more respect for them if that was acknowledged.
But the member for Banks was very careful not to address that fundamental issue. And for those opposite, there is no explanation. Do they really believe in all the passion we are seeing in this debate from the member for Banks and the members who will follow him? I will be interested to hear from the member for Deakin. He ran to the election promising that he would not support such a thing, but he is going to speak in support of it and vote on it. That is very interesting for the electors of Deakin. If that can happen on an issue like this for Australian students, it can happen on anything. But as they speak with their passion in support of this legislation, they confirm the total falsity of their claims prior to the last election and they confirm the complete hollowness of every other promise they made.
We strongly support freedom of association. We strongly believe that this legislation will not work. It is actually designed not to work. It is, with its compulsory fee, a Clayton’s form of compulsory unionism. We maintain that students have a right to choose whether to join a union and a right to choose what sorts of services they want to use. We stand up for the students who just want to get an education. We stand up for the thousands of external students who will be forced to pay this fee, this new tax, and for the part-time students who just want to attend a lecture after work. We also say that, if the services that are offered are good enough, students will happily join and happily pay. We have heard arguments about the need to subsidise catering on campus, but so many of our university campuses have for many years been surrounded by catering facilities. The University of Melbourne is a classic example. Nowhere else would there be more restaurants and cafes per square foot than there are near the University of Melbourne. The proof of the so-called success of this model can be seen in the queues of people leaving the campus at lunch hour to avoid the union-subsidised cafeteria!
Everywhere else in Australia, including in the electorates of La Trobe, Casey and Chisholm, there are small businesses operating catering services and restaurants. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would not get a better example than your own electorate of Chisholm. The argument that this cannot occur on a university campus and that there somehow has to be a subsidy is absolutely insulting. This legislation is before the House because the Labor Party, prior to the last election, made a decision that it was unpopular for them to stand up for their beliefs. The reason it is unpopular for them to stand up for their beliefs on this matter is that the minister and the members opposite do not care about the welfare of one million Australian students but they are obsessed about the welfare of some student union mates. That is the reality.
Before the last election, they had a choice. They could have said what they believed in but instead they said, ‘Let’s announce that we will do nothing, and’—in the famous words of the member for Kingsford Smith—‘if we get in we will change it all.’ That is what we are seeing here today. You will not see the member for Banks address that point. We will stand up strongly in this House and in the Senate for the right of students not to have to pay a $250 tax that those opposite promised they would not have to pay. We have seen all the hand-wringing from members of the Australian Labor Party over the years about how difficult Australian students find it to make ends meet. But then they introduce a $250 tax that will raise $250 million from Australian students, and they say they can put it on their HECS debt. The Labor Party say they are the party that is worried about student debt, but their first act on Australian campuses is to increase student debt. Why? Because they are more worried about the welfare of some student union leaders than the welfare of one million Australia students.
The member for Banks did not address that fundamental point. As I conclude, let me predict that the next speaker, the member for Deakin, will not address that fundamental point. I was thinking as I was preparing my remarks, ‘He might have a problem with this legislation: he might not think it goes far enough.’ But he is a newly elected member in this parliament who got elected on the Australian Labor Party’s policy platform. He will now stand up and, if he is candid, he will say, ‘What the Labor Party is now doing it pledged it would not do before the election when the students of Australia made up their mind.’
I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This bill will right a significant wrong of the Howard government’s last term in office. As a result of the Howard government’s Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005, $170 million of support has been lost from the tertiary level of a nation’s education system. This legislation is needed—that is, our legislation—now to provide a desperately needed funding stream that was taken away by the Howard government. This legislation is needed to restore the sense of community to Australia’s universities. It is worth while remembering that opting to go to university or TAFE is different today for students than it was for previous generations. There are certainly costs involved with fees that might not have been there in previous times and there is certainly now a different view when you get to a university and you see that the services that used to be provided now are not.
Remember that most students now have to work to support themselves—often up to 25 or 30 hours a week. This puts added pressure on them to manage time between their contact hours, out-of-hours study and work time. Of course, there is also the rising cost of textbooks and other study materials. These costs have increased substantially. As I said, course fees have gone up and the resultant HECS contribution hang over the heads of students—although to be fair the increase in the income threshold before fees have to be repaid has eased that burden for many graduates. But this incremental shift over the years has led to a more expensive tertiary education system for the many Australians who opt to further their education. Compounding this, the removal of compulsory student fees has led most universities to draw funding away from other education services in order to supplement, often at a reduced level, the many student services formerly catered for by this revenue stream. Services such as child care, employment and health services, and welfare support have been reduced to almost nothing or in some cases even nothing. Even the cost of buying food on campus has increased substantially—a point the previous member touched on. I would say in response that if you are fortunate enough to go to university in Melbourne, you quite often find it is cheaper to go out on the street to purchase food than it is on campus. Many university campuses are a long way away from such services and you pretty much have to take what you get. On a student’s income, having to pay some of those prices for food is going to be a struggle.
Their will be opponents of this legislation who will proclaim that this is an additional impost on students—a maximum $250 annual fee for some of those in our community who can least afford to pay it. The Rudd government understands that, where it can, it should avoid needlessly creating an additional short-term burden on students. At the commencement of the school year students face their greatest burden financially as they deal with the associated costs of receiving their education—the parking permits, new and second-hand textbooks, class reading material, audiovisual and information technology equipment, scientific equipment, stationery and all the other associated costs that go with the big jump from leaving school and going to university.
This time normally coincides with a drop in income as many tertiary students who have worked extra hours during their holidays reduce their working hours as their tertiary contact hours increase. These are the reasons this government has sought to stop the introduction of the compulsory student services and amenities fee from being a barrier to tertiary education by creating a new higher education loan program component called SA-HELP. SA-HELP will allow eligible students to offset their costs in a similar fashion to the way in which the FEE-HELP system does now.
I also note that in many instances students paying the $250 student services and amenities fee or the $125 maximum fee for the second semester of 2009 will pay less than they did before the Howard government introduced voluntary student unionism. For example, a full-time student attending the La Trobe University Bundoora campus in 2006 would have paid a $356 general service fee. A student attending the same campus of the same university in 2010 will pay a minimum of $106 less should Latrobe University choose to implement a services fee. I highlight this to underline the fact that the government is not seeking to increase the financial burden on students; instead the government is seeking to bring services and amenities back to campuses. It is seeking to support students and rejuvenate campus culture and on-campus support and to do so in a way which impinges on students in the most minimal way possible.
It should be noted that this legislation does not force students to join a student union, much as the member for Casey may think otherwise. If we look at the explanatory memorandum for the Howard government’s 2005 bill bought by the then education minister, the member for Bradfield, we can see the following, and I quote:
The Bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, to prohibit all higher education providers (public and private) from:
The Howard government could have stopped right there, safe in the knowledge that it had introduced voluntary student unionism but without having destroyed a vital funding stream for Australian universities. Instead it went on with a second point that prohibited, and again I quote:
If they had acted reasonably and not taken this step, they would not have presided over the removal and the reduction of student services in tertiary campuses right across the nation. Advocacy, advice, legal counsel, support for mature age and international students, on-campus child care, support for new mums returning to education, medical services and, importantly, student peer support and orientation for new students all went. There was no funding that came through after that.
In particular, students from rural and regional communities were disadvantaged by the removal of these services and the introduction of user pays models for the provision of services on campuses—and not always were they even there. More often than not, rural and regional students faced a greater financial burden in seeking a tertiary education, especially if they had relocated to attend university. Living away from home—from families, friends and a familiar environment—these students, more than most other students, depend on on-campus student services to support them throughout their tertiary education, especially in their first year.
Student advocacy, peer orientation and accommodation support services all play an important role in helping these rural and regional students adjust to and thrive in their new environment. Without those services, it can be a really hard slog. You may not have many friends when you first get to uni. I am sure you will get them over the years, but it is a new environment. If you come down from the country, you can be in a huge institution with not many people you have ever seen before and it can be a very challenging environment.
Living away from the family home increases the pressure placed on these students. There are additional food costs, transport costs and accommodation costs. Moving out of home brings all these costs to many people who have always lived in the city, but to change from a rural or regional environment to a city campus can be even more challenging. At the same time, user pays access to important services has harmed students who often needed the services most yet had a lesser capacity to pay for them.
As I said earlier, this legislation will help right a wrong of the Howard years—the ideological crusade against student unionism. With control of the numbers in the Senate in 2005, the Liberals were overjoyed that they could finally salve the frustrations of their years on campus back in the seventies and strike down student unionism once and for all. Of course, we knew then, as we know now, that vital student services on campus would be the innocent victim of this ideological crusade against student unionism. I and many others have often wondered if the legislative move against student unions was merely because of the moniker of that word ‘union’.
The previous speaker, the member for Casey, said in this debate that the opposition support freedom of association. That is fine—that is their principle—but what does freedom of association have to do with the provision of campus services? I still have not made that connection, and I do not think a lot of people can see where it is. Interestingly, back in 2005, some Liberals spoke out against the destruction of student services.
And Nats.
We will get to the National Party a bit later. Some Liberals spoke out against it. One was quite close to my home base. In fact, it was the member for Warrandyte, the Deputy Leader of the Victorian Liberals, Phil Honeywood. Mr Honeywood knew the legislative ambitions of the former education minister, the member for Bradfield, and his government would be the end of student services and vibrant school communities in our universities. In fact, in an open letter to his fellow Liberals in the pages of the Melbourne Age, Mr Honeywood wrote:
There is a very real danger, however, that our universities and TAFE institutes stand to lose a great deal more than just revenue if the legislation now before Federal Parliament is enacted.
And, getting back to the Nationals, the now leader of the Nationals in the other place knew it too. Senator Joyce knew that families from rural and regional areas were greatly disadvantaged by the removal of student services on campus. That is why he proclaimed he would tell the then education minister to ‘stick VSU up his jumper’.
In selling the legislation to the Australian people, and to university communities in particular, the Howard government used a series of user pays examples. These examples generally involved a hardworking university student who was aggrieved at paying a general service fee that would in turn support the university abseiling, rowing or even a toga club. This was unfair to the many students who depended on the provision of support services at their university campus.
The reintroduction and strengthening of the provision of services is important to university campuses, but student social activities, sporting organisations, sporting facilities, groups and clubs, and communications media are just as important. As an example, I draw the House’s attention to the Student Youth Network radio station—also known as SYN FM—which was granted a community radio licence in 2001. The station serves a diverse cross-section of young people and students across metropolitan Melbourne and could not have commenced broadcasting without the support of student unions.
The station received $500,000 in start-up funding from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology student union and $175,000 of recurrent funding plus in-kind support, which represented around 25 per cent of the cost of running the station. La Trobe, Deakin and Melbourne university student unions also provided recurrent funds to ensure their students could access airtime on the station. Following the introduction of the VSU legislation, these student unions were no longer able to contribute financially to this service nor were they able to guarantee access to this service for their students.
Students utilising SYN would often augment their studies in media, journalism, and communications by working shifts and compiling programs for broadcast on the station. SYN has made an outstanding contribution to young people across Melbourne, enabling thousands of students to develop a broad range of skills that improve their employability once they complete their studies. Being involved in an extra-curricular activity such as SYN provides students and young people with communication, research and production skills and, of course, helps develop their self esteem.
The loss of funding from the introduction of the VSU legislation would have significantly impacted on the operation of SYN, if the RMIT had not stepped in to provide some support to the station. However, this arrangement is now a year-to-year contract, which is often—and particularly now—in jeopardy due to the financial constraints faced by the university. Rather than focusing on assisting students in broadening their education in broadcast media, SYN management now need to devote time to sourcing funding—a problem also experienced by many community radio stations.
The work of SYN FM has been documented by Ellie Rennie, a Swinburne Research Fellow, who found that SYN is making a significant contribution to advancing digital literacy. Ms Rennie found that over 5,000 young people had been members of SYN in only a few years of broadcasting, with even higher numbers if short half-day trainee school groups or term-long radio announcers are also included; and that between 2003 and 2006 over 80 members of SYN found media and media-related paid work. Ms Rennie also found that volunteer meetings regularly attract in excess of 70 people, and SYN’s internal online discussion forum receives an average of 20 posts a day, with 50 individuals logging in over the course of a week. This forum covers work related activities, as well as broader issues in media and society.
In 2006 the radio station, according to McNair Research, had an audience of 124,000 weekly listeners, and their daily television program was, at times, attracting up to 30,000 viewers. The majority of SYN members are under the age of 21. SYN functions as a media workplace and training ground for young people with disciplines, schedules, and technical demands—as you would expect in a production environment. SYN is not just a radio station or a radio station supported by student unions but a creative outlet and important incubator of skills for its many volunteers. The support of student organisations such as SYN is vital to the enrichment of the social and learning fabric of our universities.
This bill assists universities in turning around the years of neglect under the Howard government. This important funding will help universities rebuild campus facilities, including student amenities like child care. These are the same childcare services this bill will help universities staff, equip, and encourage students to use. With the passage of this bill, the Rudd government will right a significant wrong that was done under the Howard government. We will restore the sense of community to Australian universities. The Rudd government will encourage the re-emergence of student services, and we will support and encourage the tertiary sector through this measure and, of course, through the many other measures already passed through this parliament. I commend this bill to the House.
What a pleasure it is to follow the member for Deakin, who so eloquently finished his presentation speech before the House by saying that the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 seeks to right a significant wrong. I suggest that we could expect that from a former full-time union official. This bill seeks to dress up compulsory student unionism in the raiment of higher education legislation amendment.
Wasn’t Brendan Nelson a union official?
My father once told me that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The member for Moreton should take that on board, because you cannot tart up voluntary or compulsory student unionism in the clothing of higher education legislation and not expect the Australian people to see through it for what it is—a cynical attempt at putting back dollars and cents into the Labor student union mould. Everyone, apart from Young Labor, thinks this is a rotten idea. Every student union type movement on our campuses, apart from Young Labor, thinks this is an appalling piece of policy. It is not hard to work out who benefits from such a policy piece—you simply look at who wants it. I look across the House at the member for Moreton and others, former full-time union officials, and I wonder why they agree with their counterparts, Young Labor. Considering that the Young Labor movement in the election before last gave something like a quarter of a million dollars to the Labor campaign, it is not hard to see who benefits.
Mr Perrett interjecting
The member for Moreton will forgive me if I find his outbursts and his urges ridiculous, patently useless and not worth listening to—as I would from all union officials who would back such a piece of legislation.
The purpose of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 is to allow higher education providers to impose a compulsory levy on students from 1 July 2009, capped at $250 per year. There are, of course, other measures included in the bill: allowing students to defer payments of the compulsory fee by accessing a HECS style loan; including tertiary centres into the regime that govern higher education providers’ access; and expanding the VET-FEE HELP. The services which may be funded by this compulsory levy—or should we say a student tax—will apparently be outlined in the Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines, which will be tabled in the form of a disallowable instrument after the bill has been passed. So the government walks into this House to say: ‘Every uni student must pay up to $250. It is not compulsory unionism yet it looks like it, smells like it and feels like it. It will be used for amenities, but we are not going to tell you what those amenities are until after the bill passes.’ The government can forgive me for being a touch cynical about the bill and, indeed, its measures.
The bill will require higher education providers to comply with these new Student Services, Amenities, Representation and Advocacy Guidelines. They will impose obligations on the providers to comply with requirements relating to—apparently—student representation and advocacy. My view is that it is effectively funding student elections, union officers and salaries. As with the fee guidelines above, the student representation and advocacy guidelines will be tabled in the form of a disallowable instrument. Guess when? After the bill has been passed. The idea of saying to students, ‘There is an amount of money that you must pay, and it is for a range of services that we are not going to tell you about until after the bill has been passed,’ is absolutely and utterly atrocious. Could you imagine if a car salesman said: ‘Here is the car. I want you to buy it but I am not going to tell you what optional extras go with it until after you pay the money.’ Or indeed, ‘Here is a bank loan,’ or: ‘Here is a job. We are not going to tell you the benefits, the services, the terms or the fees until after you sign on the dotted line.’ And the member for Moreton, in all his verbosity in the House, thinks that is appropriate. Well, sir, go to your constituents and outline it like that; say, ‘Do you think this is fair?’ I can guarantee you their response will be one, the same and sound—and it will be ‘no’. I gather, by your silence, that you acquiesce in this matter.
Labor has indeed broken its promise. That is not surprising; it is getting particularly good at that. It did not include the introduction of a higher education amenity fee in the policies it took to the last election. Indeed, let me read through some of the statements that the current Labor frontbench made prior to the election. Let us start with one of the more senior ministers, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was then the shadow minister for education. I will quote it especially for the member for Moreton, at the back, because he seems to be hard of hearing. He said:
No, well, firstly I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.
Surprise, surprise, Minister for Foreign Affairs: look what has materialised here in the House. The member for Wills, on 14 October 2003, during the debate on the Higher Education Support Bill, said:
But there is good news, because Labor will not support any measures to increase fees for Australian students or their families. In my book, education is not about how much money your parents have; …
Won’t he be suitably embarrassed? As the member for Moreton leaves the House, not wanting to stay around and hear the rest of the indictment of the Labor frontbench, I will quote the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the member for Melbourne, who in the same debate, on 14 October 2003, said:
The reality is that Australian students and Australian families have pretty much reached the limit of their capacity to contribute to their own education or their children’s education.
Clearly, the Labor frontbench have forgotten these statements and simply moved on in the same old Labor mould—that is, ‘We want to get compulsory student unionism back in.’
The Howard government got rid of compulsory student unionism with the VSU legislation in 2005. Students, on average, have saved $246 per annum, and those who have chosen not to become members of student unions have saved, on average, $318. This has enabled students to spend their money—heaven forbid!—on services and things that they want. Labor vehemently opposed our student union legislation in 2005. In 2004, the National Union of Students continued its longstanding practice of opposing the conservative side of politics and spent a quarter of a million dollars against the Howard government. The Labor Party has long been a beneficiary of dollars and cents support from student unions.
This fee is slugging students a maximum $250. University students often work long hours and exist on a shoestring budget. This is another fee that is hitting them. Students should not be forced to pay for services or amenities they do not want, many of which are already offered by universities. And what of the over 130,000 external students? I speak as one who studied part-time for many years and was continually flogged an amount of money for student union fees for services I did not use. Apparently I was to take heart that the student unions’ range of services, which included boozy pub crawls, were an effective use of the money that I paid as an external student. Many university students choose to be part of sporting clubs, associations and a range of activities off campus for which they pay a fee. Why should they subsidise services that universities should be paying for? If universities are short of dollars and cents they should be speaking to the appropriate minister, not flogging students for an amount of money.
This type of student payment was tried back in the early 1990s by the Victorian government and proved to be an abject failure. Student unions used the profits from certain activities effectively to subsidise activities for which direct funding was disallowed. The minister assures us that the legislation will prohibit money being spent for political purposes, yet there seems to be a hollow ring to that assurance. The only activities expressly prohibited by the legislation are support for political parties and support for election to Commonwealth, state or local government bodies. This still leaves a large range of political activities, including funding campaigns against legislation and policy, potentially against political parties, and the ability to support trade unions or other organisations not registered as a party. There are no departmental guidelines or monitoring to ensure compliance. Ostensibly, it will be up to individual students to put their hands in the air and say something is wrong. Even then, it is up to the minister as to whether any penalty will be imposed. Forgive my cynicism, but I cannot see a Labor minister imposing a penalty on a student union body affiliated with Young Labor for fracturing a line or two. I could be wrong and I am happy to stand corrected.
The compulsory fees will be indexed each year to CPI, which effectively increases the burden. And it is still unclear what obligations will be placed on higher education providers regarding student representation and advocacy. The draft guidelines already impose obligations on education providers effectively to fund resources and infrastructure for student unions. This is clearly a broken promise. The obligations imposed on providers to support student unions go far beyond what the previous government legislated and far beyond what Labor promised during the election. It is appalling that they have broken faith with the Australian community. Labor did not put their hands in the air before the election and say, ‘We are going to slug university students.’ Labor did not say to those university students, all standing there in their Kevin 07 T-shirts: ‘You know what? We loved the T-shirt but we are going to hammer you for $250 each. We are not going to tell you about it but we are going to legislate to bring it in because, frankly, we need to fund the Young Labor movement in universities.’ The bill is not supported. There is no way the bill can be supported. It is a cynical, hollow attempt to sneak in compulsory student unionism by the back door, yet—surprise, surprise—as the unions kick in the back door, the real defenders of free speech are here to ensure it does not occur.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 8.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
The Labor Party has been in government for well over a year. It came to power with many promises and raised an expectation that issues of concern to communities would be fixed. It came to power gifted with a sound and strong economy, built by the coalition’s strong economic management. But the economy today is at a crossroads. The Labor Party has already spent the surplus, the economic legacy left by the coalition, and has plunged this nation into a debt that future generations will have to repay. My community in Greenway had high expectations that the government would continue with the coalition’s Hawkesbury-Nepean river recovery program.
The coalition when in government announced, in August 2007, $132.5 million for the Hawkesbury-Nepean river recovery program. This money was set aside to deliver practical solutions for the river, for issues such as: invasive aquatic and terrestrial weeds and pests, water quality, discharge of effluent, water flows and flushing, urban stormwater and rural run-off, riverbank erosion and fish management. I have repeatedly called on the government to release the $132.5 million but that has not happened.
On 12 September last year, I sent letters to the Hon. Peter Garrett and to the New South Wales Premier, the Hon. Nathan Rees. As a result, the New South Wales government announced the establishment of the Office for the Hawkesbury-Nepean. That government also announced $29 million to improve weirs along the river to allow fish passage and to allow new and improved environmental flows. While welcomed, positive outcomes will be the real measure of whether this money will be well spent. But where is the Commonwealth money that was already allocated? There is no time to waste. Action is required.
Recently I toured the river with my colleague the shadow minister for environment and water, the Hon. Greg Hunt. On that day, my colleague and I announced a vision for the year 2020 for the Hawkesbury-Nepean. We announced a long-term plan to consult with the community, to identify the issues and challenges and to develop an action plan. The goal is to have the river as the benchmark for the quality of any semi-urban river in Australia. It is critical to have (1) a permanent weed eradication program, (2) increased environmental flows, and (3) improvements in nutrient control. Labor may not care about the river, but the coalition are serious about it. We understand that the river is vitally important to the people of the greater Sydney region.
The Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Action Plan 2007-2016 emphasises the importance of the river. The document says:
… the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment supplied 97% of the reticulated water—
drinking water—
for the 4.13 million people living in metropolitan Sydney. It also supplies much of the water for Gosford and Wyong from dams on Mangrove and Mooney Mooney Creeks. The number of people depending on this catchment for water grows every year.
… … …
Water from the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment supports generation of 70% of the state’s income.
… … …
Agricultural production in the region is worth more than one billion dollars …
The catchment boasts the state’s second largest oyster and prawn producing areas.
… … …
Eighty percent of the sand and gravel required for Sydney’s construction industry is sourced from the catchment.
Tourism is a major industry in the catchment with the river by itself attracting more than 10 million visits a year.
Whatever happens to the river happens to us, to the environment and to the people—those who live in the catchment and those who depend on the catchment for their livelihood. Almost one million people live in the region, with another 300,000 people expected to move into the area in the next 30 years.
The impact of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system on the environment can be dramatic, especially so in the event of flooding. One of my constituents, Mr John Miller, has written to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts requesting urgent action on flood mitigation. His sense of urgency is understandable, given the November 2008 floods in South-East Queensland and in Tamworth, New South Wales. The Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley river system is one of the most flood prone areas in Australia and one which covers and affects not only my electorate of Greenway but the electorates of Lindsay, Chifley, and Macarthur.
Long-time residents say it is simply a matter of time before the Hawkesbury floods. Local wisdom says we are due for a one-in-100-year flood. An environmental impact report by Australian Water Technologies, written back in July 1995, says that a repeat of the floods in 1867, when the Hawkesbury River rose by 63 feet—19.26 metres—would mean there would be 42,000 people left homeless and an estimated 567 deaths, plus destruction of property and infrastructure. The 1867 flood was the largest flood on record. Towns likely to be impacted are Richmond, Windsor and Wilberforce, to name a few. While flood evacuation routes are helpful, much more is needed to save lives and minimise damage to property, not to mention the environmental damage that could be avoided by proper funding and an effective plan. I am holding the Labor government to account not just for the funding that has been promised but also for a comprehensive river system recovery package. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to rise to speak tonight about the education revolution that is happening right across the southern suburbs of Adelaide. During the 2007 election campaign, I was pleased to be a part of the Rudd Labor team committed to an education revolution. Since being elected, the Rudd government has committed to doing just that, to an education revolution. Already we have seen substantial funding that has made a significant investment in our education system.
