Mr Speaker, on indulgence: on 25 February I advised the House of the suspected fraudulent use of a number of Australian passports in connection with the murder of senior Hamas figure Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. I now advise the House of the government’s response to this matter. First it is worth recalling the circumstances in which this came to the government’s attention and our response to date. On 20 January, Mr Al-Mabhouh was found murdered in a hotel room in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. On 16 February, police in Dubai announced that falsified passports from the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and Germany had been used in connection with the murder. Late on 22 February, Dubai authorities approached Australian officials with an inquiry about two Australian passports. The following day, 23 February, Dubai authorities confirmed to Australian officials that they were investigating a number of Australian passports in connection with the murder. Since that time, Dubai authorities have announced that they are investigating four Australian passports in connection with the murder. Those four Australian passports are in the names of Mr Adam Korman, Mr Joshua Bruce, Ms Nicole McCabe and Mr Joshua Krycer. From the first contact on 22 February, Australian authorities have cooperated fully with Dubai investigators.
On 25 February, I expressed to the House my concern that these Australian passports had been used fraudulently. Both the Prime Minister and I condemned in the strongest possible terms this apparent misuse and abuse of Australian passports. On 25 February, I also announced that the Australian Federal Police, in conjunction with relevant agencies, had been asked to investigate the possible abuse of these passports. These agencies included the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and the Australian Passport Office. On 9 April, I received the Australian Federal Police report. Upon a preliminary assessment of that report, it was clear that further work and advice was required from other agencies, in particular ASIO and ASIS. I made this known publicly on 11 April. This further work included a visit to Israel this month by the Director-General of ASIO. I received my final advice from agencies last week. I briefed the National Security Committee of the cabinet this morning and have taken steps to ensure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for foreign affairs has been briefed.
This advice leads to the following key conclusions. Firstly, and very importantly, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that those Australian passport holders identified by Dubai authorities were anything other than innocent victims of identity fraud; secondly, the passports in question were deliberately counterfeited and cloned for use. The high quality of these counterfeited passports points to the involvement of a state intelligence service. Thirdly, these investigations and advice have left the government in no doubt that Israel was responsible for the abuse and counterfeiting of these passports. I note that a similar conclusion was reached by the United Kingdom government in the course of their official investigations.
No government can tolerate the abuse of its passports, especially by a foreign government. This represents a clear affront to the security of our passport system. Nor can we tolerate the abuse by a foreign government of the personal details of the Australian nationals concerned. These are not the actions of a friend. I regret to advise the House that this is not the first occasion that Australian passports have been misused by Israeli authorities. The Dubai passports incident also constitutes a clear and direct breach of confidential understandings between Australia and Israel dating back some years. This is not what we expect from a nation with whom we have had such a close, friendly and supportive relationship.
After careful deliberation, the government has asked that a member of the Israeli Embassy in Canberra be withdrawn from Australia. I have asked that the withdrawal be effected within the week. Earlier this morning, at my request, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade called in the Israeli Charge d’Affaires. Israeli Ambassador Rotem, whom I called in on 25 February, is absent from Australia until 8 June. If Ambassador Rotem had been in Australia, I would have again spoken to him myself. The department conveyed the government’s deep disappointment over Israeli involvement in this affair. The department made it clear that Australia regarded the abuse of these passports as inconsistent with the friendship and support provided by successive Australian governments to Israel since its creation as a nation. Australia’s relationship with Israel has always been founded on a basis of mutual respect and trust. But Israel’s actions in this regard have undermined that respect and trust.
The government takes this step much more in sorrow than in anger or retaliation. It is a decision taken in our national security interests. The government has done so in accordance with the findings of the investigation and after a careful assessment of Australia’s national interests by relevant agencies. The government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, will continue to provide consular assistance on an as needs basis to those Australians whose identities were stolen and who were therefore adversely affected by Israel’s actions. We have already, on request, replaced the passports of a number of those involved.