I want to go over a couple of programs—although there are many—that have delivered in my local area. The first significant investment the government has made is in the digital revolution, the aim of which was to prepare Australian students for further education, training and employment and to equip them with the skills that they need to live, to work and to succeed in an increasingly digital world. This was something that I did not have experience with as a primary school student, and in today’s environment I recognise that I did miss out. So I am very pleased that the digital education revolution is being rolled out in Australian schools. The government has committed to increasing the ratio of students to computers in schools to one to one by 2011 for students in years 9 to 12. The improvement to access to computers ensures that young people growing up in Adelaide South have all the opportunities they need to compete in a 21st century economy.
As part of the first funding round, $440,000 was provided to secondary schools in my seat of Kingston to see over 400 computers delivered to the Hallett Cove R to 12 school, Southern Vales Christian College and the Willunga Waldorf secondary school. These schools were selected as being in special need, having a pre-existing ratio of students to computers in excess of one to eight.
In the second round of funding, which has recently been announced, a further 10 schools in my electorate have gained access to over 1,500 computers. This includes six computers for the Willunga Waldorf School, 16 computers for the Australian technical college, 133 computers for the Tatachilla Lutheran College, 178 computers for the Willunga High School, 99 computers for Cardijn College, 194 computers for Seaford 6 to 12 school, 213 computers for Wirreanda High School, 226 computers for Woodcroft College, 255 computers for Reynella East High School and 239 computers for Christies Beach High School and the Southern Vocational College. These schools have certainly expressed their gratitude to the federal government for delivering what they believe was incredibly essential. They were working hard to provide technology to their students but did find constraints within their budgets. I am very pleased that, with these computers, they are now able to do a lot of the things that they had hoped to do.
On top of this unprecedented investment in digital infrastructure that is so important to our kids’ future, the Rudd government is also supporting innovative programs to increase the wellbeing of our children and prepare them for the future. One such program is the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program, which aims to provide pleasurable food education for young children. I was lucky enough to visit one of these schools as part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing inquiry into obesity in Australia. We were lucky to see one of these programs. These programs provide extensive experience for kids to learn about food, from growing it to cooking it. I am very pleased that the federal government has launched a trial of this program in 37 schools around the country. Two schools in my electorate—Woodend Primary School and O’Sullivan Beach School—have been chosen to be part of this trial. I think it will be a fantastic opportunity for kids in my electorate to be part of this innovative program, which will have a great impact on their learning about health education.
The Rudd government has many other programs, which I do not have time to go into now. We are building the education revolution, we are investing in our trade schools and we are doing a whole range of things, but these are two very important projects that are already on the ground in my electorate of Kingston. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to speak of an issue that is of grave concern to the town of Kandos in my electorate—and it is of concern not only to Kandos but to Australia as a whole. It is a concern over the Rudd government’s proposed emissions trading scheme and the effect that it will have on the cement industry. The cement industry is one of the industries in Australia that is trade exposed and it is traditionally quite a large emitter of carbon. Up until this point there was an indication that under the new emissions trading scheme the industry would be given 90 per cent permits. What that means is that, of their emissions, they would end up with a 10 per cent tax to pay. That in itself would damage their competitiveness with overseas imports and restrict their ability to invest, but the cement industry were working towards having that 10 per cent tax.
Last week the Department of Climate Change came out with their proposal on the cement industry. They are saying that it is not the cement product that will get the 90 per cent permit; it is the process of making cement that will get it. So the process of cooking the raw product and making the cement will get a 90 per cent permit—not the quarrying and not the final grinding from clinker into cement. This means that they will be on a 70 per cent permit, or 30 per cent exposed. They cannot handle a 30 per cent emissions trading tax. It means they will close down. Not only cement in Kandos but all cement in Australia will not be able to compete with overseas companies. Last night in a Senate estimates committee, Senator Wong reiterated that cement would get a 90 per cent permit but did not go on to explain that it is for the process, not the final product.
Since 1990, the Australian cement industry has reduced, through technology, its greenhouse emissions by 25 per cent, which is no small feat. There is further room for the cement industry to improve that position on greenhouse emissions, but unfortunately this proposal will restrict the capital it will have to do that with. It will mean that any investment in cement production will go overseas to Asian countries close to Australia, countries where they will not have this impost, and cement will be lost to Australia.
We speak about these things in the abstract here, but Kandos and cement are intricately entwined. They have been making cement in Kandos since the 1800s, and for the people who work there Kandos and cement are as one. There are people who have worked there for generations, and the main reason for the town of Kandos existing is cement. What will those people do when cement is imported from overseas? What will the people of Kandos do? Where do the people of Kandos fit into this world of emissions trading? It is not only the 110 people who work at that plant; it is the quarriers, the transporters and the railway people who transport it into Sydney as well. It is going to have a massive effect.
Already, because of the global economic downturn, kiln 5 at Kandos has been closed down. The staff at the plant are taking holidays and leave; they are trying to hold the employees at that plant and reduce production. That is just from the effects of the global downturn. The effect of a 30 per cent tax on the Australian cement industry will be devastating not only for the economy of the town of Kandos but for the Australian nation as a whole.
It was heart warming to see the demonstrations of mateship and community cohesion after the terrible Victorian bushfires. People of all backgrounds, all ethnicities and all makes supported each other through one of not only Victoria’s but Australia’s worst ever tragedies, as we saw. Individuals, community groups and organisations were all reaching out, and are continuing to reach out, to those who have suffered so terribly from the impact of those bushfires. As we have heard here in this place from many members who were affected, many people lost loved ones and everything that they owned.
People in South Australia, including those in my electorate of Hindmarsh, share in their grief. Many of the residents in my electorate are providing practical support for those in their time of need. With more than 6,000 people now homeless, in the city of Holdfast Bay, which covers the suburbs of Somerton Park and Glenelg in my electorate, people joined forces with Solo Resource Recovery to send help. Residents were asked to place clean new or near-new items into a plastic bag in their yellow-lidded recycling bin for collection the day after their scheduled recycling collection day. Those who are familiar with South Australian rubbish collection know that we have two bins, a green bin and a yellow bin, one being for recycling. With this particular bin, Solo decided to put a truck out the day after their normal pick-up day to pick up goods that would be useful to those people who had lost their homes and were devastated in the bushfires. All items collected have been or will be sent to Victoria. This was promoted through the bushfire appeal of Radio FIVEaa in Adelaide. I congratulate Radio FIVEaa, Solo and the Holdfast Bay council for their tremendous work.
We also had staff at the City of West Torrens council hold a fundraising barbecue to raise funds for the bushfire victims. One of the students at Fulham North Primary School in my electorate asked the school to get involved in supporting a fundraiser which they have put together to assist the bushfire victims. Their fundraiser will be a fire alert day where students will all wear something red to identify with the bushfire theme, and then students will be asked to make a gold coin donation. This was from a primary school student, and it showed great insight into the concern all around Australia for those who lost loved ones or their homes in the bushfires.
On Sunday, which was the National Day of Mourning, I attended a service down at Port Adelaide at a little Greek Orthodox church that, even though it is just out of my electorate, has a parish which covers my electorate as well. It is just over the border and covers the suburbs of West Lakes, Tennyson, Semaphore Park and Semaphore South. So there were many people from my electorate at that mass. They held a fundraiser after the church service. There would have been fewer than a hundred people at this particular fundraiser, and in a matter of two hours, under the guidance of their president, Bill Tsogas, they raised $8½ thousand. These people were pensioners, people who did not have a lot of money, but they all pulled together and donated. They were all going up to the stage, giving cash and getting their receipts. Within a matter of two hours, there was $8½ thousand there. This is from a community miles away. Maybe it was because we were affected by the bushfires in 1983 in South Australia. I know that back then the President of the Port Adelaide Greek Community, Bill Tsogas, was a cab driver, and so was I. In 1983, when we had the bushfires, we were both driving cabs and we got a call to drop all work, go to pick-up destinations, pick up clothes et cetera and take them to central points. I suppose that, because of his experience of those days, he really pushed and ensured that they raised as much as they possibly could.
South Australia is one of the driest states in the driest continents in the world and those of us there are always aware of the risks of bushfires. The recent Victorian bushfire, as I said, makes us recall the terrible bushfires we had in South Australia on Ash Wednesday in 1983. As a South Australian I was also shocked by the events on 11 January 2005 on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, where we lost many lives tragically. I made a speech about that as well back then, when I was first elected. It was a tragic, tragic event on the South Australian calendar. (Time expired)
Tonight I would like to address my comments to those who are watching and listening to this broadcast, and I want to ask them to have an open mind. They will think that in what I am doing I am taking some kind of political tack. It is not; it is just a statement of fact. I ask them to listen to the facts. It flows from the announcement yesterday of a state election in Queensland.
For months and months and months, the Premier has been saying, ‘We will go our full term.’ When asked by the media, ‘When is the election?’ she said, ‘We will go our full term.’ As late as last week, she said, ‘We will go our full term.’ What we now find out is, of course, that all of the material was produced for an election, a Women’s Weekly supplement was produced for the election and all the advertisements were booked, but the Premier was still saying, ‘We’re going to go our full term.’ I get a bit cynical about that, and I hope that those who are listening and watching tonight will also get a bit cynical about that. It is wrong to mislead the electorate, and it is wrong to enter a situation where you basically tell a porky. I think the people of Australia and Queensland deserve better than that. But we have an election—an early election. People will be unhappy, and they—
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I am very disappointed to hear the member for Herbert impugning the motives of another parliament in his reference to a porky, which is akin to saying someone is lying. I think that is inappropriate in his speech.
The parliamentary secretary probably does have a point. I would ask the member for Herbert to observe the etiquette of the House.
Thank you. I do not think there was a point, but anyway. Back to the Queensland government. This is a government that sent Queensland broke in the middle of a mining boom. This is the Labor Party all over.
You had a mining boom and wasted it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, please ask the member to cease interjecting.
The parliamentary secretary will desist from interjecting.
This is a government that sent Queensland broke in a mining boom. How could that be? Now we have got a $3,500 million interest bill—a three and a half thousand million dollar interest bill in Queensland. We are going to go for a debt of $71,000 million. How will Queenslanders ever pay that off? Here federally what happened was that it took us 10 years to pay off $96 billion of debt. With Queensland having a much smaller revenue base, how on earth are they going to pay off $71 billion? The answer is that they are not. Queensland has been saddled with a debt forever and interest payments forever by a Labor Party government.
Back to the federal situation: look at what is happening federally. What is different with Labor? Now we are looking at borrowing $200,000 million. The interest bill on that is $10,000 million a year—$10,000 million in dead payments in interest. How we are going to pay that off? It took 10 years to pay off Labor’s previous debt. Now they are doubling the debt that is occurring, how are we going to pay that off? It is very concerning indeed. I say to those who are watching and listening tonight that nothing has changed. Whether it is state or federal—debt, debt, debt. Tick it up on the future and let the kids pay. Well, that is not on as far as the coalition is concerned, and that is why we opposed the stimulus package and wanted to produce a stimulus package that cost half of what Labor’s proposal is but delivered twice the stimulus. Why on earth the Labor Party would not listen to a proposal like that, which gives a better deal to the Australian taxpayer, I do not know.
I will finish on a positive note. We all support federal funding for the redevelopment of the Townsville Mall and we all support federal funding for the redevelopment of the Townsville Harbour with the ocean terminal precinct. I thank my Labor colleagues for their support.
I rise to speak about a technology that is currently being developed and trialled in the Fremantle electorate by Carnegie Corporation; a technology that harnesses the ocean swell to produce electricity and desalinated water. It is an example of the kind of innovation that will assist Australia in moving from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy. It is an example of what is possible when science and private enterprise and government policy meet together in pursuit of a shared objective.
In September last year, I toured the CETO II wave power research and testing station on the North Mole side of Fremantle Port with the Minister for Climate Change and Water. In the adjacent Indian Ocean, Carnegie Corporation has already installed a system of fully submerged buoys that are tethered to the ocean floor. From sea motion alone, the CETO II system delivers high-pressure seawater ashore, where the energy is used to generate zero-emission electricity. Zero-emission desalinated water can also be produced from this process.
Last Friday, I had the pleasure of a return visit, this time to attend the launch of the federal government’s Renewable Energy Demonstration Program by the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism. This $435 million program will provide competitive capital grants on a $1 for $2 matched contribution basis to fund the commercial demonstration of emerging renewable technologies. It will stimulate more than $1 billion worth of investment at the sharp end of the Australian renewable energy sector, and it is yet another election promise kept by the Rudd government.
In a recent assessment conducted by RPS Met Ocean for Carnegie Corporation of 17 suitable near-shore sites along Australia’s southern coast, researchers determined that the energy potential held in those waves is four times that of the existing national power grid. Accounting for the extraction process, and accessibility of the wave resource, it was estimated that wave power from near-shore facilities could supply 35 per cent of the nation’s current base load power. The study also indicated that Australia’s deep water—from Geraldton in WA around southern Australia to the New South Wales-Queensland border—holds the potential to provide 10 times more energy than all current installed capacity. Precisely because it is the most abundant thing on earth, and because it is constant and predictable, seawater and tidal movement make wave power an obvious green-power choice, and in my view it is one that hasn’t received enough popular attention in the course of the recent renewable energy and carbon-emission reduction debate. With one of the most extensive coastlines in the world, and one that has been identified amongst the best potential sources of wave energy, Australia should be at the forefront in support and development of this industry.
I would add that with Australia’s abundance of other natural conditions we should also be at the forefront of solar, solar thermal, wind and geothermal technologies. That is why the Rudd government is fast-tracking funding under the $500 million Renewable Energy Fund, which over the next 18 months will provide grants for the development, commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy. The key supporting platform of the renewable energy sector in Australia is now of course the government’s Renewable Energy Target that will ensure that 20 per cent of the nation’s electricity comes from renewable energy by 2020.
The wave-power technology being developed on the Indian Ocean bed off Fremantle is a looking-glass preview of the future. It is a future that is far from guaranteed but it is a future that Australia and, indeed, the global community must strive towards. We must do the hard work to challenge the old orthodoxies and vested interests and turn in a new direction.
Question agreed to.
The following notice was given:
to move—
That the House:
I am pleased to speak in the parliament today and very strongly support the state Liberal National Party candidates in the Ryan electorate—the candidates for the state seats of Mount Ommaney, Indooroopilly, Moggill and Mount Coot-tha, who are all going to be fantastic in their efforts to take up the fight to the Bligh-Beattie Labor government. The Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has called the election in Queensland, and I think that all the constituents of those seats of Mount Ommaney, Indooroopilly, Moggill and Mount Coot-tha, which fall within the Ryan federal seat, will know full well that they have a very important decision. The decision is whether to re-elect a government that has been quite incompetent; a government that has been awash in GST revenue; a government that has been awash in the rivers of gold, as the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Lawrence Springborg, has said; a government that has had a decade of enormous revenue but unfortunately has wasted, has squandered and has mismanaged the Queensland economy to the extent where today the Queensland government has absolutely no respect in the international marketplace. It has no respect in the financial marketplace. The Government’s ability to govern, its ability to invest in projects of enormous significance off its own bat, is simply not there. Its AAA credit rating has fallen over the cliff and, as Lawrence Springborg said, not even the Premier of New South Wales managed to allow that. So that speaks loud and clear for the state of Queensland Labor Party management skills.
It is time for the Queensland Labor government to go. It is time for the people of Mount Ommaney, Indooroopilly, Moggill and Mount Coot-tha to endorse the LNP candidates very convincingly, because the Labor Party in Queensland has been in power now for nearly two decades, bar a couple of years of the Borbidge government. With all the infrastructure problems in Queensland, with all the mismanagement, with all the lack of investment in schools, it is just untenable that they could possibly be re-endorsed. So I say to all the people of Ryan, who at this coming state election will be voting in their respective state seats: I strongly encourage you to give your LNP candidates the most considered thought, because they will represent you. They will come to the new state parliament with energy, with enthusiasm and with a vision for a new Queensland. We have had two decades, nearly uninterrupted, of Labor politics and Labor government. It is now time for them to walk off into the sunset and to leave the Queensland parliament for a new era of strong administration under the coalition and under the leadership of Lawrence Springborg.
There has been an overwhelming response of generosity and solidarity by the people of the Northern Rivers district, which takes in my seat of Page, to the people of Victoria affected by the devastating bushfires—and I acknowledge the member for McEwen, who is nodding at me affirmatively.
The Northern Star, one of the local newspapers, ran a campaign and collected a whole range of goods and also money. I pay tribute to it and its editor, Sue Short. Two individuals, David Dowd and Andrew Roberts, one of them unemployed, managed to organise and collect a whole lot of toys and other goods and also get the services of ARTC—the CEO, David Marchant, is originally a Grafton boy—and Queensland Rail, and they got the trains to Grafton to take the goods down to Victoria. So I pay tribute to them. Grafton Public School have organised 29 boxes of books to go to Marysville public school—and there is much, much more. I really want to pay tribute to the outpouring of what I call generosity and solidarity. People wanted to help and help they did, and they will continue to do that for the people, families and communities of Victoria until their lives regain—although they can never regain what was—some sort of semblance of normalcy.
The second matter I would like to talk about is the young people in my electorate of Page. I recently attended the Royal Sydney Show Miss Showgirl final for zone 1, held in Grafton and attended by 16 Miss Showgirls from as far away as Laurieton, up to Warialda, and all over my area. Thanks to the local show societies and The Land newspaper. There were five young women, all from Page, who were in the finals: Naomi Watson from Alstonville, Stacey Maslen from Casino, Danielle Bower from Grafton, Mardi Wilson from Kyogle and Amy Morton from Lismore. Amy, who is a local butcher, was selected as the winner, and Holly Jarrett from Bangalow, which is in Richmond, the seat beside mine, was runner up. They now go to the finals in Sydney, which will be held on 18 April. I will be there to see them. All the women are wonderful ambassadors for our community. All are budding community leaders. All acquitted themselves brilliantly and intelligently and are serving their local communities. Thanks to Neville Heyward, Grafton Show Society president, for hosting the night, and to the mayor of Clarence Valley, Councillor Richie Williamson, who did the MC-ing.
This afternoon I pay tribute to a very special lady who is going to be missed by her family, her friends, her work colleagues and, indeed, her local community; I pay tribute to Roslyn Francette Wilson, who was the Principal of Elanora State High School. Last Thursday, she was farewelled in a very colourful service—to complement her very colourful personality—at the Sacred Heart Church at Clear Island Waters. Roslyn was a woman who just embraced life. She was a woman who passed away long before her time. The students of Elanora State High School formed a guard of honour to say farewell to Roslyn last Thursday.
Roslyn—‘Ros’, as we knew her—was just weeks away from a school trip to China, but she died a week or so ago from unknown causes. She had become ill about a month ago and was admitted to Pindara Private Hospital on the Gold Coast. That was on 10 February. Unfortunately, on Thursday, 12 February, at around 4 am, Ros Wilson died with her son, Cassidy, by her side. The family still do not know what took Ros. They are waiting for a coroner’s report.
Cassidy was there when his mum passed away and at the service last Thursday paid tribute to his wonderful mother. On behalf of all of us, eulogies that were given by Ross Smith, the Principal of Robina State High School, and Roslyn Fischer, a very close family friend, paid tribute to and painted a picture of a woman who had given so much to her community, to her school, to her students and to her family.
There are too few words to describe Ros. She was smart. She was clever. She was probably one of the best groomed women I ever knew—on the Gold Coast, when it was very hot, you always saw Ros in her pearls and stockings. She was never flustered; she was a very sophisticated, beautifully groomed woman; she greeted you at the school door with a huge smile. She was compassionate. She was warm. She gave so much to her community. She served in many ways: she was a Rotarian, a marriage celebrant, a justice of the peace, an area coordinator for Neighbourhood Watch, a community representative, and the electoral presiding officer, and she was twice nominated for Gold Coast Citizen of the Year. Through Roslyn’s family—her husband, Paul, and her son, Cassidy—through all her friends, her colleagues at Elanora State High School and the community at large, I say thank you to Ros for the contribution that she made to our community over many years, especially to the students of Elanora State High School.
The generosity of volunteers has, in recent times, been at the forefront of our minds. The vital work of so many volunteers in our community from the most noble and courageous effort to the most modest, the most private, is something of which we must always remain mindful. There are people and organisations in our community who help others. Just as we should not forget the contributions, the selflessness and the generosity of these organisations in these times when they are no longer in the spotlight we should also recognise that those contributing to our communities often need a helping hand themselves.
Last month the Minister for Community Services announced over $6.3 million worth of funding for volunteer grants by the Australian government. I am proud to say that 25 community groups in my electorate of Holt were recipients of those grants. These included the Berwick Stamp Club, the Bunyip Black Sox Softball Club, Christians Helping in Primary Schools, the Cultural and Historical Association of Rodriguans and Mauritians, Endeavour Ministries, Eumemmerring Federation Food Garden, Friends of Frog Hollow, Gumnuts Parents Association, River Gum Primary School, Hampton Park Secondary College Parent Network, Indian Subcontinent Cultural and Community Welfare Association, the Lions Club of Endeavour Hills, the Narre Warren Chamber of Commerce, the Casey District Scouts and First Hampton Scouts, the Ventana Hispana and Hampton Park Community House.
In particular, I would like to talk about the contributions of several groups who do so much for our community, and seek only the assurance that they can survive to keep on giving. One particular group, the After Breast Cancer Exercise Group, received assistance through the grant program. The group offers support services to women who have experienced breast cancer and have survived it. The group seeks to help these women with vital assistance such as helping them return to work and to maintain an active involvement in community life.
The Casey and District Multiple Birth Association, which recently had its 21st anniversary, is another organisation that has received funding through this initiative. This association, particularly in an area that has a lot of kids, provides much needed support and information services to families with or expecting twins, triplets or quads. The Cranbourne and District Toy Library is also in receipt of a grant. This organisation promotes early childhood development in the Cranbourne area. The Fountain Gate Tennis Club is another fantastic community based facility. Another one is the Hampton Park Junior Football Club and that certainly speaks for itself. It provides an absolutely fantastic opportunity for kids and their families and the wider community to participate in sport and in social activities—and a lot of people who have spent time in the football club would understand that. The Hampton Park Primary School through its public relations subcommittee seeks to promote greater awareness of the school’s activities as well as promoting greater community involvement in these activities through the use of its grant. My time is running short but these organisations are fantastic organisations that are the glue with which our community is bound.
The trout and salmon industry has thrived in my electorate by making use of the cold waters of the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon and the numerous tributaries of the Goulburn River. The industry in just the Murrindindi shire produces about 1,500 tonnes of rainbow trout per year. These fish are processed and value added into a range of products: whole, gilled and gutted, trout fillets, various forms of smoked trout, pates, dips and caviar. These are then sold throughout Australia and exported into Asia. The significance of the trout industry to the Shire of Murrindindi simply cannot be underestimated. The synergies that exist between the trout aquaculture industry and tourism industry are very strong as is the connection with the research centre at Snobs Creek Hatchery.
However, on Saturday 7 February 2009 the industry was devastated by the huge bushfire that swept across the region. This came on top of a prolonged drought of many years and then a record heatwave. To give you an example, Paul Cox at Wilhelmina Trout Farm lost about 100 tonnes of trout as they were overcome by contaminated water filled with ash and fire debris. The Murrindindi River stopped flowing into the farm as burnt trees and trash formed beaver dams. Paul tells of the great anguish he felt trying to save his house and processing plant while trying to keep his trout alive. All through the night he worked, but was eventually overwhelmed by the filthy water. He said, ‘I knew it was over when the fish in the river started to die.’ At Buxton Trout Farm, Mitch McCrae had a number of people sheltering in his house with towels over their heads as the flames licked his hatchery. The house next door was burnt as was the garage over the road. Mitch lost about 30 tonnes of trout as the water turned the colour of Coke. In his words Mitch said, ‘It was a bloody scary night and although we have lost all the fish, we are just lucky to be alive.’
These are amazing stories of human spirit. The effort to rebuild is going to be very difficult because the catchments have all been burnt out and the first rains are going to bring more ash into the river system, and of course the trout industry needs the cold, clear waters of the Goulburn. This is an indication of the difficulty of rebuilding these industries and the importance of maintaining employment in these regions to allow these families to become self-supporting and to maintain critical mass within these communities.
It is fitting that I make these comments following the member for McEwen. I had the absolute honour of attending this morning the funeral service for ACT fireman David Balfour. David was a member of my community and lived in my constituency. The service this morning was held at the Holy Family Church in Gowrie. David was given full fire service honours, and hundreds of people from the community gathered to pay their respects to David and his family. David leaves behind his wife, Celia, and his three children, Alison, 14, Daniel, 13, and Frances, 10. In her comments at the service, Celia said—fittingly, bravely and courageously, I think—‘David always wanted to be the first at everything.’ Sadly, he is the first fireperson from the ACT to die in service, and that was an added piece of sadness for us today.
David joined the fire brigade in October 1997. Throughout his career he attained the specialist qualifications of stage 3 urban search and rescue and level 2 rescue. He qualified for the rank of senior firefighter in October 2002. The main reason that he put his hand up to go to Victoria was that he felt very strongly about repaying Canberra’s debt from 2003 of the enormous support that came from Victoria and elsewhere when we saw terrible fire destruction in my electorate. David felt very strongly that he had an opportunity to repay that debt and that is why his hand went up so quickly to go to the Victorian region. Sadly and tragically, David died when a tree fell on him as he was attempting to connect a hose to the back of a fire truck. This was devastating, obviously, for his family but also for the fire service personnel here in Canberra and the people who were serving with him at the time in Victoria.
The ACT Fire Brigade, the ACT Rural Fire Service, the ACT Ambulance Service and the ACT State Emergency Service all paid very high regard to David Balfour for the contribution he made in his short life of 46 years to our community and recognised the contribution that he made and that other colleagues and peers of his from Canberra continue to make in Victoria as we speak today. The service at the Holy Family Church was followed by a flyover from our emergency helicopter service as the cortege left for Woden Cemetery. I am sure the House joins me in sending our sincere sympathies, condolences and best wishes to David Balfour’s family.
I rise to acknowledge the new student leaders within the schools of Fadden. Australia’s young leaders play an important role in setting a good example by acting responsibly and making positive choices. What is encouraging is that these leaders have been selected by their schools and, in many instances, by their own peers for their potential to make a positive and lasting contribution to their school communities. We all know Australia needs great leaders, and much more will be demanded of these leaders in their schools today and in their communities tomorrow.
From Trinity Lutheran College: sport captains for Stephan house Emily Hoath and Rebecca Herbert, house captain Nick Arace, house captain and prefect Brynne Morris, cultural captain Brendan Tunbridge, cultural captain and prefect Hannah Roscoe, service captains and prefects Jasmine Mikschi and Kate Wilson, academic captains and prefects Matthew Tremellen and Rachael Webber, sport captains for Mackenzie house Keegan Neal and Alexane Escot, house captains and prefects Karina Dent and Lauren Wight, cultural captain Matthew Nesvadba, cultural captain and prefect Rebecca Odlander, service captain Megan Cooper, service captain and prefect Rina Lee, academic captains and prefects Narinda Chan and Casey Curtis, sport captain for Strohmeyer house Tyson Kolkka, sport captain and prefect Amy Doumany, house captains Tim Molhoek and Riarne Mackereth, cultural captain Kristen Robinson, cultural captain and prefect Blake Howson, service captain Natarsha Oldham, service captain and prefect Ayaka Takata and academic captains and prefects Hannah Gray and Kate Sexton
From Pacific Pines State High School: school captain, Adam Blissett. From Labrador State School: sports captains for Arunta House, John Wame and Jasmin Vainerere, and vice-captains, Jamie Chapman and Kiara Goodey; house captains for Aranda House, Miguel Jarman and Keisha Perenara, and vice-captains, Bayley McKavanagh and Coco Lewis; house captains for Allawa House, Beau Wilson and Madi Bergman, and vice-captains, Jacob Henderson and Kenya Burgess.
From St Francis Xavier Primary School: sports leaders for Green House, Rhiannon Sines and James Stevenson; sports leaders for Blue House, Bailey Marshall and Emma Woodford; sports leaders for Gold House, Jack Diener and Leah Bobolas; sports leaders for Red House, Rachael Milburn and Lauren Gilltrap-Ryall; and student leaders, Joshua Andres, Liam Hamilton, Jessica Laidler, Billy Roberts, Milly Martino and Chantelle Berlouis.
From Pacific Pines State School: school captains, Paige Hunt and Kyle Cosgrove; school vice-captains, Brittany Kendall and Kaleb Peleti; house captains for Hackett House, Luke Borg and Keelee Waipuka; house captains for Norman House, Brayden Barratt and Michelle Briggs; house captains for Rafter House, Bradley Rae and Tenille Fiteni; and house captains for Freeman House, Aiden Kelly and Jeneva Krebs.
From Park Lake State School: school captains, Tanesha and Liam; house captain for Lorikeets, Michaela; house captain for Barramundi, Danielle; house captain for Goannas, Hannah; house captain for Kangaroos, Tahmeya; and student councillors, Laura, Jasmine, Natalee, Tori, Chloe, Savanna, Matthew, Blake, Kate, Nadia, Shaan, Sophie, Heidi and Maddie.
From Oxenford State School: school leaders, Brett Austin and Skye Moody; house leaders for Elliott House, Braedan Jones and Caitlin Fadian; house leaders for Bradman House, Ben Dean and Lexie Essex-Hartas; house leaders for Fraser House, Byron Ridgley and Nikki Boersch; and music leader, Gabrielle Ball.
And from Woongoolba State School: school captains, Billy Arnott and Mariah Bowers; house captains for Green House, Paige Norman and Maverick Sooalo, and vice-captains, Marlee Braun and Dylan Russell; house captains for Gold House, Jed Smith and Katya Martin, and vice-captains, Brooke Oppermann and Harry Clayton; and student council representatives, Shania Blacksell, Dylan Russell, Kelly Heck, Tiger Boontang and Jak Mullen.
I want to take the opportunity, today, to provide an update on the government’s policy concerning the age pension and its importance for the residents of Charlton. On behalf of the nearly 7,000 single pensioners and 10,000 partnered pensioners within my electorate, I have been working hard within the government to represent their interests. The electorate of Charlton, in fact, has a higher than average number of people dependent on the pension and that flows into a low mean average income across the electorate, and people who rely upon the pension are doing it hard.
The government is committed to a review of pensions to be conducted by Dr Jeff Harmer, who will report to the Treasurer and Minister Macklin by the end of this month. The review process revealed clearly that pensioners and carers are doing it tough, and the government has been listening to their stories. Dr Harmer’s report will provide a basis for government to respond to these pressures and to get our pension system right for the long term. Many of my constituents are keenly awaiting the findings of this review. In fact, late last year the Treasurer and the minister attended a pensioner forum in my electorate where they were confronted by many questions about this issue. It is fair to say that in my electorate, as in many others throughout the country, I imagine, these findings are keenly anticipated and there is hope that some much-needed relief for pensioners may flow from them.
I can assure the residents of Charlton that the position of the government is very clear on this issue—that is, the government has undertaken to deliver long-term pension reform in the 2009-10 budget. However, in the meantime, the government has recognised that some pensioners have been struggling to make ends meet. That is why the Rudd government has undertaken a variety of measures to assist pensioners who are struggling. In total, excluding normal indexation, the government has been able to provide an additional $2,337 of assistance to single pensioners and $3,537 to pensioner couples since coming to office. Of course, those measures include: $1,400 for singles and $2,100 per eligible pensioner couple as part of the government Economic Security Strategy in December last year; a higher rate of utilities allowance, $500 a year for singles or couples combined; an increase in the seniors concession allowance from $218 to $500 a year; and an increase in the telephone allowance from $88 to $132 a year for eligible recipients.
Although these measures have provided much-needed assistance in Charlton while the government conducts the review through Dr Harmer, it is clear that long-term pension reform is needed and we look forward to the findings of the Harmer review. I will certainly continue to work hard on behalf of the pensioners in my electorate to achieve long-term reform. (Time expired)
Over the past month a passionate debate has been conducted on the pages of the local Southern Gazette, a newspaper in my electorate of Swan. At times the debate has been highly personalised. However, the subject matter is important and that is why I raise it in the House today. The debate has been between the competing interests of the racing industry and the environmental protection of the Swan River. I have previously spoken to the House about the horseracing industry in my electorate. The industry is a large employer of local people and provides entertainment to thousands of people in Perth. The two major racecourse venues in my electorate are Ascot and Belmont. Ascot Racecourse is the headquarters for Perth Racing and hosts the prestigious Perth Cup. Ascot has a nearby racing precinct, or residential and stables zone, with streets designed to allow horses and residents to coexist.
The 1,700 metre Belmont Park Racecourse is a winter track on the riverbank. Thanks to its excellent drainage, Belmont is renowned as arguably one of the best wet-weather tracks in Australia, if not the world. This drainage represents a double-edged sword. Julie Rolling of Rivervale, wrote to the Southern Gazette. She said:
Unbeknown to many residents, close to the Belmont Racecourse there is a large drain hidden away. When the tide is in you can’t see what the drain is expelling. When the tide is out, you can see a large, yellowish, oily, dirty stream coming from the drain, just waiting for the tide to come back in and take it out into the Swan—
that is, the Swan River. Another local, Mr Kevin Bettridge, wrote in a letter of 10 February about how the horse waste from the Ascot stables zone is fed, via a pipe, into the Swan, causing algal blooms. Mr Bettridge criticised the Belmont council for allowing this practice to continue.
Kevin Watkins of Belmont even suggested that the horses be moved out of the town. In response, Ray Mayne of Belmont defended the horseracing industry by saying, ‘It is iconic and a good spin-off for local business.’ Last week the mayor of the city of Belmont took out an advertisement in a local newspaper. She defended the residential and stable zone as ‘a unique feature of our city’ and said, ‘Environmental issues are addressed as part of every council decision.’
These exchanges in the Southern Gazette have highlighted two points. Firstly, as I am sure members would agree, this has been a magnificent exercise in local democracy. Local government has had to respond to concerns of local citizens. Secondly, we must acknowledge that this issue is significant enough to warrant a forum or, in other words, a summit. Most people recognise that an agreement of coexistence is required between the fantastic racing industry and the priceless natural asset, the Swan River.
I have spoken in the past about the racecourse industry. I also spoke just yesterday about the importance of protecting wetlands in my electorate of Swan. A local community forum, involving all stakeholders, would allow us to move forward as a community to protect our environment and our valuable racing industry. We must realise that the debate is not about competing interests of the racing industry and the Swan River system and that they can both prosper with a good management system. I will endeavour to arrange this forum involving the parties concerned and achieve this goal for the local people in the cities of Belmont and Ascot.
I rise on a sad note to acknowledge the passing of a great Australian, Aubrey McGill. In my book, great Australians are often not the people who grace the halls of this place or other high offices. There are many extraordinary ordinary Australians; Aub was one of those. Aub embodied the great Australian characteristics: he was kind, quiet, gentle, friendly, but with a mischievous twinkle in his eye. Everyone liked Aub. I would like to put on record in parliament a bit about Aub’s life, and I am indebted to Aub’s youngest child, Laurel, for providing my office with some details of his early life.
Aub was a great Geelong West man through and through. Born in 1920 in West Geelong, Aub was raised in West Geelong, married in West Geelong and lived in West Geelong. His family referred to him as ‘Captain Stayput’. How Australian is that phrase? Aub was typical of his generation. The evidence of class and social injustice was all around him in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. At Aub’s funeral service, a story was told how, at the age of eight, a social conscience was awakened in him. When Aub visited his grandmother, a man was cutting her hedge for one shilling an hour, but Aub’s father, a barber, was cutting hair for a shilling a cut and doing four an hour. At the age of eight Aub was already considering what was fair.
After a grave illness Aub was unable to serve in the war and went to work at Ford, where he also became involved in the union. He married Joan Sharp—Aub’s English rose—in 1944 during the war. Aub had a great passion, a lifelong passion for social justice. The Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War have been noted as important events in shaping how he thought about things.
Aub was also a life member of the Australian Labor Party and was a Belmont branch member until he passed away. Not so long ago, I had the great privilege of sitting with Aub at my office party for the end-of-year wind-up. We had a beer together. Aub was quite sick with a serious illness. Because of this illness, I think it was the first beer he had had for many months. I think he really enjoyed it, and I certainly enjoyed his company. Whilst I was having a beer with Aub, there was something that struck me—something that I have remembered. Aub seemed to be content. More importantly, it struck me that Aub always seemed to be content. It was one of his great qualities.
This parliament is a place of ambition. We know that there are traps in that. We know ambition can become a poison. Aub was free of that poison. Whilst always striving for the rights of others, he seemed free of ambition for himself. He was happy with life, I think. I also think, in the end, we might find that contentment is more important than ambition, and that is something of importance as Aub’s legacy. It is with great regret that I note his passing.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Consideration resumed from 12 February.
On indulgence: I rise today to speak about the Queensland floods. Of course, it would not be fitting to fail to mention the other adversities that our communities around the country are experiencing at the moment. So I would like to pass on my sympathies to the people of Victoria, in this time of great sorrow and mourning. We know Australia to be a country of extremes. In the words of Dorothea Mackellar, who wrote that wonderful poem, My Country, we talk about ‘her beauty and her terror’—the beauty and terror of nature in this country. The recent tragedy in Victoria and the floods in Queensland just show the complex fabric of our society—not only the people, but also the natural conditions under which we live.
While no-one can predict these extreme circumstances, we do live in a land of extremes. The contrasts in this country are tragically obvious as we deal with the conditions of fire and flood and consider how we, as a community, deal with the issues that confront us right now. Through these disasters, however, communities tend to band together and governments will also band together. This was quite obvious in the chamber in our previous sitting week where both sides of the House came together to offer condolences and to speak about those tragedies in Victoria and also the tragedies that confront us in Queensland. These are more extreme when there is a large loss of human life. We must commemorate the loss of life and understand the tragedies of those communities. But the people who are affected by flood have to go on living in their communities, and the rebuilding is no less of an effort for that. In North Queensland, those communities are confronted with this difficulty.
I was honoured to attend, last Friday evening in Logan City, a fund-raising event, called ‘Logan Cares’. The newly-formed Logan City Council—formed after the amalgamations of last March—brought together a larger community and one which was very diverse. It was a wonderful opportunity for this community to come together on an initiative of the President of the Logan Chamber of Commerce, Mr Bill Richards, and the new mayor of Logan City, Mayor Pam Parker. That event was supported by many businesses and many other community organisations. So some good can come out of adversity. And when you looked at the community coming together, you could see the multicultural nature of the city of Logan, with 160 countries and cultures represented. The dance acts and the performances that were put on to raise money were an amazing coming together, and people who were part of that event saw what wonderfully diverse cultures we have in the city of Logan.
On that evening it was announced that the city would make a $100,000 contribution to the donations to support people in Victoria and those in the Queensland floods, with 70 per cent going to Victoria and 30 per cent to Queensland, providing much-needed money at this time. On the evening, while that $100,000 had been committed by the council, there was also the offer to match, dollar for dollar, any money raised at that event.
The community of Logan is very diverse. They are not necessarily a wealthy community by any standard but they were able to raise $36,000 on that evening. Matching that dollar for dollar would obviously double that amount. I was very proud on that evening not only to be a resident of Logan City but also to be the federal member. I promised the people who were involved in that fundraiser that night that I would certainly pass on to this House my appreciation of what they were able to do as a community. I want to give special commendation to Mr Bill Richards, the President of the Logan City Chamber of Commerce, who, through the Chamber of Commerce, organised all of the businesses to contribute in so many ways. I also commend Mayor Pam Parker for the initiative and what she was able to bring to that particular night. In fact, as the mayor of that city, she was very touched by the fact that people gave so much on that evening.
One organisation in particular was the Bendigo Bank, which for a whole range of reasons is associated with Victoria and the fires in that state. The Bendigo Bank has spread its tentacles all over this country in community banking and is very large and proud in the city of Logan. Mr Col Nelson, who is the chair of the Queensland arm of that banking group, contributed $5,000 on that evening. It was wonderful to see the involvement of the Bendigo Bank, which was affected in both communities by the events of the last few weeks.
Over 62 per cent of Queensland has been disaster declared as part of this cyclonic event—over one million square kilometres has been affected, in about 48 shires within the region. To give you an idea, it is an area almost the size of South Australia. Of course, the member for Kennedy made representations in the House during our last sitting week about the way that it was affecting his electorate, with a vast area of his electorate under water. The Queensland government estimates that there is about $234 million worth of damage to roads and local and state government infrastructure. Towns in Far North Queensland, like Ingham, have been affected as well as the residents of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Karumba and Normanton. As I mentioned, the member for Kennedy made representations about that the other week.
It is important to note that these large weather events are not foreign to these communities. In fact, if we go back in the history of Queensland, I certainly remember from growing up in Queensland—and I am sure the member for Blair remembers also—the cyclone warnings coming over the radio or the TV and putting us almost in a state of panic. We were certainly on alert but almost in a state of panic. I remember well that in the sixties this was quite a common event. Queensland has been significantly affected by cyclones for more than a century.
While we are making comparisons with Victoria now in terms of where events rate on the tragedy scale, it is interesting to note that probably one of the largest natural disasters involved Cyclone Mahina in Far North Queensland back in 1899, which claimed nearly 400 lives. It was probably not well recorded simply because of the vast and sparse settlement of the time. Tropical and cyclonic events can do major damage, we know, with the potential for loss of life. On that occasion, a storm surge created a wave nearly 10 metres high that swept inland and took so many lives. There have been others: Cyclone Ada; Cyclone Tracy, which of course hit Darwin; and Cyclone Wanda, when a depression settled over Brisbane back in 1974. The member for Blair would remember that very well.
That experience certainly made me understand what floods and flood damage could do. I remember the city being under water for nearly seven days and, as a 14-year-old, venturing into my aunt’s home to try and help salvage her belongings. I remember, as the water was going down, wandering through water chest high, watching refrigerators float and seeing all those personal possessions that were just ruined by floodwater. I will never forget the stench of opening the fridge after it had been under water for nearly seven days. Of course, the people in North Queensland are experiencing that right now. It is tragic, it is awful, and it is not dissimilar to the effects that people in these fire ravaged areas of Victoria are also experiencing now. It is all loss and it is something that people will take a long time to overcome.
In 2006, Cyclone Larry devastated many people, and the damage to banana plantations in North Queensland caused the so-called banana drought. The reality is that it significantly damaged a community. At that point in time, as a ministerial adviser in Queensland, I had a firsthand view of the effects. You understood the dedication of the emergency services workers there on the ground and the generosity of the community—generosity we see currently in Victoria and with the floods in Queensland. You understood the resilience and the tenacity of the people who were affected. Our best wishes go to those people who are affected in Victoria and certainly, too, to those people who are currently suffering the ravages of flood in North Queensland.
On indulgence: as the member for Forde was saying, those of us who come from Queensland know all about floods. He mentioned Cyclone Wanda. In 1974, my community of Ipswich was devastated by flood. My parents’ home was about eight feet under water, and we lived elsewhere for six weeks thereafter. We had to move a couple of times. I will always think fondly of the Australian military, which came and rescued furniture at the last minute. My parents would have lost everything but for the wonderful men and women of the Australian Defence Force who came and did so much great work. Those of us in South-East Queensland, like the member for Forde, and me in the seat of Blair, feel tremendous empathy for the people of Far North Queensland. North Queensland is in chaos. It has been raining heavily almost every day for weeks, if not months. Emergency services in North Queensland have logged more than a thousand phone calls from people in distress, and we are only in the middle of the wet season.
Fortunately, the weather forecasts are that the rain may abate, but the floodwaters have inundated towns in Far North Queensland for many days and some are still cut off. Between Cairns and Townsville, a beautiful part of Queensland, people have been hit very hard. The people of Ingham have been hit extremely hard. Food drops have been commonplace for many, and water has also been needed. Sanitation has been an issue, and disease has also been a challenge for those experiencing a way of life which for Queenslanders is quite common but to those from other states is quite foreign. Many of these people live in what we call queenslanders—high, raised houses. It is very sad to see what they have had to endure. They have floodwaters underneath them and, as the member for Forde said, have been sitting up in their houses on stilts with floodwaters raging through their streets like rivers. They are also faced with the perils of crocodiles. Disease, pestilence and those other sorts of problems caused by fauna are also very serious.
They have had tremendous challenges—highways cut off, railway lines destroyed, bridges made impassable and thousands of homes affected by flood. Hundreds of people have had to stay in emergency accommodation, and more than 60 per cent of Queensland is flood affected. As the member for Forde said, an area roughly the size of South Australia has been flooded. Like many Queenslanders, I have travelled to Far North Queensland on many occasions. We feel affinity for the people of the north. We love North Queensland; it is where we holiday. We have stayed there. Many of us have worked there. We love the Great Barrier Reef, the sugarcane farms, the banana plantations, the Daintree Rainforest, Port Douglas, the Kuranda markets, the Atherton Tableland and the mines of Mount Isa. We love the beauty of North Queensland. Queenslanders really feel this very hard and deeply.
We Queenslanders are different. We love our provincial towns. We love our places like Toowoomba, the Gold Coast and Ipswich. Our patterns of settlement are very different. We have the Sunshine Coast, Hervey Bay, Maryborough, Bundaberg, Mackay, Townsville and Cairns—major provincial centres. Brisbane does not dominate Queensland like Sydney dominates New South Wales or Melbourne dominates Victoria. These country towns are the lifeblood of Queensland, and we must support them and their people in all that we do.
I am very pleased that the Prime Minister sent up Dr Craig Emerson, the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, and the member for Rankin—a Queenslander who understands Queensland—to assist his fellow Queenslanders. They need help, not hindrance. We must give everything we can. I am pleased he took with him Mr James Bidgood, the member for Dawson and Mr Peter Lindsay, the member for Herbert. Those members represent Townsville and those rural areas that have been so affected. These North Queensland members share Townsville and the surrounds, so travelling to Townsville and Far North Queensland to view the tragedy that is unfolding was a very appropriate thing for the Prime Minister to do as regards those members.
Sadly, there has been loss of life, and our hearts go out to those who have lost loved ones and friends and who have suffered so much property damage. Livelihoods have been lost. The cost is incalculable to industry, particularly rural industries like the banana industry and the sugarcane industry. Members of the emergency services from South-East Queensland have gone north to help their fellow Queenslanders. Queensland Emergency Services and the Queensland Department of Communities had a flood line. That has been available to many people, who have made use of those services, as well as the Commonwealth government services. Centrelink has had recovery centres up north and has received many applications for emergency assistance, particularly from places like Ingham.
We have provided substantial assistance through the federal government. The Australian government disaster recovery payment has been made available to those people who have been adversely affected—$1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per child. The statistics that I have, again, indicate that the Far North Queensland floods have resulted in applications for that assistance being made for 14,804 adults and for 8,981 dependants—a total of 23,785 people. That is a fair sized town. That is a lot of people. In addition to that, the North Queensland floods Income Recovery Subsidy payment has been given to 953 people. That is, of course, in the month of February.
We are talking about a huge cost to people, and the federal government has come to the party along with the wonderful contribution made by the Queensland government and local councils. But it has been local people who have shown courage and commitment. They have shown bravery beyond their call. They have made a huge contribution in terms of caring for their fellow Queenslanders. As the Deputy Prime Minister was speaking so eloquently about the flood victims and particularly the bushfire victims, I thought of the passage in the Bible where St Paul refers to the church in Corinth. They were quite a dysfunctional church and they were fighting amongst themselves and he told them they were the body of Christ. It reminded me of the unity of Australia—we are one body whether we are from Tasmania or from the Torres Strait. From Fremantle or Byron Bay, we are one but we are many. We are one people, and we need to care for those in the body of Australia. We need to care for our fellow Australians. That shows our humanity; that shows our affection; that shows our community spirit. That is what it means for us to be truly Australian, to care for those in need.