I convey publicly a final point made to the Israeli Charge d’Affaires by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Insofar as the Australia-Israel bilateral relationship is concerned, our expectation is that our relationship with Israel can and will continue in a mutually productive and beneficial manner. Australia’s support for the State of Israel goes back to its creation. Australia’s support for the State of Israel has long enjoyed bipartisan support. We have always shared a relationship reflecting our joint commitment to freedom, security and democracy. Australia remains a firm friend of Israel. But, as I noted previously, our relationship must be conducted on the basis of mutual trust and respect. Genuine friendship runs both ways. We expect this government and future Israeli governments to ensure that this incident is not repeated. We now look forward to working to restore the highest standards of trust in our relationship with Israel. I thank the House.
In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 12 May 2010, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has be given by the members for Cook, Hindmarsh, Mallee and Lyne. These matters will be considered in the Main Committee later today.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of a resolution agreed to by the Senate on 13 May 2010 relating to a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Copies of the message have been placed on the table for the information of honourable members. I do not propose to read its terms which will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.
The resolution read as follows—
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bill.
by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Treasurer has delivered a budget which he characterised, perhaps ironically, as meeting the highest standards of responsible economic management. But I am afraid that this government does not understand accountability. It has not earned the people’s trust. The Prime Minister uses other ministers to announce bad news or cancellation of projects despite saying repeatedly that the buck stops with him. This is a Prime Minister who is the master of broken election promises, policy backflips and mismanagement.
The CPRS, the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time, has been ditched. The school drop-off childcare centres program in schools has been dropped. The pink batts program has been abandoned save for nearly $1 billion to try to repair the botched job already. The so-called Building the Education Revolution program is behind schedule and has blowouts. The computers in schools program is over budget and has under-delivered. In fact, only 220,000 of the promised one million school computers have been delivered. And to pay for all this the much-vaunted Henry tax review took two years, cost $20 million and, of 138 recommendations, 2½ were adopted.
This year’s budget continues this trail of deception. The budget is based on claimed efficiency dividends and stronger growth from tax reform, yet the government refuses to release the detailed modelling on all 138 recommendations in the Henry review. The projected surpluses in the final two years of the forward estimates are wafer thin with a budget of close to $400 billion in 2013-14, relying on surpluses of $1 billion and, the year after, $5 billion. That claim is risky and unreal. These anticipated surpluses are also based on projections rather than forecasts and, I might say, budget forecasts and projections are only as good as the underlying economic assumptions. These assumptions include forecasts and projections of population growth in Australia, economic growth offshore, economic growth in Australia, terms of trade, exchange rates, interest rates, and so on. So these assumptions on the economic parameters, naturally enough, can vary widely from year to year, let alone the government’s claim that you can rely on them in three years time.
For example, last year’s budget forecast the Australian economy would contract by 0.5 per cent in 2009-10. This year’s budget tells us the economy will grow by two per cent. This is a massive turnaround in the space of just 12 months. Last year’s budget said the unemployment rate would peak at 8½ per cent in 2010-11. This year’s budget tells us the unemployment rate has already peaked at less than six per cent and is now heading to a low of 4.75 per cent in 2011-12.
I want to stress that I am not criticising the public servants in Treasury who prepare these forecasts. Forecasting is as much an art as it is a science. It is a difficult task and the degree of uncertainty has been much increased over recent years. But these very significant changes to the underlying forecasts do illustrate that there is a large degree of imprecision in the budget numbers. This makes it even more ridiculous that the government should claim kudos from its projected tiny surpluses in the last two years of the forward estimates.
These tiny suggested surpluses are based on five key assumptions. First, economic growth in Australia will need to remain at around trend levels—three to 3½ per cent. Second, the global economy will also need to grow at or above trend. Third, prices for key Australian commodities will need to remain high. Fourth—and this is the most heroic assumption of all, Mr Speaker; you would appreciate this—Labor will need to not have any further cost blow-outs in its programs. And, fifth, Labor will need to commit to making no new unfunded spending promises for the next four years through two elections. Mr Speaker, I cannot make assumptions about what the chair might think about those things, but I am sure that any person with an ounce of savvy would know that it is heroic to assume that a government will make no new spending announcements for one year, let alone four years, which is the key assumption in the government having a surplus in three years time.