I have to say that I thought that the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, spoke brilliantly on this topic on 9 February 2009. He said that the events in North-Western Queensland are a catastrophe. I think that aptly describes it. He said these words, and I think they are worth repeating:
We in the Australian government stand ready to do everything we possibly can to assist the people in the north, as we will in Victoria. Whether it is fire in the south or flood in the north, we have to summon all our national strength and all our compassion to assist people to deal with these terrible challenges.
My community has shown tremendous heart in helping those down south as well as those up north. I pay tribute to the efforts of the Ipswich City Council and the businesses in my community, all of whom rallied together with the emergency services at a church service conducted at St Paul’s Anglican Church in Ipswich under the auspices of Reverend Matthew Jones. He spoke about the heart of the community and what we needed to do to care for our fellow Queenslanders. Pastor Mark Edwards, who is the senior pastor of the biggest Pentecostal church in my electorate, spoke brilliantly and compassionately about the challenges and what we need to do. I want to pay tribute to the Mayor of Ipswich, Paul Pisasale, for the fine words he spoke and, for her very moving speech, to the state Labor member, my very good friend Rachel Nolan, who spoke with real heart and real sincerity about the challenges. Like me, she is someone from Ipswich who has endured flood and tempest.
I want to say to our fellow Queenslanders: we are with you, we are praying for you, we are helping you and we will not forget you. Thank you to governments at all levels for the help you have given the people of North Queensland. I want to say to them: our thoughts are with you; we remember you every day.
On indulgence: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to join with my Queensland colleagues, and of course chief among them the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, in speaking to this matter. It is nice to have such a big group of Queenslanders in this term of the parliament to join with. In speaking to the matter, I want to echo their words of comfort and support for our fellow Queenslanders in places like Ayr, Ingham, Karumba, Tully and everywhere in between who have endured so much in recent weeks and who will live with the slow, frustrating and expensive job of clean-up and recovery for many weeks and months to come.
It was two weeks ago that I was first scheduled to stand here and speak of the floods affecting my home state of Queensland. Since then, thankfully, the floodwaters have receded in some of the worst affected areas, particularly Ingham, but other parts of the state such as Longreach and the central west have had to deal with flooding rains in the interim and the floodwaters continue to cause enormous hardship and economic damage to those communities that have been cut off for a month now in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
The extent of flooding and the scale of damage is something we have not seen in Queensland for many, many years. Even as a lifelong Queenslander, it is hard to comprehend the scale of the flood zone. It is one thing to quote the figure of 60 per cent of the state being under water but quite another thing to grasp the on-ground reality of what that means in a state as vast as Queensland. In Ingham alone the floodwaters reached a height of 12 metres, leaving 3,000 houses inundated. That is just one town across a flood affected area the same size as South Australia.
Of course, we cannot forget our friends in New South Wales because that state has not been spared either in the last two weeks. Northern New South Wales coastal towns and the western town of Burke were declared natural disaster zones as well, with a mounting damage bill and dozens of people evacuated.
In North Queensland, the devastation has reached catastrophic heights, with people missing in floodwaters. I think three people have lost their lives in this flood event, and there is a damage bill that was last estimated at $210 million and growing. And we know that it will grow. It is too soon yet to assess the full extent of damage to large outback properties—the damage to fences and infrastructure and the loss of stock that will be revealed when the waters recede. As we have heard from previous speakers, there is also an enormous infrastructure repair job that needs to be undertaken across so much of the state. Even places like Central Queensland that have not experienced the kind of floods that they have had further north are seeing massive potholes and damage to roads, bridges and culverts, so it will be a big job repairing the damage right across the state.
Central Queensland is very fortunate, I have to say, to have escaped the worst of the damage, but we know how tough floods can be. In fact, it was one year ago that I rose in the House to speak of the floodwaters that swept through Emerald and Mackay and made their way down the mighty Fitzroy River to my home town of Rockhampton. As I said then, flood gripped all corners of the Capricornia electorate, but the community rose together through the turmoil. Countless volunteers and emergency relief workers toiled on the massive preparation for the floods in Rockhampton and the clean-up in those Central Queensland towns.
This same process is now taking place in the north of Queensland and in New South Wales, and that will continue. Volunteers and emergency service workers are putting a huge effort in up there and I congratulate them. I do not think anyone here in the parliament could praise the emergency and volunteer workers in our country enough right at the present time, if indeed ever.
There is a big job ahead, not just cleaning homes but also fixing roads and infrastructure, as I mentioned, and getting our freight and transport services moving again. The full clean-up could take six months or more, and the risks of disease and problems with mosquitos will linger even as the waters recede.
Sixteen emergency services personnel from Central Queensland flew north during the worst of the flooding to assist with the recovery effort. The specialist team went equipped with flood boats, trailers and equipment. They worked on emergency management, doorknocking, a general clean-up and the loading and unloading of helicopters. I am told by the acting area manager for emergency services in Rockhampton that at that time a further 75 workers were on standby to assist. I am pleased and proud to know that those people in Central Queensland were putting their experience of flood recovery to work and putting their hands up to assist their fellow Queenslanders in the north. In the last couple of weeks we have received some minor flooding in parts of Capricornia—some big falls of over 100 millimetres near places such as Nebo—but nothing like what has fallen further north.
Fortunately, farmers in my electorate will be welcoming this summer rain and what it will mean for their crops and pastures. I certainly hope that they do not have to face the same challenges that are being felt in the north. Those challenges include destroyed crops, drowned and malnourished livestock, fences swept away and sheds destroyed. In the Gulf, where the floods have been occurring for a month, the threat of stock dying from malnutrition is real, with no sunlight to grow adequate grass for feed. It is estimated that upwards of 100,000 stock could die from the floods, and graziers need help to keep that toll as low as possible.
I was pleased to hear the announcement that the federal and state governments are working together to pledge $3 million on fodder drops. We are doing our best to save all the cattle that we can in areas—like the lower reaches of the Norman, Flinders and Cloncurry river systems—that have been hardest hit. The government is also providing financial assistance to residents of North and Far North Queensland affected by the floods. There is a one-off lump sum payment of $1,000 for adults and $400 for each child to help support their recovery.
Cane growers have been particularly affected by this flood. Cane growers in the north are looking now for sunshine, to let them get on with the recovery process. The growers in my electorate near Sarina and in the Pioneer Valley will have watched the events in the north with heartfelt commiserations. According to the Canegrowers organisation, the worst affected areas are around Ingham, Tully, Innisfail and Babinda. The Burdekin has also suffered flooding, while to the south, near Mackay, they have so far escaped the damage. Ian Ballantyne, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Canegrowers organisation, says that the full extent of losses in the sugar industry will not be known until the crop is harvested later in the year, but there is no doubt there will be an impact.
When a sugarcane crop is lost, the financial impact is not limited to the individual farmer. Whole communities are built around the sugar industry. It sustains many jobs and small businesses, and the links between farm, industry and community are very strong. When something like this hits, it hits hard. Farm workers, harvesting contractors, mill workers, train drivers and small business suppliers to the industry will be facing an uncertain time as they watch the skies for more rain and watch for signs of recovery in the cane fields. I sincerely hope they find what they are looking for.
Thankfully, we know now that the floodwaters are dropping quickly. We can only hope that those affected have some extended relief from the rain so that they can begin the clean-up in earnest and get their lives back on track. Let us remember that, in the first 10 days of February, Ingham received 999 millimetres of rain—more than most places receive in a year. And I am sure that the people in North Queensland would be very well aware that the wet season may have more in it yet. I keep remembering that Cyclone Larry, which caused so much devastation to Far North Queensland in 2006, hit on 20 March—and that is still some weeks away. I hope for the sake of North Queenslanders that there is no repeat of that kind of cyclone activity or further monsoonal rain. They have had enough.
In concluding, I extend my heartfelt condolences to all the families whose homes and lives have been thrown into chaos by these floods. Our thoughts especially extend to the families of those whose lives have been lost in the floodwaters.
It made me very proud in the last few weeks to hear the stories about people in North Queensland who had been so badly affected by the floods whose first thoughts were for those people who had suffered in the bushfires in Victoria. The stories that we heard, about people sloshing through floodwaters in places like Ingham to actually hold fundraisers to raise money and to donate goods to people recovering from the bushfires in Victoria, were a real testament to the spirit and the enormous heart of the people of North Queensland. I am very proud of my fellow Queenslanders when I hear those things.
But now it is time that we, here, must share their hurt and loss, and pledge ourselves to assist in all ways that we can to help them with the work of recovery and rebuilding what has been left by the floodwaters. We will be there for the long haul, and we hope that we can just get some sunshine so that we can get on with that job.
On indulgence: I rise in support of the comments that are being made by my Queensland colleagues. This is one occasion that I rise to speak but I do not say that it is a pleasure to do so. It would be much better if we did not have to give condolences about the loss of life and the damage that has occurred in North Queensland. We in Queensland know that we have a wet season and that it comes every year; we expect it. But that does not make the cyclones and the devastating floods any easier for the people of Queensland, the people of Australia and those who are directly affected by these devastating floods. In fact, the floods that have occurred recently in North Queensland have resulted in as much as 62 per cent of Queensland being declared a natural disaster flood area. To put that into perspective, I heard recently that that is an area about the size of South Australia. It is hard to fathom that sort of area being under water. Of course, much of the major flooding has occurred around Ingham and around Herbert River.
There has been loss of life since the flooding season began in November 2008—too much loss of life. We need to do more to educate people about the risks associated with flooding, whether they are from playing in swollen creeks, in river beds or just in stormwater drains. There are too many lives lost as a consequence of the sorts of activities that, at the time, people young and old think are fun but which certainly lead to dire consequences for them and their families.
Just as we have heard in the last day or two that the threats of fire continue to exist in Victoria, the threats of flooding continue to exist in North Queensland. It is true to say that, in the areas of Ingham and those worst hit, the water is starting to recede but, as recently as this morning, there were flood warnings being issued for areas such as the Georgina River and Eyre Creek, the lower Flinders and the Norman river systems, the lower Diamantina River, the lower Thomson River and Cooper Creek. So the risks continue to exist, and we need to assist those people on the ground as much as possible so that, if they need to evacuate their homes prior to those rivers bursting their banks, they have help to do so.
We also need to assist in the clean-up process, which is going to be long and difficult. Although these homes may still be standing, they are severely damaged. The belongings inside people’s homes cannot merely be cleaned; they need to be destroyed and replaced. Many people in the Ingham area have reported that they have scrubbed and scrubbed their homes but they are still reeking, and there is a real, legitimate concern that there may be health consequences arising from the floodwaters having gone into these homes.
It is not just people’s homes that are being damaged. People’s jobs are being affected and people’s businesses have been lost as a consequence of these floodwaters. And, of course, the wet season is not over yet—there is more to come. It is pleasing to know that the state Premier has set up a disaster relief appeal fund and that the Prime Minister has already announced funds to go to the relief of both the Victorian fire victims and the Queensland flood victims. In addition to that, we know that people across Australia are digging deep to support people who have been affected by these devastating floods.
In Queensland especially we are acutely aware of the fact that we need to be providing financial relief and food, clothing and other necessities to people in the north, just as we are doing in the south. I have certainly had many people come to me asking how they can assist in relation to Victoria and North Queensland. One thing that we should look at for those people who still want to give those goods—when we know that the Red Cross are asking for people to stop sending certain goods down south because they cannot store them anymore and, right now, they are after financial assistance—is whether they could be used up north in Queensland.
So far, in north and north-west Queensland, the early damage estimate for flooding exceeds $190 million. At its peak in Ingham, the number of homes with external inundation numbered 2,900, and more than 50 of those had floodwaters through their living areas. Sixty people were evacuated to emergency accommodation at Ingham State High School at the peak, and in Karumba and Normanton 17 homes suffered from inundation and nine of those homes are flooded throughout. However, the number of claims and the full financial impact of this disaster will, of course, only be known once waters recede and repairs begin.
I would like to pass on my personal thanks to the Queensland police, Emergency Management Queensland, the SES and the Department of Communities, along with community volunteers and local councils. Emergency service workers, Ergon and government and non-government agencies such as the Salvation Army, Lifeline and the Red Cross have been invaluable and are doing amazing work in relation to the Queensland floods. This year the SES has taken 2,388 callouts already and, as I said, I do not think we have seen the end of that as yet.
I would also like to, on behalf of myself and my family, pass on my condolences to all of those who have lost loved ones and who have lost livelihoods and their homes to these floods. It would certainly be remiss of me to not also pass on at this time my condolences to all those who have been affected in the Victorian fires and those who are still facing dangers as a consequence of ongoing fires.
On indulgence: my purpose here today is to join with my Queensland colleagues in this discussion concerning the widespread flooding that has beset much of our state. Before doing so, I want to take a moment, on behalf of all the people in my electorate of Longman, to place on record our sorrow and sympathy for the predicament that our fellow Australians in Victoria face as a result of the recent catastrophic fires. In the preceding condolence motion, many members of this parliament spoke at length with great eloquence, compassion and, in a number of instances, personal experience and knowledge of those fires and of the people so severely affected by them. Like them, I offer our condolences to those who have lost family members, who have lost friends, who have lost much loved pets and livestock, who have lost precious family historical items and documents and who have lost their homes and all of their possessions.
Like the speakers before me, I offer our admiration and respect for the women and men who fought to protect the lives and properties of the people in the communities first endangered and then, in many cases, devastated by the awesome ferocity of the fires. Our feelings are magnified by the knowledge that not only were many of these men and women volunteers but they remained at their posts, helping others as their own properties were threatened and then destroyed. We marvel at the courage and determination of survivors who insist that they will rebuild their communities. I, as part of this parliament and also as part of the government, am committed to ensuring that we do all that we can to provide whatever is needed to help these communities in their recovery, and not to forget them. I should note that such is the extent of the sympathy for the Victorians whose lives have been changed forever by the fires that the flood victims in North Queensland are donating their disaster relief funds to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal. In their estimation, these people are worse off than they are.
Natural disasters are a frequent feature of the Australian landscape. In Queensland, they are regularly the result of destructive winds and flooding rains, of cyclonic activity and/or monsoonal troughs. But, in this case as well as that of the monsoonal trough, cyclones Charlotte and Ellie have also brought heavy rains. Paluma Dam, which is halfway between Ingham and Townsville, and Hawkins Creek, which is west of Ingham, have each received more than 2,600 millimetres of rain since the beginning of the year. In the old system, that is more than 102 inches. The extensive flooding that we have seen in Queensland in recent weeks is unusual only in its extent. More than 60 per cent of the state, over one million square kilometres, has been inundated by floodwaters at one time. Each flood-affected community has experienced flooding before and knows it will do so again.
To say that floods are a regular feature of the lives of many Queenslanders I think in no way diminishes the impact that floods have on our citizens, communities and economies. As of this morning, flood warnings remain current for the Diamantina, Thomson, Georgina, Flinders and Norman rivers, as well as for Eyre Creek. And it is still raining. In the 24 hours to 9 am this morning, Halifax and Lucinda in the Mackay area received just under 250 millimetres, or 10 inches, of rain. Ingham has experienced what may be its worst ever flood—certainly its worst flood in the last 30 years. The Burdekin Dam was at one stage releasing enough water every five hours to fill Sydney Harbour, which will no doubt revitalise advocacy for the Bradfield scheme. Gulf communities have been cut off since mid-January and can expect to remain isolated for at least another four weeks. Throughout Far North, north and central-west Queensland, dozens of vital roads have been closed or are opened only with load restrictions. Many remain closed still.
Estimates of the cost of damage to infrastructure caused by the floods have exceeded $200 million. But, as Queensland’s Emergency Services Minister, Neil Roberts, has conceded, we will not know the true cost of the damage until all the water has receded. So the cost could be many hundreds of millions of dollars more. Stock losses and private property damage will total many millions of dollars.
Many speakers in this place in recent days have called to mind the imagery of Dorothea Mackellar’s famous poem My Country, which I note was originally entitled Core of my Heart. This poem contains not only the oft-quoted lines of ‘I love a sunburnt country’ and ‘Of droughts and flooding rains’ but also the lines ‘For flood and fire and famine, she pays us back threefold’. It is difficult to imagine how the community affected by the Victorian bushfires will reap a threefold benefit. It is also difficult to imagine how the cane farmers on Queensland’s north coast will benefit threefold. But history does show that Australians are a resilient lot. It shows that in Queensland rains that fall on our peninsula in the Gulf region, in the west and in the channel country do bring with them rewards for those who make their living in those unforgiving landscapes.
I join with the member for Petrie in acknowledging the good work that has been done in the flood affected areas by people from the Queensland Department of Emergency Services, the Queensland State Emergency Service, the police and other civilian and government agencies, in particular those who do so on a voluntary basis. This is what this country has been built on: mates helping mates. While they acknowledge that their problems are insignificant in comparison with those of bushfire victims in the south, the people of flooded Queensland do face difficulties in their recovery, and I know that I and other Queensland based members of this place will ensure that their plight is not forgotten.
On indulgence: I think it is very appropriate that the parliament is taking time to record its concern and empathy for those affected by the floods in North Queensland. I should note at the outset that the parliament has quite properly acknowledged the terrible devastation throughout many parts of Victoria from the bushfires. The fact that our country can experience such extremes at the same time has been a cause for poetry, but for those directly affected it can be a cause of great tragedy.
If you live in Queensland long enough, chances are you will go through a drought and you will also go through a flood. Those of us who were born and bred in Queensland tend to get a bit used to both of those things, whether it is in South-East Queensland, in Brisbane, or anywhere up the coast and a good deal of the rest of the state. It is a peculiar set of circumstances that Queensland can have somewhere in the order of 60 per cent of its landmass flooded and more than 40 per cent of its landmass officially declared drought stricken. It is a harsh land, and it has been a difficult time, especially for many on the land who rely upon the elements to make their living, whether that is with cattle, with sheep or with agricultural produce.
As I said, if you live in Queensland long enough, you will go through both droughts and floods. I have had the experience of going through a couple of floods in South-East Queensland and in travelling through the North in the seventies. As I was watching the terrible scenes in Victoria unfold with regard to the fires, I have to say that my mind switched to the only comparison I could make from my own life experience, which was during those times of flood. I have to confess that I do not think there is a comparison. I think that the horrors we have witnessed in Victoria take on a totally different dimension from the sorts of things we see in flooded areas. But floods do bring a level of devastation upon houses and upon lives, although thankfully there has not been the loss of life in this flood as there has been on other occasions. But, for the people who are isolated and have been for some weeks, and may yet be for some weeks, it is a major life-changing event. It makes it very hard for them in their daily lives, whether they are young and involved in school and education or are adults trying to get on with their business.
Throughout all of this, as we have seen in other natural disasters this year and in the past, the response of the Australian community and of local citizens is something we can be genuinely proud of. The first responders—the ambulance services, the fire brigade and the police—do an outstanding job, and the State Emergency Service do a wonderful job. You have to remember that in some of these communities many of these services may well be volunteers. Certainly the SES are volunteers and, in some cases, there are ambulance volunteers, as well as volunteer fire brigades. These are people whose own homes and families can be under threat but who readily give their time to safeguard the community.
I also want to acknowledge the wonderful work of the Australian Defence Force personnel. Towards the end of last year, a mini cyclone ripped through parts of Brisbane, including the suburb where I live. On the scale of things that have occurred since it does not really rate, but for a period of some days people were without power and without drinkable water and the like, and it was an enormous comfort to people in that situation to see the various emergency services out doing their work to restore normal service. I have to say, and I know it is the view of the people in the streets around where I live, that when we saw the Army trucks turn up and the soldiers clearing the debris and actually getting tarpaulins on roofs and doing that sort of work that we know needs to be done, at Keperra and at The Gap, in the suburbs that were hit by that storm, it really did lift our spirits. I can only imagine that the spirits of those in North Queensland, who have suffered the ravages of this storm would have been lifted by seeing the level of support coming from those emergency services organisations, the volunteers and our defence personnel.
I am reminded of the cyclone a couple of years ago that ripped through North Queensland, through Innisfail, and the reaction of the community there. At the time I commented on the Australian community spirit that was on display then and that we have seen in these recent natural disasters here in Australia compared to the response that, sadly, we had seen in Florida not that long before, after Cyclone Katrina. There was no looting in Australia. There was no violence. There was a well-organised support mechanism for the people who were most in need. I can remember seeing pictures of a shop owner in North Queensland who had decided that the goods in the shop were going to be ruined because there was no electricity, so he decided he would just put on a barbecue for everyone in town. ‘Come along and have a free sausage and a free steak; in a couple of days the meat’ll be no good so we might as well have a party!’ He effectively gave the food to the community.
I thought there was something wonderfully Australian about that response, and I do not know that you would see it in too many countries around the world. It clearly was just the natural thing for that fellow to do and, from the newsreels that I saw, there was no shortage of people in the community who thought it was a pretty good idea as well! That sort of support, that sort of community spirit, is something that I think, as Australians, we should hold dear. It is something that we should protect and cherish, because I am not sure that everybody around the world would react in the same way; indeed, when we see what goes on in some other parts of the world, we know that they do not. I think there is just a wonderful sense of having a common bond.
I say to my fellow Queenslanders in the north: you have the understanding, support and best wishes of your colleagues in South-East Queensland. Indeed, we could do with a bit of that water down our way! It would be nice if the clouds moved away from you and came down to our corner of Queensland. We have all been through it in Queensland and we know that there is resilience amongst the people of Australia—that people do get out; that they will re-establish themselves, their families, their businesses and their activities; and that they will do that within a short time of the waters receding. I say to those who are affected: you are in our thoughts. Even as we have spent time in this parliament acknowledging, appropriately, the terrible disaster in Victoria, the people in North Queensland have been in our thoughts. I know that they will bounce back. The Rugby League season is about to start, and I have no doubt that there will be plenty of those North Queenslanders out there supporting the Cowboys. And when they are at those football matches they will exchange stories about what happened in the course of these floods.
But, in all seriousness, our thoughts are with them. I want to commend again the volunteer services, the first responders as well, the Defence Force, and the state and Commonwealth governments, who have both acted properly, as all governments should, in dealing with these tragedies. I wish those in North Queensland a quick return to a normal life.
On indulgence: I start my comments on the tragedy of the floods in Queensland by referring to Victoria first. As this is my first opportunity to speak about the fires in Victoria, I want to put on the record just how devastating, tragic and deeply felt that disaster must be for Victorians. We know it has been devastating for all Australians so it must be doubly so for all Victorians. I know that the communities in Victoria will rebuild. They will pick themselves up and band together. The government and the parliament, everybody in this place and the community will do everything in its power to commit to rebuilding those fire-ravaged villages, small towns and little hamlets dotted throughout Victoria that have been destroyed.
We also need to spare a thought for just how long the rebuilding might take in Victoria. In some cases this is not a natural disaster because arson was involved. It may take years for some of those communities to rebuild. But I know they will rebuild, though they may never quite be the same again. My thoughts are certainly with them. The massive loss of life is something that is difficult to comprehend and understand—how many whole families and whole communities have been affected—and in some way all Victorians are touched by what took place. In fact all of us right across Australia may know someone, or have a relative or a friend, that lives in the state of Victoria. My deepest sympathy, empathy and thoughts are with all the victims’ families, the victims, the volunteers and all the people in Victoria who are trying to deal with what is the very worst of circumstances.
I have heard with great pleasure—if that is the right word to use—the comments made by particular members whose own electorates have been devastated by the fires, particularly Fran Bailey, the member for McEwen. Her electorate has been deeply affected and it must be a very, very difficult thing for her as the local representative to have to deal with the situation and try to do everything that she can.
I want to pass on my thanks to the Prime Minister for the way he has taken it upon himself not just to visit—I think that would be too light a way to put it—but to feel, be with and share as much of the pain as he could with our Victorian colleagues and to try to better understand, be supportive and be there for those people who have lost so much. Also I want to place on the record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition and all the other members of the House. This has been a harrowing experience. Sadly it is not over as there are yet more fires in Victoria and it is probably going to be some time before those fires are completely extinguished and communities rebuilt.
I suppose that is the great irony and uniqueness of Australia in that at one end of Australia we can have flooding rain and at the other end scorching fires and drought. It is a fair distance from the north of Queensland to the south of Australia in Victoria. That is the great irony, tragedy and uniqueness that is Australia, the tyranny of distance. My thoughts are certainly with all the people of Victoria. In terms of what has happened in my own state, as we have heard from other members, it may be hard for other people to comprehend, but Queensland is quite a large state and covers a lot of surface area. To have 60 per cent of that state flooded with water is an enormous coverage of land. It is an enormous amount of water.
In some parts of Queensland, the high-water mark has hit more than 12 metres. It is hard to imagine what communities do when where they live is completely underwater—covered by an ocean. I have seen photos, as I am sure many other members have, of just how bad it is up north. There are huge inland lakes, huge oceans, covering massive parts of Queensland. It needs to be noted that in that part of Queensland they have received a full year’s worth of rain in just one month. And, as has been said by others, we are only halfway through the wet season, so there is still more to come. We do not yet know how bad it will get in Queensland.
I want to take some time to congratulate Queenslanders on a variety of fronts. One thing which really touched me, and which I have talked to many people about, is the generosity of Queenslanders in putting other people before themselves. I have spoken to the many Queenslanders who have contacted my office or approached me while I have been out in the community. The flood victims themselves have actually said: ‘Sure, it’s bad up here, but it’s nothing on the scale of what has happened to Victorians. If you are going to do anything, we are okay. We certainly need some help, but please divert your energies, donations and other efforts to the fire victims in Victoria.’ To actually put somebody else in front of yourself at a time when you need help and your community needs assistance is a pretty special quality. To me, that is something unique and special about Australians—our way of life, our culture and the way that we deal with natural disasters. For Australians, it seems to be almost like a rallying call—a call to arms, in a way—where we step up to the mark and help other people before we help ourselves. This is not always demonstrated in other places. It is just really touching to see that Queenslanders—and, in fact, all Australians—can be so generous, particularly in their own time of need, and think of others.
I also want to make special mention of our emergency services people: the SES, our police, our ambulance officers, the Australian Defence Force and a whole range of volunteers—ordinary people—who just step up and volunteer inordinate amounts of their time to help others in their community. These volunteers are not just relying on the government, not just relying on somebody else. They say, ‘We are going to get in there and organise ourselves to do things to help others.’ There are incredible stories around of some of the things people did, and they will be the stuff of legend for many years to come. I heard of one lady who just wanted to do something small. She just wanted to contribute something, so she organised to donate some blankets. She donated them to a local group. Word got around, and that led to other people giving things to her to further donate. What started out as just a small pile of blankets turned into a room full of essentials. This turned into several rooms full of gifts, food, blankets and essential items, which then turned into truckloads of goods and finally ballooned into a whole warehouse. It is a lovely thing to hear. It is a great story.
We heard a story just before from the member for Brisbane. He recounted the shopkeeper who had realised that, given what was happening and that there was no power, he was going to lose all his stock of sausages, meat and other things. In a true Australian, egalitarian way, he decided the best thing to do was have a barbecue and put the beers on—and to do it for free. It is really touching to hear those stories. It is the human side, the nice side, of tragedy and disaster. These are the stories of a whole heap of ordinary people doing everything they can.
I also want to spare a thought for the real impact that these events—the fires in Victoria and the floods in Queensland—have on people’s lives. It is really serious, whether it is a fire or a flood that destroys your life. Even if you survive, you often lose your home. In fires, it is absolutely certain that your home is gone and it will never be the same again. For people in Queensland, their homes may still be there and the waters may recede, but their homes will never be the same.
I remember as a child being in the great 1974 floods. My family lived in Inala in the western suburbs. For people who do not know, it is the equivalent of Broadmeadows in Melbourne or Greenway in Sydney—a working-class, western-suburb electorate. I remember living in that part of the world as a child. We were lucky because we were pretty high up. We were a fair way out of Brisbane but were fairly high up on the hill, and we were one of the few houses that were spared. The water lapped pretty close to the family home. Luckily, we had a dinghy, so we could get around the suburb. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, given the floods that have taken place in Queensland, but I only have good childhood memories. I hope that is the case for other children in the floods; I know that will not be the case with the fires. At least with the floods, perhaps children will not have bad, hurtful memories that carry on for many years. Sadly, I know that will be the case for fire victims, because the trauma of that is much more severe than the trauma of floods.
I remember looking out to Brisbane and seeing, literally, an ocean stretching as far as the eye could see. I know that is the case up in North Queensland. People have lost their homes. They have lost their schools. Their businesses would have been completely ruined. Even if there is insurance, rebuilding is a difficult, emotional task; for some, it is a task they cannot cope with. There will be not only the physical rebuilding but also the emotional rebuilding. There is the need for everybody—for community, for government and for bureaucracies—to understand what it will take. These widespread disasters impact on jobs and infrastructure. Roads and bridges get washed away. I saw this horrible picture of a pothole—and, believe you me, there are quite a few potholes in certain places in Queensland from time to time—that was the size of a station wagon. The water had come in under the road and created this massive sinkhole. All of this is going to cost a lot of money to fix. It will take a lot of effort on the part of governments, both state and federal. Of course, it will take the efforts of local government, as well.
The fires and the floods create health issues, the fires with smoke inhalation and dust in the air and the floods with fungus and algae, not to mention the problems of there being no clean drinking water and sewerage waste floating around in water sitting dead in parts of towns and cities. It is not just the simple things like loss of power, not having access to fresh food and all those issues; there are also the clean water and hygiene issues. Australians have this wonderful quality that I have talked about, a quality that we see in a variety of ways. We see it on the sporting field and at other times, but we never see it as strong and as profound as when there is a disaster. The ability of Australians to band together and support each other in a way that cannot be manufactured or confected or artificial is something that happens naturally. It happens out of people’s consciousness and their real belief in other human beings and what can be done to help. That is something that makes me very proud. I know it will make all members of parliament very proud.
Nature delivers a lot of cruelty and, in my view, it delivers it indiscriminately. It delivers it in any country, on any people, often without warning. We have seen it in countries such as Indonesia, with tsunami; in Japan, with tsunami and earthquakes; in America, with massive flooding; and in Bangladesh. We have seen the massive loss of life from earthquakes in China and in countries right across the world. We see it now here in Australia. It is normally a custom for us, as Australians, to be on the giving end. We help others. That is what we do; we love to do it. I think it gives us a sense of pride. Perhaps our isolation from the rest of the world provides us with that internal—maybe even emotional—need to give to others so that we feel more connected. Maybe it is because we like to be good neighbours; maybe it is because we actually like our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific and all the other people who live around us. It is always the case that, when there is a natural disaster overseas, we are one of the first countries to step up and volunteer not just money but also people, help and expertise. We try to be there for others. We have seen that on countless occasions, and I am very proud of that as an Australian.
This time, when it has been our turn to be on the receiving end of two disasters, I have been really touched by our neighbours, who very quickly, and without being asked, volunteered. They volunteered cash donations, they volunteered to assist and they volunteered people. This was from countries like Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and other countries who are not wealthy, certainly not by our standards. We are a very wealthy country. Regardless of the circumstances we find ourselves in today economically, we are still a wealthy country compared to countries like Indonesia and others. But these countries probably felt not just a sense of duty but also a sense of neighbourly support for us—we have always helped them, yet we have never asked for anything in return, so they thought they would just offer their assistance. I am really proud of them for that, and I think it will draw us closer and closer as neighbours that share the Asia-Pacific region. It is something I will talk about at other opportunities. I think it is something really significant that we should note in terms of the relationship we have with our neighbours.
Can I conclude by saying that I feel a lot of empathy for those involved in the tragedy that has gone on in North Queensland. It is certainly not on the scale of the loss of life and tragedy that has happened with the fires in Victoria, but I am very proud of everybody in the way they have reacted and responded in these circumstances. It certainly does make you very cognisant, as a member of parliament, of how good people can be, and that is something that we need from time to time. We often talk in this place about the bad things that happen, only the darker side of human nature, but witnessing the beautiful side of human nature is something we all ought to stop and acknowledge. Again I put on the record my thanks to and appreciation of all the volunteers—everybody who has donated even just a dollar, who has given of their time, who has been there to support others, who has lent a shoulder to cry on or who has been involved in some way in assisting all the victims in Queensland and all the people in Victoria affected by the fire.
Debate resumed from 4 February, on motion by Mr Tanner:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and the related bill. Appropriation bills, as the parliament knows, are about appropriating dollars for government to go about the very important business of funding activities and services within Australia. I want to focus today on a particular concern in my electorate of Farrer, and that is the future of a company called Drivetrain Systems International, or DSI. DSI presently finds itself in a very difficult trading position—not, I have to say, of its own making and certainly hugely influenced by the global financial crisis.
I asked a question in the parliament today on behalf of the constituents of my electorate, in particular those in Albury. I asked Mr Rudd for support for Drivetrain Systems International under the Green Car Innovation Fund and, most importantly, for support for the 400 workers and their families who are facing redundancies and job losses. You can imagine that 400 workers lost in a town like Sydney or Melbourne would be quite a shock. Let me tell you that in a town the size of Albury it is savage, is unexpected and will have long-lasting ramifications if in fact those jobs are permanently lost. So my purpose today is to raise this issue in the Parliament of Australia to make sure that we draw a line in the sand if we possibly can for the future of this company and manufacturing in Australia, especially innovative manufacturing, and for job losses that I do not think need to go ahead.
Let me clarify that. The company DSI is currently facing liquidation and that, I think, is fairly inevitable. But, following this, the receivers and managers are looking to sell it as a viable proposition, possibly to a global car company. Local reports have identified Mahindra, from India, and Geely, from China, as possible purchasers for the company.
We are focusing on two things. The first is the welfare of the workers who, as I said, are facing redundancy. Because the money is not there to pay entitlements—in some cases, accumulated over 20 or 30 years—they are enormously worried and angry about the situation they find themselves in, and that is understandable. So I am focusing on the welfare of those workers, to make sure that we provide whatever government services are available should they—as it seems inevitable they will—face redundancy and be unemployed for a period of time As we know, that time in a person’s life is the most stressful.
The second thing we are focusing on is this. On the other side of the equation, I want to be positive and to focus on the future, because while Drivetrain Systems International, I am certain, will be no more—it has had receivers and managers appointed, and is in voluntary administration—I very much want to see a company, if possible a local consortium, take on this company, under a different name obviously, and continue trading and manufacturing transmissions in Australia. That is the most important thing.
Let me make it very clear: this is a viable, profitable business. The company DSI has had several incarnations. It is often called by the locals ‘BorgWarner’, because that was what it was for many years, and then it was BTR and then ION, and then it became DSI. So it has travelled a difficult road at times. But it is important to note that it is basically viable. There is no doubt that BTR and BorgWarner took sizeable profits from the company and it provided a lot of returns for the people of Albury and their families. It is actually doing now exactly what we want an Australian export focused company to do. In fact, I think we need another 15 DSIs. Remember that our future lies in integrating ourselves with global trade, and nobody here is talking about protecting Australia from overseas trade influences. The important thing is that Drivetrain Systems International is manufacturing the most elaborately transformed manufactures—and that is a technical term—in Australia today. It is world class. It is competitive on the world stage. It is all-Australian. And 35-plus years of technology have gone into this company.
I want to stress the key role that this company plays in manufacturing technology and consequent spin-off employment in Australia. Over all of the last 40 years, DSI and its predecessors have developed a great deal of technology. And that technology has been highly sought-after by overseas companies. Interacting with DSI has helped other companies hone their skills which, in turn, have been transferred to other high-tech manufacturers throughout Australia. So it has played a critical role across Australian manufacturing industry, and allowing it to disappear would actually undo a great deal of this work, much of it done in the 1920s and 1930s—part of industrialising Australia and making it a world-class economy. So, as I said, this company is doing exactly what we want it to do. With all our AusIndustry and export focused programs, we have the perfect example here.
The receivers, I presume, are looking for overseas purchasers and domestic purchasers, too. I would like to make a plea to our industry minister and to our government to turn their attention to this problem and to engage with what is happening in Albury. I would like to see a local capital-raising, a new management team, perhaps a stock market float. But to have a successful local company, I think we need a local customer—if we are serious about manufacturing in Australia and an automotive industry. That local customer has for many years been Ford. Ford has played a critical role in the development of DSI. I thank them for what they as a company, Ford Australia, have given to my local regional economy and industries over so many years. The company at the moment is finalising the manufacture of a four-speed gearbox for Ford, and also has in its production capability a six-speed, rear-wheel drive gearbox, also for a later Ford model.
DSI has invested—I read in the press today—about $40 million on developing a gearbox for its major current customer, which is SsangYong from Korea. This is a front-wheel drive, six-speed electric gearbox. As many know, SsangYong is currently in receivership and discussions are being had between it and its Chinese parent about whether it will in fact cease manufacturing in Korea altogether. This is the point: the main customer of Drivetrain Systems International has folded, as a result of the global financial crisis, and that has put this company, and Australian transmission manufacturing, in a very difficult position.
It is also the case that DSI has manufactured, or has gone a large way towards manufacturing, a hybrid petrol-electric gearbox. That might have been for SsangYong, its main customer; I am not sure. There is no doubt that I am not an expert on types of gearboxes or whether there are gearboxes looking for cars or cars looking for gearboxes in different parts of our manufacturing industry, but what I do know is that it would be a tragedy to lose this manufacturing industry from Australia.
There is no doubt that the worldwide auto industry is in a very difficult position. I understand that Volvo in Sweden is close to closing, and there are huge bailouts happening across Europe and America. General Motors Opel in Germany is receiving, or has asked for, a $7 billion bailout. The amount of dollars that we are talking about here—the support that we are asking for from government—is not large, but it would not be in the form of a bailout either. We are talking about basically a viable production process going through a difficult period. Some have said that to continue manufacturing for the next few months for Ford would be like a bridge to the future, when hybrid transmissions are going to be far more in demand. That is something that the government and its green car package should be supporting.
As local members, we know that, when we are looking for assistance for industries in our electorates, we need to find a government program, and, once we have found one, we sometimes have won half the battle. There is a government program in this instance, and it is called the Green Car Innovation Fund. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr, in December last year promised that $6 billion would flow under this fund to support the Australian automotive industry and to keep manufacturing here in Australia. Applications for the fund open in July this year, so it is not possible for them to be made at this stage, but I really hope that our government will sit down at the table with the people who have the future interests of this company or this type of manufacturing at heart, and with Ford Australia, and demonstrate what they, as the government, could provide in support under the green car fund.
As I told these workers that I represent—400 families in the district—at a meeting last Friday, I do not want to fight for their Centrelink benefits; I want to fight for their jobs. I know that the company they work for is folding, but it is so very important that another company takes its place. For us to lose the intellectual property, the research and development—as I said, a hybrid gearbox, a new generation six-speed electric front-wheel drive gearbox, which is the way of the future—and for that all to be packed up and sent overseas, perhaps to China and India, would be a tragedy for Australian manufacturing.
I asked Mr Rudd about this in question time. I hope that he will turn his attention to the question that I asked. The Prime Minister did not appear to be in tune with what was actually happening with DSI. That does not surprise me, because he has got a lot on his plate at the moment, but, having asked the question, I hope that he and his office now turn their attention to what is going on here and take sensible steps to rescue an Australian manufacturing industry that is a world leader in innovation, research and development.
It is always a pleasure to speak on appropriation bills, because I think it gives members of parliament some licence.
Wide-ranging.
I was not even going to make any comment on the previous speaker, but I got the look! But it does provide members of parliament with the opportunity to have some wide-ranging debate and to express views on many issues that are related to the appropriation of funds. In particular, I think the area of finance and deregulation is an appropriate area to speak about. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009 amounts to $3.1 billion, or about 4.1 per cent of total annual appropriations. It touches on all the key areas of the economy and matters that are so critical at a time of global financial crisis.
These are things that everyone in this parliament should be supporting, encouraging and communicating back to their electorates, as I know members of the government are. But, sadly, we see members of the opposition pretending in here that they do not support our measures. They certainly voted against our stimulus package but I am sure that at the same time that they voted against the package they secretly wanted it to get up because they want the money for their schools and for jobs in their electorates, and they want to make sure that the economy—at least I hope they do—does not collapse in the end. Perhaps it is just a bit of bravado, a bit of licence, a bit of political opportunism and political opposition for opposition’s sake that that opposition votes against such a critical and important measure to stave off the worst impacts of the global financial crisis. I hope that that is all it is. I hope that they do not actually believe that voting against the stimulus package was the right thing to do, because it was absolutely not the right thing to do.
It is a bad package.
I just heard a comment from a member of the opposition that it is a bad package. What do they mean by that? Is it a bad package because they do not like the size of it or is it a bad package because there are parts of it that they do not particularly support? I will touch on both of those areas. But even if it were a bad package—and I do not believe it is—the opposition voted against it. They voted against schools, they voted against jobs, they voted against families and they voted against pensioners at the very same time that they were out there saying: ‘More, more, more; we need more money for schools, more money for roads and more money for jobs. Why isn’t the government doing something?’ Well, the government is doing something, and what it is doing it has done in two tranches—two very significant phases. In fact everything we have done has an underpinning theme. That underpinning theme has been jobs, jobs, jobs: job security, job maintenance and job creation.
We have heard all sorts of rhetoric in the House about job loss numbers, job creation numbers, how many jobs were created before and after and all the rest of it. The reality is that we need to invest if we are going to create jobs and sustain and maintain jobs or at least wash away the worst impacts of the global financial crisis.
Let me start by first dealing with the global financial crisis and what took us to the place that we are at today, which is of critical importance and should be of critical importance to everybody in this House and to all Australians. Some time ago a number of organisations—I will just mention Lehman Brothers and perhaps some companies in Australia, including Storm Financial and a whole range of others—particularly in America saw a collapse. That led to other countries falling into similar circumstances, which created, for want of a full explanation, a global financial crisis. Australia is not immune. Australia has not been left out of things of a global nature that have happened.
While our economy is resisting—I think we will all agree—the worst impacts and effects, it is still being dragged down like other economies. We are not as badly off as the United States of America and the position they find themselves in, either in terms of debt, or in terms of trying to manage the global financial crisis in their own country or trying to manage job losses. So we are not as bad as the United States. We are not as bad as Great Britain. In London we are seeing massive job losses—we are seeing a collapse of financial services sector jobs. We are nowhere near as bad as that.
We are nowhere near as bad as Europe. In Europe we are seeing some of the worst effects of the global financial crisis. And we are nowhere near as bad as Japan, where, very unfortunately they have slipped from a recession to a depression. I would say very clearly and confidently that the reason that Australia is managing to stave off the absolute worst impacts and effects of the global financial crisis is the strong, decisive, quick and considered action that the Rudd government is taking in terms of ameliorating those impacts.
We not do that to make ourselves feel good. We do not do that because we are going to get a pat on the back. We are doing that in the national interest because it is our responsibility. It is our job; it is something we must do. It is something we need to do to protect families, to protect jobs, to make sure that we still have an economy in six months time, in nine months time or in 12 months time. So we come into this place and we hear the hollow, shallow rhetoric that we get from members who are not quite sure how they should deal with this. They are caught, they are trapped. They are trapped deep down, knowing they ought to be supporting what we are doing. Even if they do not agree with all of it, that does not really matter. They know the package is needed. As I said earlier, if it is a disagreement about the size of the package, then tell us the size of your package. Is it $42 billion or $40 billion or $25 billion? What should it be? We are not getting that, but we can do the sums pretty quick—
Show us your package!
I’m not going to get into that one! I can count pretty quickly, and let me tell you this: if we started adding up all of the individual commitments that members of the opposition have been making, it ain’t a $42 billion package; it is about an $80 billion package. That is the reality of what is coming from the opposition. And why is that the case? Why are we getting that from individual opposition members? Because they do not have a clear strategy. They do not have a plan. They are just looking at this global financial crisis and the situation in Australia as a political opportunity. For them it is an opportunity to attack the government, blame the government, blame the states—blame anybody, but take no responsibility. I will not make too big a point of it because, in the end, it is only coming from an LNP member—the Liberal National Party—particularly a Queensland LNP member who has no authority, no mandate, no credibility at all.
Are they a real party?
I will take the interjection: are they a real party? Ask them. They are not sure. That is the bottom line. The opposition come in here and talk about this situation as if it were just a political game, as if there were no losers in this game. The sad reality is the losers in this game are ordinary Australians. They are ordinary people relying on their government, their elected officials, to assist in a time when every other economy and every other country in the world is doing something right now. If we do not do something right now, we will follow the same circumstances that are happening in those other economies—in America, in Great Britain, in Europe and in parts of Asia, in Japan and so on.
What is our strategy? What are we doing? As a government, what have we decided is the right course of action? The question would have to be: have we just decided this on a whim on our own, or have we consulted? These are serious questions. What are the circumstances? I will deal with those. We do have a plan, we do have a strategy, and it is quite clear. We are in the second phase of that strategy. The first one was the pre-Christmas $10 billion stimulus package. It came hot on the heels of probably the most direct need at that very critical time, that Christmas retail period, to protect jobs. How do you protect jobs? You make sure you put a stimulus right into people’s back pockets and that you do it through families and you do it through pensioners, and that is exactly what we did.
Funnily enough, the opposition opposed this, but at the same time were calling for a massive increase in pensions. So which one was it? This is the hard thing for them to sell. On the one hand they oppose it, and on the other hand they support it. It is pretty hard to get a sense of what direction the opposition are heading in. It does make it really clear that there isn’t one, that the Leader of the Opposition is looking for an opportunity. In the end, that is all it is: it is self-interest, and opportunism. It is, ‘Where is my next opportunity?’ It is not, ‘What is the national interest?’ It is not, ‘Is this package in the best interests of Australians, even if it’s not a perfect package?’ No government ever creates a perfect set of packages when trying to deliver something, but at least this one met to a T and met absolutely what the IMF was saying was critically necessary in Australia. The IMF said that.
Who else supported us in this? We have heard some people say that it must be those leftist communists in ACCI or in the Business Council of Australia, those old Labor Party hacks that are working there. They ticked it off and they thought it was absolutely spot-on. Perhaps it was just the unions, all of them, that said, ‘We need to do this to protect jobs.’ Of course, what would unions know about jobs and workers and protecting jobs! Or perhaps it was just Treasury that supported this package and said, ‘This needs to be done now; you can’t wait and see,’ because, if there was a strategy that you could articulate about the opposition, it would be the wait-and-see strategy. They are the exact words of the former shadow Treasurer. I understand the Treasury portfolio is a technical and very complex portfolio—
What about small business?
I will take the interjection; I will come to small business in just a moment. The former shadow Treasurer obviously could not deliver in that portfolio because her only strategy—it is pretty simple; you could probably write it on a very small piece of paper—was, ‘We’re just going to wait and see.’ My question was: wait to see what? Wait to see people lose their homes, wait to see unemployment rise, wait to see small businesses collapse, go under, fail—wait to see what? The rest of the world is already going down that path at an alarming rate. It is one of the greatest crises the world has ever faced. But the reaction from the opposition and from the former shadow Treasurer was: ‘Let’s just sit on our hands. Let’s just wait and see.’
What does the current one say?
Good question. I will deal first with the opposition member who interjected, ‘What about small business?’ That is good question. We have actually got a huge stimulus package aimed at small business. It is about reducing red tape, bureaucracy. It is about accessing the tax system, about the way that they pay tax, about arrangements in terms of depreciation. It is about putting money into people’s pockets so they put it back into the retail sector, which supports small business, which keeps jobs in small business. You cannot separate them. This is what the opposition fail to understand. They try to separate the injection of cash into the economy as a stimulus, and jobs. We have all the evidence of it now. It is irrefutable. Retail sales in Australia went up. In contrast to every other economy in the world, ours were the only ones that went up—and they went up directly on the back of our stimulus package in that period. Now, that is not something that happens in isolation. What that did was keep people in jobs. It kept people in retail employment—
Seven per cent—
I would ask the member for Tangney to refrain from interjecting. There is ample opportunity in this place to have your say.
Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said when I started, this package is about three things. It is about jobs, jobs and jobs. It is about, for the first time in probably three decades, making a massive investment in our schools and school communities. You need to think about what that really means. If the reactions that I have got from my electorate, from my school principals, from my P&F presidents and from the school communities are anything like the reactions that opposition members are getting from theirs, then I fear for them. My school principals and school communities are overjoyed by the package that we have presented to them—the investment in schools. We think it is a good package. We think it is actually worth spending money on schools to better educate our children. We do not think it is a cost; we think it is an investment: an investment in people’s future.