The deficit this year of $57.1 billion will still be the biggest deficit in Australia’s peacetime history. Next year, 2010-11, it will be the second biggest at a massive $40 billion. And there will still be a peak net debt of around the same size as that which was left to Australians by Paul Keating. There is something about the $90 billion mark that Labor is attracted to. Keating left a $90 billion debt for us to pay off; Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, is leaving a $90 billion debt for the coalition to pay off; even Anna Bligh in Queensland has a $90 billion debt that someone is going to have to pay off.
The improvement to the budget bottom line which the budget reflects is entirely due to parameter changes: stronger economic growth in Australia, above-trend growth offshore and the terms of trade being at 60-year highs. It does not rely on responsible economic management; it is not the result of hard decisions to cut reckless and wasteful government spending. Last year, the Treasurer justified his big spending budget on the grounds that it was necessary to prevent a recession in the Australian economy—so he delivered the biggest spending budget in Australia’s peacetime history. This year he notes that the budget has moved from supporting the economy to a position now where Australia is recovering strongly. In that light, we might have expected a budget with much lower spending to suit the times. But what we find is an increase in spending from 2010-2011 to 2012-13, compared with last year’s budget, totalling $26 billion. So last year was the biggest spending budget in modern history, but, as if Labor had not done what it could do at that time, this year it has an extra $26 billion of spending in a similar framework.
Even then, the Treasurer has pulled some accounting tricks to improve his financial ratios. Cancellation of the CPRS is worth, roughly, a one per cent reduction in the ratio of spending to GDP in 2013-14 and somewhat lesser amounts in earlier years. This is a significant issue. There is this mantra that the Labor Party run out before each budget where they refer to ‘the big-spending Howard years’. The big-spending Howard years to 2007 amounted to 23 per cent of GDP. At no time do Labor get as low as 23 per cent of GDP. Most certainly, in their most ambitious year, which is four years hence, they do not get to 23 per cent of GDP. If the CPRS were in, it would be nearly one per cent more than what they are already projecting.
It is also the case—and this is a telling point that was picked up by Ross Gittins—that $1.8 billion of spending in infrastructure, water and local government has been brought forward to 2009-10 from 2010-11 and later years to ensure that the forward estimates look better. Even more curious, and we are yet to get to the bottom of this, is that there is a revenue item called ‘growth dividend’ totalling $600 million over the final two years of the forward estimates. This is the additional tax expected to flow from the stronger economic growth arising from the implementation of tax reforms associated with the resources tax. It is fortunate that this notional revenue occurs in the two years when the government is expecting to record very small surpluses. This is part of the government’s claim, I assume, that the more you tax an industry the greater it will grow—and, of course, they are banking the proceeds of that, which we will see over the next few weeks.
The Treasurer claims that every dollar in new policy has been offset across the forward estimates. Let’s have a look at that. Policy decisions since the 2009-10 budget have increased net spending by $5.9 billion. That figure includes new spending measures, new taxes and savings initiatives. So all the new taxes have been spent, all the savings initiatives have been spent and, on top of that, an additional $5.9 billion has been spent for good measure. I emphasise that not a cent of the new taxes has been saved to reduce the deficit—not a cent.
This government have a history of wasteful spending and have, true to form, continued it in this budget. The government have allocated another $536 million for new health bureaucracies as part of their health reform program. That happened after the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that, as a result of his new hospital and health reform program, there would not be any new bureaucrats. For example—bureaucrats are part of the theme—an additional $12 million has been provided to the Prime Minister’s own department, adding an extra 86 full-time staff to the 618 already there. That represents a 14 per cent increase in the staffing levels in his own department.