This mob voted against it. They voted against schools. They voted against their own kids’ futures and education. This is the first time in over 30 years that we have had some serious money spent on schools, schools that have been trying to inject some pride and some standards and to build facilities—replace the demountable classrooms and provide real 21st-century facilities—to give our kids a better shot. And what did those guys opposite do? They voted against it. They voted against money for their own schools. Did they do that because they thought that was the best strategy? No. They did it out of pride, self-interest, opportunism. There is no way that anyone could go out to a school and stand before a school community and say, ‘I don’t want you to get $3 million for a brand new library, because your kids don’t deserve a library.’ Opposition members are standing up and saying, ‘Your kids don’t deserve a school hall; they can sit out in the elements in winter and summer.’
How can I prove that the opposition members are doing that? Because they voted against funding for schools. That I could not comprehend. Even if you did not like the whole package, on that alone you would have to say: what were the opposition members thinking? I have got an answer as to what they were thinking. They were thinking about themselves—not about the economy, not about the national interest, not about anybody else: opposition for opposition’s sake.
We have invested in infrastructure—and it makes me really proud, as a government member—in a way I did not even contemplate was possible. I wanted to deliver a lot to my community and to the broader community out of us winning government. I wanted to build roads because roads had not been built for over a decade—in some cases, for nearly 15 years, spanning two governments. But there was no will and no commitment from the former government after 12 years in office in the best economic times globally, in the best economic times this country has seen for a long time—the resources boom, rivers of gold that used to flow into Canberra, when money used to rain from the sky, when unexpected windfall gains of $50 billion to the bottom line in the economy meant you could do anything you wanted in government. Everything you spent—tax cuts and everything else—was completely offset by windfalls of $50 billion at a time. Something like $400 billion of unexpected windfall was delivered to government through tax revenues, the rivers of gold which flowed in because of a booming economy.
What did they do with the unbelievable opportunity? For the most part they squandered it. They just threw it away. They had a great party. I can remember them smiling from ear to ear. They were never going to lose government. Nobody was clever enough to figure out that there was no money going back into communities, that schools had not seen a red dollar for more than a decade. ‘Let’s just blame the states for everything and let’s forget that the states rely on federal funding to deliver programs and education in schools. So let’s disregard all of that and concentrate on blaming other people. We’ll have a great big party.’ When the party was over, they woke up with that huge headache and a big mess to clean up, looked around and said, ‘Who made the mess?’
I ask opposition members: who made the mess? I am not saying that the opposition and then Howard government created the financial crisis. That would be ridiculous, even though that is what they are trying to imply in terms of this government’s performance since coming to office. Nobody is being fooled by that. Nobody believes that for a minute. Even they do not believe it. They are completely disingenuous.
In the last few days, we have really seen what the opposition is all about. We have seen the former shadow Treasurer being discounted away and ejected out of the position. It is too complex, too difficult. It is a very difficult job. You would think that the member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, would have been the second choice, but he was not; he was third choice, so two scalps have been claimed. The second choice was Peter Costello, but he is too proud, too self-interested to do a job for the country. Maybe the country does deserve to have him there. If he is as good as he says he is, why is he not there serving his country, serving the people? If he is the best person on the opposition benches, why is he not there? I have already answered that: self-interest. He is not going to lower himself to the role of shadow Treasurer when he believes he ought to be the leader. I do not have to give him any advice because his own party has already done that.
The reality is that Australia and the world faces one of the greatest crises we have probably ever faced, certainly in many generations. We have a couple of choices to make as members of parliament about how we deal with the situation. Either you can completely oppose for the sake of opposing all the measures—the stimulus packages, the funding we are providing to stimulate job creation and keep people spending, the banking guarantee to ensure that our banking system does not collapse and that there is not a run on banks, all of those integral parts in making sure our economy survives—or you can just oppose about leadership, about who gets which spoils of defeat, about rank opportunism. That to me is not right and is not what an opposition should be about. (Time expired)
While I acknowledge that appropriation bills are normally opportunities for laps around the electorate with particular significance because of the release of money, and while I recognise the significance of the many good aspects of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and cognate bill, I certainly raise some concerns about aspects of this legislation, so much so that, on balance, I will be asking for the bills to be returned to the House for a division when all the speakers are done.
I will do that for the following reasons. One is an issue of process in a key area, and it concerns the $14 million being allocated through this legislation for climate change advertising and promotion for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. For me, it is a case of that cliche in politics, the cart before the horse. You only need to read any of the media in the past week to see that there is plenty of politics to be played out with regard to both the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme following the white paper process and the process of steering it through the parliament. I think the government have to do a fair bit of work to get it through in the form that I am sure they want. Therefore, for me, it is odd and also inappropriate for the question to be put for $14 million to be released by Finance for a national advertising campaign to raise public awareness of climate change. That in itself is questionable because there is certainly a heightened awareness within the community about climate change, but in particular I question the use of taxpayers’ dollars to ask the community to participate in a scheme that we as members of parliament have not even seen and are yet to debate. We are certainly looking forward to that, but at this stage the ‘for sale’ sign simply cannot go up. Maybe we could consider it in four months time if the CPRS gets through in the clean form in which the government wants it to get through. But I think it is a classic example of the cart before the horse to ask us to agree to a significant advertising and promotion campaign. Fourteen million dollars might not sound much around these hallways, but in the community’s mind I think that is substantial dollars and deserves a revisit once the CPRS goes through, if it does, in the form we are expecting.
On a similar topic, there is an issue about the inconsistencies in the narrative on climate change contained within this bill. Whilst in general there are some fantastic aspects in this bill, I want to highlight some that are of concern. The first one is the AusAID commitment. I have family who work for AusAID and I am certainly not one to bash international aid dollars, because I think we have global responsibilities. But there is an allocation here of $150 million to the World Bank, with $50 million for the trust fund established to respond to the global food price crisis. That is one of the first acknowledgements I have seen in my short time here that government does recognise it has a role to play in addressing an increasingly difficult and challenging area for government policy and global consideration—that is, the global food price crisis we are facing. Yet at the same time, in the same bill, we see an allocation of $37 million for the ethanol production grants program, with the development of the concept of food for fuel within Australia. As that concept has developed over recent years, I have to say that from my point of view it looks to be largely driven by vested interests within the various agricultural sectors. This allocation is entirely inconsistent with the $50 million allocation being made to the World Bank. For West Wing fans, you only need to see the episode called ‘The Pledge’ to know exactly where my cynicism is coming from about grain ethanol production and the $37 million allocation. Sitting alongside that in the legislation is the allocation to the World Bank to recognise Australia’s responsibilities and role with regard to the global food price crisis. As I said, that is an inconsistency within this legislation. I hope the coalition and the non-executive members of caucus will give further consideration to that inconsistency in the narrative we are currently working through on climate change.
The second inconsistency in narrative, to me, is this allocation of $100 million to the Clean Technology Fund—again through the World Bank—which ‘will offer development finance at highly concessional rates for transformative investments in low-carbon technologies by developing countries in the transportation and power sectors and in energy efficient buildings, industry and agriculture’. Again, the rights and wrongs of international aid can be debated by others, but this does show that government recognises the need for transformative policy and investment in transformative policies overseas. Yet, within Australia, the allocation in this bill is $99 million—no small bickies—for the carbon capture and storage institute. I certainly hope that is a success. I fully recognise that my vote against this legislation is not going to stop this legislation going through, so I certainly hope that institute succeeds in proving the concept of carbon capture and storage. However, it is an unproven science. I would hope that most of us recognise that.
All the more reason to have a centre.
The interjection is that, because it is unproven science, that is all the more reason to have the centre. I am throwing the opportunity now to the coalition to read the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today where biochar was put up as an option by the coalition and the comment in response from the minister for agriculture was that it is an unproven science that has potential and deserves further consideration. If this is unproven and recognised as unproven, a $99 million allocation of taxpayers’ dollars as a response, sitting alongside a fund overseas that is getting $100 million for transformative investment in low-carbon technologies, again has inherent inconsistencies in its narrative for Australia. That is my view in regard to the Clean Technology Fund. I think that is a direction that the world needs to be heading in, not just developing countries, and I would love to see more clean technology being funded within Australia.
I do note at the same time with regard to the carbon capture and storage institute some lovely semantic name changes also happening. We saw it with the concept of ‘global warming’, where that took a name change because it was seen as too harsh. It was, I guess, softened to take on the new name of ‘climate change’. We are now seeing the ‘National Clean Coal Fund’ softened to the ‘National Low Emissions Coal Initiative’. Again, that is hopefully a recognition by government that some of what I consider to be vested interest claims on the climate change debate are not successful in capturing community expectations and community wants in regard to solving real problems at a community level. The concept of clean coal, in my view, is also one that should be questioned and that we should all be sceptics about. Hopefully, the debate is moving from one on sceptics about climate change to one on who is and is not sceptical about certain responses to climate change.
In my view we deserve, as a community and as a country, to have high levels of scepticism about what is driving particular responses by government to issues such as clean coal, and carbon capture and storage. We should be sceptical because, unless there is a part of this story that is not being told, the response looks to be driven by vested interests rather than governments genuinely dealing with real problems on the ground within communities like the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. There are huge opportunities, whether they are in clean technologies, solar technology or solar thermal technology. There is a whole raft of engaging opportunities at a community level, yet the big bickies look to be going elsewhere.
The third reason to go against this, with regard to the overall appropriation bill, is not climate change but related issues. I hope, again, that everyone in this place might think of reviewing the $28 million allocation to the Australian pavilion at the Shanghai Expo in 2010, bearing in mind what is clearly a tsunami going through world economies. If we try and look forward to 2010, I am not sure whether that $28 million spend is necessarily the best message or the right message for Australia to be sending. I think of David Jones putting on tea and scones this year at their fashion expo rather than the champagne and all the bells and whistles. Maybe a statement from Australia that we are conscious of the importance and value of money in the current climate would be a strong domestic message and might even be a better international message for consideration.
As well, an issue for concern—it is not a reason to oppose the legislation—is the further $21 million allocation for Australia’s financial regulators to ‘maintain the strength’ of Australia’s financial system during the global financial crisis. I recognise that we have a strong economy; however, I think there is some work to be done with regard to some accountability trails and some strengthening of the regulators that we have in this country today—not necessarily the regulators of the private sector but those that regulate the public sector.
This has been well positioned as a private sector crisis; however I think the untold story of the last 18 months is the public sector crisis. There is an amount of taxpayers’ money at the three tiers of government, and in all the various roles that those three tiers play, that has been lost or at the very least exposed. I think it would be—and this is being conservative—in the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. I have a council in my region that has $25 million exposed due to their taking on questionable CDOs. Importantly, the council argues that they were within the state Treasury Corporation guidelines. And there have been reports from councils in other locations. I understand there is a council in WA that has an exposure in the $80 million class.
This is the untold story where we need to start to see some good work done in going down the accountability trail to find out who is exposed and to what extent, who is accountable and to what extent, and who is in breach of investment guidelines and to what extent. And probably of more concern is that, if no-one is in breach, how on earth did we end up with so much exposure? Were people with taxpayers’ money in the public sector taking due care in protecting capital or were people chasing risky investments with taxpayers’ money in order to try and make a buck for services, such as those run by local councils, which are already stretched?
You can include in all of this semistatutory and non-statutory bodies. You can think of the non-government education sector. There is exposure all down the trail of the public sector, yet the story has yet to be told or explored. I think it is the role of the federal parliament to take a lead on that, to start to call to account those who were in breach of regulatory investment strategies in particular and, if there were no breaches, to start to clean up those guidelines throughout the country to make sure that taxpayers’ dollars are treated with the premium that they deserve to be treated with.
Having said all that, in the remaining time I am very conscious to welcome many aspects of this legislation. The Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, I think, is excellent. I went along to the ‘gift of life’ ceremony this morning with the Prime Minister, and I congratulate the government on the work they are doing in regard to organ and tissue donation and transplantation. In my particular area, it will be something that is promoted to try and get as many organ donors as possible involved in the national campaign. That is good work being done by government. The Prevocational GP Placements Program is one that is really important to the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. The breast cancer drug initiative is good. The Job Capacity Assessment program is good. These are all incredibly relevant to various aspects of life within my region and, I suspect, around the 149 other electorates in Australia. The Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program is good. I think the local government study program and the centre of excellence at a university are also timely—in fact, in many cases well overdue considering what I was just talking about, the exposures at a local level in regard to financial planning.
I also put on the record, in that regard, a separate council that I represent, Greater Taree City Council, which has just had Percy Allan, who would be known to many people in this room, go through the backlog of maintenance just on local roads and bridges within its area. The figure that it now has to deal with is $140 million of backlog. For those who are going to be critical of me being antsy about various moneys going here, there and everywhere, I hope you understand that I have a maintenance backlog of $140 million for local roads and bridges; that is the standout problem for the southern part of the electorate of Lyne. It is not, at the moment, part of the responsibility of the federal government, but the reality is that it is the problem that my communities face and therefore it is the problem that I and, I hope, government at all levels are willing and, hopefully, able to assist in addressing over time.
I know there are a lot of speakers who have emerged on the list. When the time comes—probably in a few weeks—I will certainly be calling for this to be returned to the House of Representatives and will be voting against this legislation unless those changes are considered by all and relevant changes are made.
I rise to support Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and the cognate bill. I think their passage is essential to the stability of the Australian economy and to the good works that the government is doing for the wellbeing of the Australian people. I want to concentrate on, perhaps in less detail than the former speaker, the member for Lyne, and talk a little bit about the car industry and vehicle manufacturing—in particular, the early signs of success of the government’s $6.2 billion car plan. This car plan was designed to drive investment to make the Australian car industry both economically and environmentally efficient. I think that is a very important goal, and it is coming at precisely the right time.
While I did notice other speakers talking about manufacturing plants being in trouble in Albury, there are some positive signs. In the electorate of Corio, I know that Ford has reversed its decision to close an engine plant. I think that is the first time in living memory that a corporate player, a company, has changed its mind about the closure of a plant. It is an extraordinary decision and a real vote of confidence in not only Geelong but also the government’s support for this industry. It is really welcome.
The second indication of the car plan’s success—and I think this is a very big indication of the early signs of success—is the announcement by General Motors Holden last December of its intention to build a new front-wheel drive, four-cylinder car at its factory in Elizabeth. This was a big day for Elizabeth in late December. The Prime Minister visited the factory. It was closed down at the time for its maintenance period, and most of the workers were on holidays, but we still had around 1,500 workers show up to the plant in their uniforms for this announcement. There was a tremendously positive feel. Lots of workers were holding signs up about the new car and about the vote of confidence in the Elizabeth plant that this is. A lot of families and a lot of kids were really enjoying not just the Prime Minister’s presence but also the commitment of the company and the government to this vital manufacturing plant in my electorate.
The new car is going to be part of the global Delta small-car platform. It is a vehicle which will be integrated into the global operations of GM. That is incredibly important. In the Bracks review, one of the issues—particularly around components but also around vehicle manufacturing—was that automotive products need to be integrated into the global platforms of these companies. That is increasingly where the car industry will go in the future. I think this immediate crisis will drive that process and accelerate it in some instances. It is really an important feature of this car. It will support up to 1,200 jobs in the factory in my electorate and it is critically important for not just those manufacturing jobs but also all the component suppliers that exist in the northern and southern suburbs of Adelaide. In the city of Playford, one in four workers is employed in manufacturing, so it is of vital importance to the local area.
These jobs are going to be green-collar just as much as blue-collar jobs. They are secured by cooperation between the company, the workers, the union and both levels of government. The Rann government in South Australia is to be congratulated for its commitment. Premier Rann was there on the day, which was a welcome sign of state and federal cooperation. But it is also worth noting that Holden’s workers, led by their local delegate, Mr Paul Brown, and the vehicle division of the AMWU, were very disciplined and moderate in their claims during the enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations which happened just prior to this announcement. That was really critical, because it showed real commitment to the new project. The two were linked. That future investment was, I think, linked to the successful conclusion of the EBA negotiations.
Importantly, the new vehicle is going to be about 20 per cent more fuel efficient than current vehicles. It is going to emit about 20 per cent less carbon. It is a green car. Its production lays the foundation for the introduction of hybrid engines, the use of ethanol, the use of LPG and the use of CNG. All of those things are very important in the evolution of not just this small car but also other Australian made cars to more fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly vehicle design.
The federal government is contributing $149 million over three years to this project—money that will be very well spent to support a new car, local jobs and investment in the future. Despite the critics—and there are many critics inside this parliament and outside of it—the government is absolutely committed to backing this industry and to making sure that we have future investment in this industry so that General Motors Holden will still be around and there will still be workers employed in that factory long after I have retired from parliament. There are many naysayers in the press who want to constantly run a negative story about these things. It is disappointing that there are critics in the opposition. Only last year the member for North Sydney, the new shadow Treasurer, told the Sunday program: ‘I don’t know that it is necessarily the right thing to do to hand money immediately to the motor vehicle industry.’ That is what was said, at that time, by the new shadow Treasurer. Basically it is the wait-and-see approach, the ‘we’re not going to help’ approach. I think that the new car announcement has proved critics like the member for North Sydney wrong.
The government rejects that sort of armchair-general approach to economic management, where you sort of sit back and wait and see. We want to take action. We want to be ahead of the curve. We know that it is important not just for triggering new investment in this industry but for the economy as a whole. It is incredibly good news for the car industry in my electorate; but we know that there are problems facing global automotive manufacturing, and there is no hiding from that. There is also no hiding from the fact that there are ramifications for our car industry in South Australia. In the local paper, the News Review Messenger, on 4 February this year, there was an article with the headline ‘On an enforced holiday’. It talked about the program of planned shutdowns of the Elizabeth plant. There are some 25 days of scheduled shutdowns. Workers in that plant are either taking holidays or they are on 50 per cent of their pay, thanks to their enterprise bargaining agreement negotiated by their union. But even then we find workers are looking in other areas for work. Paul Brown, a senior shop steward, was quoted in this article as saying that workers are ‘looking in landscaping and gardening, helping friends out in small businesses, stuff like that’. I think that shows that those workers need the government on their side. They need the government to do what it is currently doing in terms of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. They could not afford delay in that program. They could not afford the wait-and-see approach of the Liberal Party. By the time we wait and see, it will be too late. And if you wait and see, there is an opportunity cost. If we had taken that approach to the car industry, we would have missed out on this new investment.
Communities like Elizabeth, Salisbury and Gawler understand from practical experience what the Liberal Party do not understand, and that is: action is required immediately. We cannot afford indecision and we cannot afford division at this time, either in this parliament or within the Liberal Party. It is so disappointing, at a time when workers in my electorate have got 25 days of planned shutdowns and are looking at other areas to work in, like doing work in small business, that we have got two senior members of respective factions of the Liberal Party in my state—a senator and the new Manager of Opposition Business in the House—arguing about what was said at a golf game 14 years ago. It is absolutely extraordinary. It is a bit like the Great Gatsby v Little Lord Fauntleroy—just incredibly childish. I think that the Liberal Party have got to get their act together. They have got to start supporting the car industry rather than knocking it and they have got to come to grips with the nature of the new economic challenge.
There is this attitude in the Liberal Party in which they think that we exist in a bubble in 2007, when mining royalties and the commodities boom were driving government revenue, and that nothing has changed, but the reality is that we have had the most serious collapse in the world economy since the 1930s. We have seen a retraction of credit. We have seen the collapse of international banks, the collapse of international consumer confidence and the loss of jobs from indebted companies. There was recently an article in Time magazine that had an example of some of the banks in America. Citibank, for instance, received $45 billion in assistance from the TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program from the US government, and the value of the bank at the time of this article was $22.9 billion. It gives you an idea that, even though government is acting in the United States, we face an extraordinary situation with international banks, and that is having massive effects on economies around the world.
Likewise, there was an article in Foreign Policy which was headlined ‘The List: the Next Iceland’. It goes through five economies—I will not go through all of them—and calls Great Britain ‘Reykjavik-on-Thames’. It says:
The question in Britain is no longer when the economy will enter a recession, but when it will enter a depression, with many bracing for a slump that could rival the 1930s in severity.
There is no doubt that, internationally, we face extraordinary challenges, and that will have an effect on the Australian economy. We know that the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has warned that the UK is in deep recession in 2009. There was a bit of talk about sales in the United Kingdom in the House today. It seems to me that things in the United Kingdom are very serious indeed. We know that the government has to act ahead of the curve. That was best highlighted by Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation, who was quoted in The Age on Saturday, 7 February:
“The downturn in Australia is very late,” he told an investor briefing.
“It is beginning to hit now, but we are not yet feeling it the way we have felt it in Britain.”
We can see the signs, overseas, of a very serious economic situation and that is why it has been important for the government to act and to take strong, decisive and extraordinary action in order to support our economy. That is why it is important that we guaranteed deposits, something that has helped our banks raise the funds they need from overseas. It is why it was important for us to have the Economic Security Strategy, which supported pensioners, pumped money into the economy before Christmas and helped to support the retail sector. There is plenty of positive evidence, both in retail sales and anecdotally from retailers. I was talking today to a furniture manufacturer in my electorate who employs 20 or so people making furniture, which is a really great thing to do, and he says he has not seen the effect of the economic downturn in main street sales. But if you go a couple of steps behind and talk to engineering firms, they are certainly seeing it. There is no doubt in my mind that the government’s strategy in December is working, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Nation Building and Jobs Plan will also work.
Workers in my electorate will certainly welcome the $900 bonus for low- and middle-income families and singles and to students, to drought affected farmers and to single-income families. They will also welcome the support for tradespeople in the building industry; the largest ever single investment in housing to build 20,000 new defence homes, many of which are in my electorate—there is a $26 million commitment in Wakefield; 500 new science labs or language centres in secondary schools; funding for maintenance and school building upgrades; and tax breaks for small business. These are all really important measures and, as I said before, we know that a great many of our measures are already working. On 12 February a headline in the Sydney Morning Herald read ‘Housing shines amid more economic gloom’. Basically it talks about new home buyers charging into the market and taking advantage of the government’s grant program to get an asset that they will hold, hopefully, for the rest of their lives.
So we think these projects are incredibly important. We know that the communities we represent have welcomed the action we have taken to support the banks, the action we took in December to support pensioners and the action we have taken to support new home buyers and that they will also support the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and the measures we are taking to build public schools and to improve the nation’s homes through insulation. They know that this government is ahead of the curve and is taking action to ensure that we have a good and strong economy in a time of international peril. I commend the bills to the House.
In speaking on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009 I want to range fairly wide and talk about commentary we currently have from the Prime Minister and his now famous, or infamous, essay entitled ‘The global financial crisis’, in which he said:
…barely 30 years since the triumph of neo-liberalism—that particular brand of free-market fundamentalism, extreme capitalism and excessive greed which became the economic orthodoxy of our time.
That could not be a statement which is further from the truth. There has been a great deal of theorising and fantasy making by our Prime Minister in trying to explain why his left-wing ideology is about to become the orthodoxy. He likes to say that the market failed, that capitalism failed and that there was too little regulation and therefore it collapsed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The case is in fact the direct opposite. There was too much regulation and there was bad centralised government policy, and the combination of all those things meant that the market did not fail; it was excluded.
I would like to talk now about an act that had its origins in the United States in 1977 under Jimmy Carter called the Community Reinvestment Act 1977. This was an act that was passed which was designed to force banks to lend into areas which were known as red-lined areas, where the banks had decided that there were certain pieces of geography in their territory where repayments would be difficult to get and therefore they would not lend into those areas. This act was designed to make the banks lend into those areas. It was reasonably benign in the early years. You could put an ad in the paper to say that loans were available and you could satisfy the CRA requirements and go about your banking business. In those days, of course, the American banking system was different from ours. There was no real interstate banking; they were very much chartered banks and they were limited to geographic areas. But this geographic concept has become quite significant in the problem which has resulted in the United States and which has now spread throughout the world.
In 1994 there was the beginning of the liberalisation of banking in the United States whereby they could have interstate banking and whereby they could open further branches and so on. But in 1995 Clinton introduced new regulations under the Community Reinvestment Act which required not some benign advertisement or involvement with the community but in fact an enforcement and a requirement for a counting of the number of loans given to low-income families and minority groups. What this meant was that the reserve bank was charged with the function of auditing banks, and if they did not get a high CRA rating then mergers were not permitted and interstate banking, which had just been able to come about from the 1994 reforms, was not permitted. In addition to this, the Clinton policy was to fund left-wing political activist groups to be the enforcers, making banks lend in accordance with this policy and these regulations. The net result was that it was estimated that by about the year 2005 $9.5 billion had been paid to these left-wing activist groups to force banks to comply with the CRA requirements. But they did more than that. They would make a pre-emptive strike. They would say to a bank: ‘If you want to get an approval or if you want to get a good CRA rating, then perhaps you’d better give the money to us. Give us the right to underwrite these loans and then you’ll get a CRA approval rating and you will be able to open new branches and have interstate banking or indeed be able to merge.’
A lot of this material was put into the public arena in the year 2000 by a man called Howard Husock from the Manhattan Institute. His background is that he is vice-president, policy research, and director of the Manhattan Institute’s Social Entrepreneurship Initiative. He was formerly the director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He is a prolific writer on housing and urban policy issues. He has become well known for the articles that he has written and for drawing attention to the impact that bad policy has had in bringing about this crisis. He wrote in 2008 that the CRA bad mortgages on their own could not have created it. He said that through them together with other bad policies of government ‘we found ourselves in this mess’.
Not only did you have these left-wing groups like ACORN saying to a bank, ‘Well, you’d better give us the money or we won’t recommend your CRA rating; some of these organisations were also particularly skilled at disrupting meetings. Indeed one of these organisations required that anyone who got a loan through them had to perform five functions for that organisation a year. One of those included being prepared to make telephone calls or to disrupt meetings and, in particular, to register for a political party. Usually that would be the Democratic Party. An example of this type of extortion, if you want to call it that, is that by the year 2000 ACORN had a $760 million agreement with the Bank of New York, the Boston based Neighbourhood Assistance Corporation of America had a $3 billion agreement with the Bank of America and a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizens Action had a five-year agreement for $13 billion with the First Union Corporation. Similar deals operated in almost every major US city and, as Tom Callahan, the executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which had $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, observed, ‘CRA is the backbone of everything we do.’
The really alarming thing is that these organisations had the power, once they had the money, to have total underwriting authority and to place those loans with people who they chose to place them with—and this had nothing to do with their ability to repay. Then it got worse. I again quote Mr Husock:
… in 1992, the Department of Housing and Urban Development pushed Fannie and Freddie to buy loans based on criteria other than creditworthiness. These “affordable housing goals and subgoals”—authorized, ironically, by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act—became more demanding over time and, by 2005, required that Fannie and Freddie strive to buy 45 percent of all loans from those of low and moderate income, including 32 percent from people in central cities and other underserved areas and 22 percent from “very low income families or families living in low-income neighborhoods.” As one former Fannie Mae official puts it: “Both HUD and many advocates in the early 2000s were anxious for the GSEs to extend credit to borrowers with blemished credit in ways that were responsible.”
These loans were then parcelled up in what was known as securitisation. Alan Greenspan, in his evidence to the US Senate Committee of Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in February 2004, said:
Although the risk that a home mortgage borrower may default is small for any individual mortgage, risks can be substantial for a financial institution holding a large volume of mortgages for homes concentrated in one area or a few areas of the country.
This of course was exactly what the CRA legislation was designed to do. Mr Greenspan went on to say:
The possible consequences of such concentration of risk were vividly illustrated by the events of the 1980s, when oil prices fell and the subsequent economic distress led to numerous mortgage defaults in Texas and surrounding states. The secondary markets pioneered by Fannie and Freddie permit mortgage lenders to diversify these risks geographically and thus to extend more safely a greater amount of residential mortgage credit than might otherwise be prudent.
What that meant was that, simply, debt was taken from all over the country, bundled up into mortgage backed securities and then sold. They were sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But there was no account taken of the creditworthiness of these bundles, merely that they came from all sorts of geographic areas which, because of the nature of banking in the United States originally, was based on banks being chartered to an area or serving a very specific geographic area. Greenspan then, of course, in 2008, said that he was bewildered; he did not understand why it all went wrong. Then he admitted that it did go wrong.
Kevin Rudd, in his now infamous essay, said that those people who believe that the market acts and acts well talk about something called ‘moral hazard’, which he pooh-poohs and says should not be discussed. But, in reality, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were evidence of that sort of moral hazard because, although it was specifically said that there was no government guarantee for these institutions, the public believed that because they were government instrumentalities they would never be allowed to fail and therefore they would take a higher risk for a lower return. It was because they thought there was that implicit understanding. Of course, we now know that there is not and that both of those institutions have failed. When other pressures were put on them because of liquidity difficulties with those two institutions, what happened was that the banks then started to sell those mortgage backed securities which had been bundled up with that toxic component to each other. And ultimately they ended up in some of our local councils here in Australia, through Lehman Brothers.
So the long and the short of it is: in all this discussion that we are having, we have to get real. Kevin Rudd is wrong. The market did not fail. Capitalism did not fail. The market was excluded; it was not allowed to act. In fact, Greenspan, in part of his testimony, virtually admitted that. He said that these policies really did not allow the market to act in the way it normally would. So what we have to be careful about in this situation that we find ourselves in is that we do not go down the path of the state knowing best, that we do not go down the path this government has chosen—racking up additional debt and throwing money at the problem without even really understanding what the problem is.
There is no doubt about it. We are caught up in the whole global financial crisis, as it is now known. We certainly are. But let us understand what failed. It was bad government policy and too much regulation to enforce that bad government policy. And that is what we are getting now: bad government policy. Forty-two billion dollars is going to be expended—on what? On building school halls and libraries, which is the job of state governments and which they should have been doing already.
Where is the grand vision of some form of infrastructure which the people understand—like bringing water from Northern Queensland, where the floods are, down to the parched south where our food bowl needs to be. And there are people who have worked it out. There are people who can in fact deliver a project like that for somewhere between $6 billion and $11 billion, as opposed to the Penny Wong fantasy of buying back water from farmers, who are asking, when their land and their living is destroyed, that they get payments that will amount to between $6 billion and $12 billion. Where is the vision of the government? If the answer to the problem is pink batts, it must have been a hell of a question!
If we are not to simply ignore wisdom and are to learn from what has happened in the past, we must understand that if we are to invest public money there has got to be some infrastructure and some policies put in place which will allow productivity in the future, so that we see gains in the growth of our economy. And we need to hear a few other words—we need to have words like ‘work’, ‘save’, and ‘invest’ come back into proper usage, as popular concepts of the way we need to go.
We have heard people on our side of politics say very wisely that what this government is doing is going to plunge us right back into debt. When we came into office in 1996 they had left a debt of $96 billion. And we had to repay that. Doing so saved us an enormous amount of money in interest repayments. It also freed up capital which the government was otherwise absorbing so that the private sector could have access to it. This government has been asked in question time and at other times: where does this government intend to borrow the money from that it is going to need to borrow in order to finance the money it has given away?
We have just passed legislation that will enable this government to borrow up to $200 billion. When they start borrowing that money, where are they going to borrow it from? Are they going to borrow it domestically? In that case, they will be in competition for those funds with the private sector—including banks, who then on-lend to small business and to homebuyers. Are they going to try and go overseas to borrow it? Who are they going to borrow it from? The Chinese. The five biggest banks in the world today are all Chinese. Yet, before this crisis, the biggest bank in the world was Citibank. The capitalisation value of Citibank today is the same as that of St George Bank prior to the Westpac takeover. From where are we going to borrow the money internationally? From the Chinese. Does that put us in a vulnerable position with regard to any Chinese offer to buy our corporations, which are part of our national assets? How is that conflict of interest going to be dealt with by the incumbent government?
Have we been given any indication of where the money is going to be borrowed from? No. Will the government answer the question of where they are going to borrow the money from? No. The answer has been no every time a package has come forward, whether it was the $10.4 billion before Christmas, the $42 billion being promised now, the $22 billion for the infrastructure fund or, indeed, the money that is to be handed out to the state governments—rewarding them for doing I am not quite sure what. What are the criteria for that? Is that to bail out the state governments? Is the federal government going to borrow to bail out state governments who have failed miserably? We are entitled to know the answers to these questions. I simply repeat: the market has not failed; the market was excluded. The answer is not more bad public policy and regulation. The answer is enabling the principles of free enterprise to really work so that jobs can be created for people who, in turn, can save. This will then allow them to invest. That is the way forward, not the centralised socialist method of collectivism.
I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and cognate bill. This legislation seeks a total appropriation of $2.4 billion and includes a number of election commitments and changes in the estimates of existing program expenditures. We are a government that delivers on our election commitments. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering for Dawson such things as the $150 million upgrade that was promised for the Bruce Highway between Mackay and Townsville. There is also $95 million for the port access road in southern Townsville—something which has not happened for 30 years. This government does have vision, it does have commitment and it does deliver on its promises. There is also a $110 million commitment for the junction in my electorate which is just south of Townsville, between the Van Tassel Highway and the Flinders Highway.
All together, we have $300 million worth of projects. That is substantial in itself. And there is not only that: these projects also create work and jobs. When people are employed, they can contribute back to the community in a number of ways—by the goods and the services they buy, the accommodation that they require while on these sites building this key infrastructure which will last for 50 or more years. These are major pieces of infrastructure which we need to help productivity in our region.
When people work on these projects, they contribute to the local community through the goods and services that they buy and also through the taxes that they pay to the government—and so the money goes around. When workers are busy working at their jobs and spending money on local goods and services, the money also goes around there, as well as being reinvested in the tourist economy between Townsville and Mackay, because people can save money to take their families on holidays. In my seat of Dawson, that is a key economy.
So we welcome the government’s commitment to invest in and deliver on these major infrastructure projects. We have major commitments for roads. We also have an $8 million commitment to the junior rugby league and a rugby league stadium in Mackay. At the two elections prior to the last one, the previous member for Dawson promised that she would deliver $8 million, but she failed. As a matter of fact, just prior to the last election she could not even promise $8 million. The best she could get was a promise for $6 million. We are delivering in full. Nothing has been cut out of the program. We are delivering what the sports people need to run that stadium properly.
Sport also means sporting tourism—again, a major asset to the region of Mackay, the Whitsundays, Bowen, Ayr and, obviously, Townsville. Having good sporting infrastructure is key for tournaments—tournaments where hundreds of people can come for long weekends. When they pay for the accommodation, goods and services they need, the money flows into the economy. This is what stimulating the economy is really about. This is vision. This is imagination. It is not just a flash in the pan thing; it is something that will last many decades.
Then there is the investment in industry. I am pleased to say that the Rudd Labor government made an election promise to establish the Mackay Mining Technology Innovation Centre. There will be a number of these centres around Australia, but a key one will be in Mackay. It is a $14 million commitment. I am pleased to say that the offices have just been refurbished and established, and I am looking forward to opening them in the coming months—again, a promise made, a promise delivered.
One thing you can say about the Rudd Labor government: if we say we are going to do it, we will do it. That is what we are doing. We are delivering the key infrastructure which the previous government failed to deliver in 11 years. Whether you like it or not, that is the truth. The infrastructure just is not there. They had the benefit of the mining boom, of billions and billions of dollars coming in from overseas buyers. Where did the money go? What did it build? There certainly were not millions of dollars spent on the Bruce Highway. There were not millions of dollars spent on the Port Access Road or the Vantassel Street to Flinders Highway stretch of highway. The money certainly was not spent on the stadium and it was not spent on a Mining Technology Innovation Centre which will help network and connect key innovations to help productivity in our mining industry—and Mackay is a key strategic service city for the mining fields of the Bowen Basin, Moranbah and Collinsville.
This bill also appropriates $242.1 million to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to tackle Australia’s skills deficit, including $100 million to establish the National Secondary School Computer Fund. I have been to many schools in my electorate. Just recently I went to the Milton Street Mackay State High School, a school with over 800 pupils. The principal of that school is over the moon that he is going to get a trade training centre, because until now he did not have the facility to build a training centre for the everyday working-class kids there. We are going to give those kids a trade. We have a great scheme that is going to operate there and also at Whitsunday Anglican school, which is coming together with Carlisle Christian College and Mackay Christian College to build a trade training centre for their pupils. Again, this could not have happened before. We are going to skill up the next generation. This is good news for industry. This is good news for business. Our students are going to be highly educated, highly trained and given the correct facilities to do the job. They will be well educated in trades and skills. What parent would not want that for their child? What parent would not want a good education, a good trade, for their child? That is the only thing you can give a child: the opportunity to develop their mind to its full potential.
The other side of politics did not get behind this; they voted against it. What they were saying was, ‘We are denying your children the right to develop their full potential.’ What does that mean? It means that they do not want everyday working-class kids to have a good education, to have good skills and to have good training—because without this money they will not get it. They will be poorer for it, this country will be poorer for it and businesses will be poorer for it, all because you voted against it. And we will not let you forget that—not once. We will take you all the way to the next election and we will remind you—and the people of Dawson and the people of Australia—every step of the way that you voted against developing the full potential of the education of the kids of this nation.
The member will address his remarks through the chair.
Through the chair, I say to the other side of politics: our children will be poorer for not having this investment. This is like a seed that you plant, and 10, 15 or 20 years later the whole nation will reap the benefit from the investment in the education of every child to develop them to their full potential.
I can tell you that every principal and every teacher I have spoken to has said that this is the best thing that has ever happened. And history will record that, so far, this is the biggest investment there has ever been in education. We in the Rudd Labor government are proud of that because we believe in our kids and we believe in giving the kids of this nation, regardless of who they are or where they come from or what their backgrounds are, an equal opportunity to maximise their abilities. That is the least we can do for the future generations, and every teacher and every principal is right behind that.
Also, there is $33.3 million for the government’s Skilling Australia for the Future programs. This funding will deliver 20,000 vocational education and training places that are aimed at people currently outside the workforce. Retraining is a key component. I am a baby boomer and I started life in the print trade. I did 20 years in the print trade as a darkroom technician, final film planner and platemaker. Those skills are completely obsolete now, and I am 50 this year.
You don’t look it.
I know I don’t look it. Thank you, I appreciate it. But I can honestly say to you that there are many in my generation who have come up through the trades who are having to reskill. This legislation helps that happen. We have a resource of over-40s who want to get into new trades or perhaps new businesses and they need skilling up. But they need a helping hand. We on this side of politics believe the role of government is to give people that helping hand up—not to push them down. That is what we intend to do, and that is what is behind this investment in reskilling people. And it is for giving people, particularly businesses, the opportunity to save apprenticeships where the bottom line is perhaps tight in these extreme global economic conditions in which we live. They are conditions that ultimately are global and because they are global they are beyond our control.
But we stand in a good position. We stand with the knowledge of the storm that is coming. We can be wise and we can prepare, and that is what we are doing through this legislation—we are preparing for the future. There will be some hard months ahead; there is no question about that, and everybody is real enough to acknowledge that. But I can tell you that this is the right way forward. This is the way to stimulate the economy and the way to create and save jobs. And if jobs do perhaps become redundant we will reskill and retrain. We do not believe that we should allow unemployment to rise beyond control because when unemployment rises beyond control families hurt and suffer and children hurt and suffer.
We have to look after families in this nation and we have to look after individuals in this nation. If there is one thing that gives a human being purpose, it is to contribute to society through work. Some people, when they cannot find paid work, are only too glad to move into volunteer work, because it is in human nature to work and to contribute to community and society in order to make the world—and their own lives in the process—a much better place.
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has been provided with $2.5 million to establish Infrastructure Australia to ensure that there is genuine rigour and accountability in infrastructure spending. This is so that this government will be transparent and not be accused of regional rorts or anything like that. We are open to accountability, and this money helps provide that accountability, because accountability is important and infrastructure is for the long term—not the short term. That infrastructure will be here long after most of us have moved on from this place.
The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research will be provided with $15.2 million to introduce the Enterprise Connect program, which will replace the previous government’s Australian Industry Productivity Centres. I referred earlier to the Mackay Mining Innovation Skills Centre, which will be a key touchstone for industry to bring together various businesses in the mining sector to look at ways of increasing productivity through innovation.
The government are totally focused on stimulating the economy. For example, we are building 20,000 units of homes in the next two years. We made a commitment to build 40,000 homes by 2020. Stimulation for the building industry is fantastic, and I can honestly report that my phone at my electoral office has not stopped ringing from builders in the construction industry saying, ‘How do we get on board with this? We want a part of this. How can we do that?’ Even yesterday, on my mobile phone, I received a call from a developer saying, ‘We want to be part of this. This is fantastic.’
It is fair to say that there is broad consensus among the business community and amongst tradespeople that this is the right way to go; this is going to save businesses in the construction industry. The insulation of 2.2 million homes is going to create jobs, and a vast majority of that insulation will be Australian made. Seventy per cent of the solar hot water systems will be made here in Australia. This will create work; it will create greener homes which will have less carbon footprint. It has been worked out that between now and 2020 the amount of carbon saved from going into the atmosphere will be in the region of 49 million tonnes. That is equivalent to taking one million cars off the road. That is good, and through that we fulfil our Kyoto agreement. This is smart, because this is going to happen in two years. This is very smart indeed.
Here we are, insulating homes, making them energy efficient, creating work through that, reducing the carbon footprint, fulfilling the Kyoto agreement, building 20,000 homes in two years—those will be for low-income people and the homeless. That is a core Labor commitment, a fundamental belief. Give children an education. Give children good health. Give children a good basic home. That is what the Labor Party has always been about. That is a core fundamental belief, and we, the Rudd Labor government, are delivering on our true beliefs.
The previous speaker, the member for Mackellar, gave a sort of critique and said that capitalism has not failed and the market did not fail; rather, it was the responsibility of the American administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. She seems to have forgotten that for the last eight years President Bush was running the country. He, obviously, from her assessment, had no influence whatsoever. She talks as if someone waved a magic wand and things just suddenly went wrong—because of state intervention, supposedly. This is absolute Disneyland politics, because the reality is she did not address the CEOs who were paying themselves massive bonuses. I refer to the Lehman Brothers CEO. After eight years of running the bank, he busted the bank and walked away with over US$450 million. I think there needs to be some accountability for that. I personally find it ethically unacceptable to receive $450 million for sending a bank broke. That is not good stewardship of anybody’s money. There needs to be some serious accountability right now across the world of all the CEOs of all the banks.
In conclusion, I truly do believe this is the right way forward, the right stimulus and the right package to save our nation from huge unemployment queues. The opposition voted against this package, but without it that would have been the result. I commend these bills to the House.
I also wish to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009. It is appropriate—and I think earlier speakers have done so—to address these bills in the context of the current economic circumstances. In fact, certain provisions in these bills go towards the government’s response to what is the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression without any doubt. In particular, a significant amount of money has been allocated within the bills to councils for much needed infrastructure investment.
Last year during the debate on the 2007-08 appropriation bills, one of the things that I spoke about when I spoke on the legislation was one of the central challenges for government, which is to manage the economy in order to achieve social progress. Of course, that is a fundamental tenet for Labor. When speaking, I also highlighted the need for strong, sustainable and responsible economic growth in the face of a very uncertain international economic environment. At that time we did not know as much about what we were going to confront as we do now. The third theme of the speech that I made at the time was the determination of the government to address the chronic investment deficits on the capacity side of the economy, particularly in skills and infrastructure. These were gaping holes in public policy and in investment left by the previous government, and that had been evident for some time. Of course, many of the measures that the Rudd government has taken and continues to take are to address those investment deficits on the capacity side of the economy.
These are all themes that are also a feature of the government’s most resent response—the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. To return briefly to the wider economic circumstances, I made the comment earlier, and I think it is clearly the case for any amateur economic historians—and I proffer to include myself in that category—that this is without any doubt the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. It is a financial crisis that over the last six to nine months has migrated from the financial system through to the wider economy, and the real economy is starting to demonstrate the impact of it.
I was watching the ABC news just before I came to speak on these bills, and today’s results in the US stock market are now the worst in 12 years. The market has depressed to a level not seen since the mid-nineties. The Australian All Ordinaries Index is down to a five-year low. I think some of the market results are not receiving as much media attention now as they did several months back, but we are in a very difficult position in the equities markets internationally, including in our own market.
The impact has been that as the financial crisis worsened it, in the words of the International Monetary Fund, weakened consumer and business confidence, raised uncertainty and destroyed wealth. That is demonstrably the case. Values on balance sheets and in portfolios have been written down very significantly. All of this has contributed to much lower demand at the consumption level in the economy and much lower investment. Some of the anecdotal stories that I am hearing about plans for investment that are being shelved in the private sector are extremely disturbing. One of the other results, which I just noticed on the news, flowing from the market in the US is reflected in the destruction of value on the balance sheet of one of the largest financial institutions in the world, Citigroup. This has now led its share price to collapse from US$54 to just over US$2. I think that is evidence of just how serious this crisis really is.
Beyond its impact on confidence, the financial crisis makes it very hard for companies and consumers to borrow. There is a serious credit crisis. This obviously reduces economic activity in terms of both consumption and, very importantly, capital investment. While the impact on access to debt was the worst aspect of the financial crisis early on, the negative impact of collapsing confidence is the main driver of the current problems. The result of this is demonstrated best by recent IMF forecasts that the global economy will not even be stagnant; it will be in recession this year. The advanced economies will experience the sharpest contraction in the post-war period. These are the predictions of the IMF. Six of our top 10 trading partners are in recession now. The United States is predicted to contract by a significant amount, but the most recent news from Japan is that the economy there appears to have contracted by as much as 12 per cent over the last 12 months. That is extremely serious, and Japan remains our key trading partner.
The current economic conditions are not good, and they call for serious and considered responses in order to try to insulate to the best of our capacity the Australian economy from the effects of a global recession. We are seeing, however, rapidly falling commodity prices and a decline, as a result, in the terms of trade. We are seeing a fall in confidence; a fall in investment, as I have spoken about; and a fall in expected exports. I was with a number of exporters in the port of Newcastle late last week. Obviously the coal industry and coal exports are extremely important there. Fortunately for the Hunter region, most coal exports are in thermal coal for power generation. Demand is holding up reasonably well for that, but coke and coal exports are falling quite dramatically, which is affecting the Queensland economy in particular.
With all of this, of course, the most recent predictions for the Australian economy are to see unemployment rise to the order of seven per cent by next year, which is a worry for every member in this place. The impact on government revenues has also been dramatic. The projected revenue estimates over the forward estimates has fallen by $115 billion. There was a $40 billion revenue reduction projected in the 2008 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. This was followed by a revised projection of a reduction of $50 billion in company tax, $13 billion in income tax, $10 billion in GST receipts and $2 billion in other taxes. This is a serious crisis by any measure. The government has been determined to respond to this crisis and will continue to do so in order to support, to the extent that the government can, both economic growth and jobs. Jobs are critical for people in this environment. The Prime Minister has stated, and he is determined to see it through, that the government will move heaven and earth to support growth and employment in these circumstances.
No Australian government, I think it is fair to say, has ever devoted so many resources to trying to stimulate the economy and insulate it from the effects of global recession. In the last year alone, particularly in the latter part of the year, the government announced packages worth almost $70 billion. To that we can add the recent announcement of the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. These are big numbers, big amounts of money, but they are justified in the context of the economic environment that I have briefly sketched.
The most recent announcement is an extremely important one because it concentrates on nation-building projects that will translate into job creation in the near and medium term. It is worth noting that for every dollar spent providing immediate stimulus to the economy the government has invested more than $2 in long-term investments—so $1 on immediate stimulus; $2 on long-term investments that will generate future economic growth. Many of these initiatives are well known. However, I will briefly advert to the key initiatives. The range of nation-building initiatives include: the building or upgrading of large-scale school infrastructure; the building of 500 new science laboratories and language-learning centres in schools that can demonstrate need; and the devotion of up to $200,000 to every Australian school for maintenance and renewal of school buildings. This is nearly a $15 billion program to massively upgrade school infrastructure, with multiplier effects through local economies.
The government has also announced the installing of ceiling insulation in 2.7 million Australian homes, which will cut ultimately around $200 per year off the energy bills of those households and, of course, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There has been a commitment to finance the construction of 20,000 new social housing dwellings. Given my portfolio in Defence, I am pleased that that package includes the construction of 800 new houses for members of the Australian Defence Force. About 30 of those will go in the region which I am in part representing in the Hunter, in New South Wales. There will be funding for urgent maintenance to upgrade around 2,500 vacant social houses, a 30 per cent investment tax break for small and general businesses investing in eligible assets before 30 June this year—a very significant incentive for small businesses to invest in capital equipment with a value of greater than $1,000. There is the resourcing of 350 additional projects in the Black Spot Program. The package also includes a $650 million funding boost for local community infrastructure and maintenance on Australia’s national highways. Complementing all of these important nation-building programs is a range of initiatives to provide immediate stimulus to support jobs and economic growth. These measures include a range of one-off cash payments: a $900 tax bonus for working Australians, a $900 single-income family bonus, a $950 farmers hardship payment, a $950 per child back-to-school bonus and a $950 training and learning bonus paid to students and people outside the workforce returning to study. All of these are extremely important from a social standpoint and an economic standpoint. They complement the programs announced last year, which were also targeted at supporting growth and jobs. All of those programs were worth $27.6 billion in total and I have adverted to a number of those initiatives.
The central organising principle of the government’s approach is to do whatever is necessary to avoid the impact of recession in this country, to stimulate growth and to support people’s employment and therefore their living standards and capacity to support their families. Australia is in, I think it is fair to say, a somewhat better position than a number of other countries to weather this storm but it does require the determination of government to take significant steps such as these. In my own electorate of Charlton, the impact of these stimulus packages has had and will continue to have a significant positive effect. The Economic Security Strategy package resulted in 25,000 pensioners receiving one-off payments of $1,400 for singles and $2,100 for couples. Payment of $1,000 was also made for each child who attracts family tax benefit part A. In my electorate, almost 12,000 families were eligible for that payment. These payments were designed, as I described a while ago, to stimulate the economy and also to recognise the financial strain that many working families face.
The $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan is also a great package for the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie communities and is aimed at helping the region deal with the impacts of the global financial crisis. It will provide a much needed fiscal boost to the regional economy. According to Centrelink figures, nearly 10,000 families in my electorate of Charlton will be eligible for the $900 single income family bonus, for example. That is a significant cash injection into the local economy and will arrive during April. At least 130,000 people in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie will also be eligible, as estimated by my office, for the $900 tax bonus.
Both the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie city councils are expected to receive funding for important infrastructure and road projects. Every school in the region, of course, will be receiving significant investment, including much needed maintenance for schools. One of the primary schools in my electorate did not have functioning toilets about 18 months or so ago. I am hopeful that we will never have to see that sort of degradation in the infrastructure of local schools anywhere in the country again as a consequence of government decisions. There will also be, as I mentioned a moment ago, investment in new Defence housing in the Hunter, which will also be extremely important. There are larger infrastructure projects in the region and I will be, as I have been for quite some months, actively agitating to source the funding from state and federal governments to make sure that those investments are made, for example, in the Lake Macquarie transport interchange, about which I have spoken previously in the House.
I hope that I have painted, at least in brief terms, not only the significance of the economic challenge that the country faces but also the importance of the government’s policy responses to deal with this from a social and economic point of view. Therefore, it is important also to note for the record that the opposition voted against these measures—most recently, the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This was a curious decision, in my judgment, given the circumstances that we face; nonetheless, it was a decision that was taken. I, like my colleagues in the government, will certainly be bringing that to the attention of people in my local community. On all of the indications that I have had in my time in the electorate since the announcements were made, the packages that have been developed by the government have been very warmly welcomed.
All of these things are extremely important policy responses to the global economic crisis. The government has taken a number of steps to stabilise and repair the financial system. We have taken these steps to introduce strong fiscal stimulus to the economy. Also, I think it is fair to say that monetary policy and fiscal policy are working well together to deal with this issue. The cash rate is now 3.25 per cent, and the most recent decision by the Reserve Bank to reduce it by 100 basis points was welcome. Overall, people with a mortgage are paying lower interest rates and have received and will be receiving some of the assistance that has been provided by the government through the last two packages for economic stimulus. Other changes have also been made, in particular the investment in nation building and infrastructure. These are very positive things not only for my electorate but for all electorates around the country. Strong and decisive action is needed in these circumstances. The government is committed to continue to take such action. I welcome the bills and commend them to the House.
It is a pleasure to follow the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement. I thank him for outlining very succinctly and fairly the economic situation that exists both globally and in this country. I monitor what my colleagues are speaking about in this place—not necessarily sitting in this chamber or in the main chamber of the House but certainly in my office—and I found it a little disturbing to listen to the member for Mackellar’s diatribe against, particularly, the Prime Minister. Mind you, that has been a long-term thing, rather than a short-term thing. She claimed that our attempts to stimulate the economy, both in the short term, the more immediate term, and the longer term are wrong, wrong, wrong, without offering any clear alternative to that.
I note that the member for Mackellar and others on the other side have belittled some of the more specific projects that the government is encouraging, particularly the economic stimulus package in relation to education, particularly for high schools and primary schools. Indeed, I would just like to remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker and, through you, my colleagues of what the then shadow minister for finance and now the shadow Treasurer said on Seven’s Sunrise program on 13 February in relation to the package on education:
Well let me tell you—
of course, he would have been 10 times louder—
we wouldn’t be spending $14 billion on school halls. I mean that is a phenomenal amount of money. $14 billion … That is just ridiculous.
I can tell the member for North Sydney and anyone else who questions that part of the stimulus package that there are many primary schools and secondary schools in my electorate which are highly excited by the prospects of that section of the stimulus package. They are indeed pleased to be able to have a maintenance budget that will help them out in many ways. Many speakers before me, and no doubt after me, will be able to tell you how they want to spend that money.
But in terms of this ‘wasted money,’ according to the member for North Sydney, on school halls, libraries, language labs and science labs, not only are they a welcome addition to those schools, particularly in providing better learning and teaching opportunities for those in those communities, but they are massive local economic stimulators. I am sure many on this side of the House, and no doubt those on the other side, are receiving very positive responses to that initiative. The opposition must find it very difficult to explain to those schools and those communities why they voted against that very important education and economic stimulus package that was announced.
The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and cognate bill before us are about spending to provide the government’s programs. Only on Friday did I have the privilege of attending one of our Better Regions launches, or turning of the sod, as it is called, at the Ulverstone Showgrounds Redevelopment. This saw a commitment of $2 million from the federal government, in conjunction with the state government’s $2 million and the over $2 million commitment of the local council for this very exciting redevelopment, which happens to be at the home of my basketball club, the Mighty Hoppers, of which I am still president. Hopefully, they are winning at this very moment at home! That was an example of Better Regions working in partnership with my local community.
It is pleasing to see eight other Better Regions projects currently underway in my electorate, to the value of over $8½ million. Those are the types of appropriations that we are talking about and those are the types of programs in partnership between the federal government and local government, and the state government in a number of instances, all stimulating our local economies, all stimulating economic activity in the short term and which will provide important future infrastructure, both physical and social, for our communities.
I would also like to raise a number of projects outside of those I have mentioned in the Better Regions program. I note that my good friend the member for Hasluck has arrived in the chamber, and she reminds me of my Better Regions projects, but I would like to talk about some other initiatives brought about by community demand, input and partnership. The first is in the area of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I note that work to bring digital television to beautiful King Island will soon be underway thanks to $300,000 from the Rudd government. This project is like just about all the projects that are being discussed on this side of the House, which are the result of election commitments and/or honour commitments made by the former government through their area consultative committees.
Last month, Minister Stephen Conroy signed off on the funding of this project, which I know the people of King Island have been waiting patiently for. This should be great news. The extension of digital television, which many take for granted—although I know my colleagues in rural and regional Australia do not—is an important part of keeping people on King Island in touch with the rest of Tasmania and the nation. They, like anyone else, deserve access to good television services. The funding commitment was made during the 2007 election, and working with the King Island Council, the department is soon to make it a reality.
Because of the innovative approach of the council and its partners, it has taken some time to see this project reach the funding stage, but the aim was to see that the King Island people receive the best service possible. So I do apologise for the time taken. I think all of us in this House are aware of some of the frustrations that go with due process, but we are accountable for taxpayers’ funds and we have to do the right thing by them.
Those who can receive the signal can look forward to an excellent picture once the service is up and running. Unfortunately, due to the nature of digital transmissions and the challenging topography of this beautiful island, not everyone will be able to receive the new signal. The new service is not expected to impact on the analog service currently provided to the island—so that is a benefit—until the switch-over has to take place. The project will also see an improvement in the ABC radio reception on the island, for all those lovers of the ABC. I am sure this room is full of those supporters. The King Island Council will take responsibility for the Currie TV towers project and will operate the facility on a self-help basis and be responsible for any ongoing operation and maintenance costs.
I would now like to move on to another very significant area of expenditure—computers in education. It is somewhat derided by those on the other side but I bet none of them has been into the schools to tell them that they cannot have their computers. I am not a betting person but if I were I would be fairly confident of my loot. I am very pleased that north-west schools will share in the $1,212,000 worth of computers as part of the second round of the Rudd government’s National Secondary Schools computer fund.
The successful secondary schools include School of Special Education North-West, North-West Christian School, Geneva Christian College, King Island District High School, Seabrook Christian School, Circular Head Christian School, Yolla District High School, Smithton High School, Parklands High School, Latrobe High School, Wynyard High School, Penguin High School, Devonport High School, Burnie High School, Reece High School, St Brendan Shaw College, Marist Regional College and, I am very pleased to note, both Hellyer College and The Don College. The Don College in particular is receiving 273 computers. I am very pleased because it is my old teaching stomping ground. Whilst I may, I congratulate The Don College and Hellyer College because they are now, with the introduction of the polytechnic campus and the academy campus, part of the post-compulsory education reforms in Tasmania. I wish them well with that, and I hope the computers that are readily available to them now will enhance their great teaching and learning programs. These computers come on the back of the 194 computers announced for north-west schools last year as part of round 1 of the National Secondary Schools Computer Fund. A further, supplementary round, 2.1, opened on 10 December, as we are aware, allowing eligible schools who have not applied under rounds 1 or 2 to apply if they do not have the ratio of one to two. I encourage any of my north-west schools who have not already applied to do it quickly in order to ensure their school reaches the national ratio level.
I now move into the area of health, where nobody can argue that spending is not very worthy or warranted. The people of Braddon and across Tasmania are set to benefit from a $10 million injection to support patient transport in the state. The whole area of patient transport was constantly put to me before and during the election as a vital area of concern. This was not just about accessing appropriate forms of transport, assisting with the costs and having equipment to assist disabled and challenged patients using aircraft; it was also about having access to accommodation when required to travel to receive medical assistance and treatment. Many of the operators of various travel assistance community groups and regular emergency agencies also spoke of the urgent need to coordinate patient travel arrangements across the region and the state to achieve better and more efficient use of vehicles and drivers. Like many of my colleagues here, I was keen to lobby for these concerns, and I was very pleased that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the current Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, listened to our case and were prepared to provide funding for these issues while working closely with the state government and other service providers. While people on the north-west coast would prefer to access all their medical and health services without leaving our immediate region, the reality is that sometimes we have to travel, and I hope that this package will assist them and their families in this.
The mix of funding and services, in cooperation with major reforms from the Tasmanian government, should improve the support for patients and their families. Under the initiative, our government will provide up to $3 million to acquire additional patient transport vehicles in the north-west, the north and the south of the state; up to $3.1 million to establish low-cost patient accommodation at Burnie in my electorate; up to $90,000 for upgrades to the Spurr Wing accommodation complex in Launceston, where a number of our people have to go for specialist services; up to $2.72 million to purchase new IT infrastructure and software to improve communication, coordination of patient transport and accommodation across the state; and up to $300,000 to upgrade Queenstown airport, which will come into my electorate as we are having a redistribution.
How unfortunate!
They are very happy now! We are already working on this new relationship. That upgrade is to ensure safe patient transfers. Up to $20,000 will be used to purchase appropriate patient transport and lifting equipment at Wynyard airport and up to $770,000 to implement new telehealth initiatives to reduce the necessity for patients to travel to receive health care. That is a terrific package; $10 million was promised in the election period, went through consultation, was committed and is now underway.
Another related area is that of aged care. Something that we must all be aware of is the growing need for this in our community. It should be at the forefront of our thinking and planning. In this respect, only a couple of weeks ago I was happy to announce the start of a project set to become a national aged-care leader, which has been recognised by the Minister for Ageing, Justine Elliot. The minister has offered funding for an innovative project being developed by north-west coast aged-care providers, in particular, for not-for-profit community aged care.
A few weeks ago, a group of aged-care providers from the region met to further discuss a study into ways to strengthen aged-care services and cooperation between providers in the region. The group had grown since the meeting with the minister last year and the series of gatherings that followed. I have been keen to support the group and assist them wherever I can and was only too happy to seek funding for a study of potential models. The challenges we have in the Cradle Coast region are no doubt shared by others throughout Australia, particularly regional Australia. The Rudd government is committed to ensuring high-quality, sustainable aged-care services.
I would like to acknowledge the work of Malcolm Johnstone from Eliza Purton in Ulverstone and Wendy Tadman from Yaraandoo at Somerset. As representatives of the group, they have been crucial to getting funding for the project. I was very pleased to announce that the minister was giving them funding to scope this project. Hopefully, I can share the results later on with members in this place and hopefully it will be applicable to other regional areas throughout Australia—particularly in the area of not-for-profit, community aged care. We cannot deny that this is a very difficult challenge and it is something that all members here are going to have to deal with.
Some significant funds associated with these appropriations will also flow to local government in my region as part of the federal government’s injection of millions of dollars into regional and local infrastructure across Australia. Indeed, the earlier $300 million Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program jointly announced by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Anthony Albanese, has already seen a flow-on into my electorate. The Burnie City Council has received funding of $235,000 to go towards the Les Clark bowls complex. The Circular Head Council has had $277,000 committed to shared walkways in that part of the electorate. The Devonport City Council has received $183,000, which is allocated to a skate park. The Waratah-Wynyard Council has had $339,000 committed to walkways. I note that King Island has been given $100,000, Latrobe has been given $196,000 and the Central Coast Council has been given $391,000 for projects under this scheme.
The money comes on top of the recent announcement of $3.65 million going to the north-west councils in my electorate as part of the second instalment of the federal government’s $1.9 billion financial assistance grants, which we share with other members in this House. Time does not allow but there are many other projects that I could comment on in relation to the government’s investment in infrastructure in my electorate. These are great stimulants and we look forward to sharing their benefits.
I, like the member for Braddon, am pleased to rise in the Main Committee tonight to support the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009. These bills seek appropriation authority from the parliament for additional expenditure of money from the consolidated revenue fund in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget. The total appropriation sought through these bills this year is $3.1 billion or about 4.1 per cent of total annual appropriations. Like other speakers before me, I may take some licence to broadly address spending initiatives by the government because, to borrow an old saying, we are living in interesting times.
The global financial crisis, which has significantly worsened since September-October last year, has meant that it is necessary for the government to take decisive and early action. So, in addition to the expenditure covered in these appropriations bills, we have also recently seen the passing of bills to establish the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—a substantial and significant stimulus to the economy. I am pleased to be part of a government that has taken decisive and early action to address and combat the worsening of the global financial crisis. Importantly, we have seen the government take decisive and early action to stabilise our financial system in Australia, especially our banks. We have seen substantial investment in funds to stimulate our economy, supporting growth and jobs as well as investing in infrastructure for the future. So it is not only money that is being made immediately available to support consumption; it is also funding payments for the future benefit of Australians through investment in our infrastructure.
Today there were significant announcements about assistance the government will make available to those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own in these difficult economic times. I am confident when I talk about the investment that will occur in my electorate; and how that is well received. I have been visiting many schools in my electorate in recent weeks—when I have been able to get back to my electorate—and they are very pleased about the government’s further investment of some $14.7 billion in Building the Education Revolution. I note that that is the single largest schools building program in Australia’s history. I am very pleased that all of Australia’s 9,540 schools will benefit from the immediate funding for major and minor infrastructure projects.
I particularly urge my own state government, the Western Australian government, to look at an effective way to ensure that those funds are available to state government schools at the earliest possible opportunity. There were substantial difficulties in the previous government’s Investing in Our Schools Program, because of how procurement policies operated in Western Australia. I am hoping there will not be unnecessary restrictions or red tape imposed upon our state government schools in the electorate of Hasluck and that we will be able to see those funds flowing at the earliest possible opportunity. We all agree—irrespective of which side of the House we are on—that it is our responsibility, indeed our obligation, to ensure that Australian children have the best possible education. It is the way to give them the best start in life.
We will also see the benefits of this funding boost to our construction and building industries. I am most pleased about that. Equally, I congratulate the government for its investment in housing and the commitment to build some 20,000 new public homes—not only because this will support local tradespeople and the building industry but because it will have a direct effect on beginning to address the problem of homeless people in our community. Already we have heard in the House today from the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, the Minister for Housing, about the benefit that is already being seen in our local construction industry, particularly in the new homes area, from the government’s stimulus package.
More specifically, I will address some of the issues in the appropriations bill. In particular, I want to comment on the additional funding directed to AusAID. As I have previously advised the House, each year some 34,000 mothers and over 400,000 children under the age of five years will die in our immediate region. These figures will increase to 200,000 mothers and 3.2 million children if we include all of South-East Asia. The mothers generally die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, the children from largely preventable causes. Australia’s aid in the region has made a significant contribution to the health outcomes in many countries, and this will increase with the improved AusAID health policies and initiatives of the Rudd government. The government has pledged to increase overseas development assistance from 0.3 to 0.5 per cent of the gross national income by 2015. This funding will in part support our neighbours through the Pacific Partnerships to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The 2008-09 budget allocated an increase of eight per cent expenditure on health issues affecting the Millennium Development Goals outcomes. As a member of ASEAN in 2008-09 Australia is committed to nearly $1 billion in bilateral and regional development for the East Asia region. That is a substantial investment by Australia, one I hope to see increased, and I am proud to be part of a government that has made that commitment and that investment in our region.
I note that the appropriations bill also addresses additional appropriation for the Department of Climate Change. Some $13.95 million is provided for a national advertising campaign to raise public awareness of climate change and of the government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It seems to me, particularly with the recent extraordinary climatic events, as well as the terrible fires we have just witnessed in Victoria and the floods in Queensland, that very few people now would argue that there is no such thing as global warming or climate change. In the lead-up to the November 2007 election, the Labor Party made a substantial commitment to tackle climate change after nearly 11-odd years of inaction by the previous government on that issue. I am glad to say that we are also taking steps to prepare Australia for the challenges of the future by tackling climate change. Australians know that acting now on climate change is the responsible thing to do. We cannot afford to waste any more time on this issue.
I note that the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition parties appear to remain hopelessly divided when it comes to taking action on climate change. Indeed, I think there are still some of his colleagues who cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition that climate change even exists. But we are moving on from that and taking strong action to tackle climate change by introducing a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We are also making sure that we are putting in place targets that are appropriate and responsible, given the need to protect our economy and our jobs during this global recession. I think it is money wisely spent by the government in lifting the nation’s awareness of how the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, intended to start in 2010, will indeed operate.
Among the significant benefits of the scheme, we will see for the first time in Australia a cost and a charge on carbon pollution, which will encourage major polluting businesses to lower their emissions. We will see the funds raised help industries that pollute lower their emissions. We will also use the funds raised to assist households to adjust to the scheme, making sure Australian families do not carry the cost burden of climate change and, importantly, build on our investment in renewable energy to create the low pollution jobs of the future in solar energy, on wind farms and in jobs using new technologies like clean coal and geothermal energy. Taking action on climate change will see the renewable energy sector in Australia grow to 30 times its current size by 2050, creating thousands of new jobs.
I also note the additional expenditure for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts—some $100 million to meet the increased demand for household rebates under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. I well recall the criticism from the opposition that changes to that subsidy would ruin the operation of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan, but what we have seen is a significant increase in demand by households for the rebates that are available under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. These bills will provide rebates of up to $8,000 for eligible households to install solar PV systems, transitioning to the new Solar Credits in mid-2009.
This complements a part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan that the Rudd government has recently introduced, the Energy Efficient Homes package, which is about supporting clean, green jobs and rolling out energy efficiency to Australia’s suburbs on an unprecedented scale. Free ceiling insulation, worth up to $1,600, will be available to around 2.2 million homeowners. This is a particularly popular scheme in my electorate of Hasluck, and especially in the suburbs of Gosnells and Maddington, where, when many homes were completed, people were unable to afford insulation in their ceilings, and they wait with great anticipation for that insulation program to be available. Equally, I have many suburbs in my electorate that have a high level of rental accommodation. I am pleased to see that landlords will be eligible for a rebate of up to $1,000 to insulate, it is estimated, some 500,000 rental properties around Australia. It is estimated that this initiative will reduce heating and cooling bills by up to 40 per cent—saving the average household some $200 a year on their energy bills.
Rebates for eligible homeowners and renters to install solar or heat-pump hot water systems have been increased to $1,600 and the means test has been removed. Households in Australia can save over $300 on energy bills by replacing electric hot water systems with solar hot water systems. The $300 million Green Loans program will start rolling out energy assessments backed with low-interest loans for solar, water and energy efficient products from mid-2009. In addition, there is the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative to help people use water wisely in their everyday lives. There are rebates of up to $500 for households to install rainwater tanks or greywater systems.
There is occurring in Australia a substantial and comprehensive response to the issues associated with climate change and converting or transforming our economy from a high-carbon producing economy to a low-carbon producing economy. The Western Australian government previously committed to match funding and cooperate with the federal government in the $13.9 million investment in Perth’s Solar Cities project, which will involve five local councils in the north-eastern suburbs of Perth, including the City of Swan and the Shire of Kalamunda in my electorate of Hasluck, in the rollout of a substantial program to implement for the first time in the east metropolitan region an initiative directed towards Perth’s Solar Cities. There has been some delay in that, and I would urge the Western Australian state government and, in particular, the Department of Housing and Works, to come on board with this crucially important project.
There was $4 million allocated in the budget for the upgrade of drainage systems in Perth’s Canning and Southern River areas. I heard the member for Swan last night in the grievance debate raising his concerns about investment in this important area of Perth’s river system. I indicate to him that I share his concerns. The state government previously agreed to match funding for upgrades of drainage systems around the Canning and Swan River area but have recently indicated that they would like to change the nature of their funding from cash funding to ‘in kind’ funding. We have yet to get to the bottom of what that actually means. These are important projects as part of conserving and protecting not only these important environmental areas but also our water in Western Australia, and I urge the state government to come on board.
There is money in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Ageing—and I have heard other members congratulate the government on this—for a national community education and awareness campaign for organ donations and transplants across Australia. I also compliment the government—in particular, the Hon. Nicola Roxon—for the comprehensive set of initiatives concerned. I also note additional funding to increase the number of places available under the Prevocational General Practice Placement Program and I congratulate the government for that initiative. I am very fortunate to have in my electorate an election commitment to a new GP superclinic in the suburb of Midland. Initially this project was agreed between the state government and the federal government prior to the 2007 election. As we speak, the Barnett state government are currently reviewing their decision to match funds and have indicated their opposition to the clinic being collocated on the site of the proposed new Midland health campus. Such a change of location will add further costs. It also has great cost implications for the commitment for superclinics. I know that all of the stakeholders involved at a local level—the Swan Kalamunda Health Service, the Midland Redevelopment Authority and the City of Swan—and the federal government and the current tender proponents recognise the importance and value of having the GP superclinic colocated with the hospital. I urge the Western Australian government to reconsider this decision.
I will address one last area. This concerns Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009. It has additional funds for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. There is $300 million for the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. This program sees some $250 million being distributed to local councils. I was incredibly pleased to discover that my local councils will share a considerable amount of that money: some $544,000 for the Shire of Kalamunda, some $677,000 for the City of Swan and some $668,000 for the City of Gosnells. They are all vibrant local councils with increasing populations and pressures on their budgets and expenditure. I am delighted that that funding has been confirmed.
In the case of the Shire of Kalamunda, it will go towards the refurbishment of the Kalamunda Aquatic Centre, which will see a major upgrade with the installation of a pool filtration system, resurfacing of the toddlers’ pools and change rooms and the installation of additional shade shelters, amongst other things. In the case of the City of Swan, there is a raft of projects throughout its very large area in not only my electorate but also the electorates of Pearce, Cowan and Perth, which will all see substantial upgrades to local community infrastructure. I am delighted that we will see that funding both support jobs and boost local economies. I look forward to seeing the City of Gosnells plans. Of course these funds for local government have now been substantially increased by some $500 million. I know my local councils look forward to working with the federal government on building and establishing new, important infrastructure for our communities to use. I commend the bills before us to the House.