After all that, it is good to see that the Labor Party continue to look after their mates. A one-off grant of $10 million has been provided to the Trade Union Education Foundation for ‘the development and delivery of national workplace education programs’. I can only speculate on what those programs are. It is just a lazy $10 million! It is interesting that they have brought it forward to this financial year. So the cheque is in the mail; it has to be in the mail before 30 June.
The government has sold this budget as being friendly to small business, but nothing could be further from the truth. The single biggest difficulty for small business at present is the availability and cost of finance. This is hampering the ability of small businesses to invest and grow their businesses and provide jobs. One of the key steps government can take to help small business is to prevent its competing for the scarce capital that is out there, but this government will continue to soak up scarce capital for the next two years with cumulative borrowings of $54 billion. This will deprive small businesses of scarce funds. It will force up the cost of finance.
The government are now borrowing $100 million a day just to fund their expenditure, not to repay debt. That does not pay off debt; they are borrowing $100 million a day just to fund the spending of this year, next year and the year after. What an extraordinary amount of money. As part of this process, the government want to impose a huge new tax on business by increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent. The question is: will this be paid by business?
It is interesting that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation should bell the cat earlier this year—despite what Tony Jones suggested on Q&Aby alluding to the fact that an increase in the superannuation guarantee would in fact come out of the take-home salaries of workers. This nine to 12 per cent is either coming out of the bottom lines of businesses, which inevitably means that they going to employ fewer people, or quite simply coming out of the take-home pay of workers. It is one or the other, but what you do know is that it is not coming out of the budget bottom line.
The government say: ‘In order to compensate business for this, we’re going to cut company tax, particularly for small business; we will bring it forward and cut it from 30 per cent to 28 per cent.’ They say, ‘This is a great windfall for small business.’ The problem is that only one-third of small businesses in Australia are incorporated. Therefore the company tax cut means very little to a lot of small businesses, and I am prepared to bet that for most small businesses an increase in the cost of the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent is going to far outweigh any benefit that might come in the form of a reduction in company taxes.
This budget will continue to provide fiscal stimulus to the domestic economy at a time when the government says it is no longer needed. The government’s own forecasts have the Australian economy at or above trend growth for the next four years. The Treasurer has suggested that the government no longer need to provide fiscal stimulus, yet it is the case that in 2012 the government are going to be spending half a billion dollars on school halls to address one quarter of negative growth in 2008. So they are saying, ‘The economy is growing at trend or above, but we’ll still be spending money on school halls in two years time to keep the economy going.’ It is stimulatory, and with that sort of stimulation still out there in the economy the government will continue to run deficits and the deficits will impact on interest rates. The deficits will push interest rates higher than they should be.
The Reserve Bank has now a lifted the cash rate six times in eight months, with a cumulative increase of 1.5 per cent. But the gap between what homeowners and small business pay and the cash rate of the Reserve Bank has grown, and the net impact is that the increases by the Reserve Bank have had a more profound impact than just the increases in themselves. The interest bill on an average mortgage of $300,000 has risen by least 4½ thousand dollars a year. So let’s be very clear: the more the government borrows, the more upward pressure is on interest rates; the more the government goes down the path of spending money that it has not received and needs to borrow, the greater the upward pressure on interest rates.
Around the world we are seeing what happens when government finances are unsustainable. Greece is struggling to finance its ongoing deficits in the market. This has prompted a trillion-dollar rescue package by the European Union and the IMF. Sovereign risk is now a very real fear in the financial markets. Debt levels in Japan, Europe, the UK and the USA are at the point where the governments will be struggling to stabilise and service their debts, let alone make any progress at all in repaying them. IMF data shows that six of the G7 nations will have gross debt-to-GDP ratios of 90 per cent or more by 2014.
I wish to stress that Australia is not in this position. It is not an accident, but it has occurred despite the best endeavours of the Labor Party. They actually did inherit a $20 billion surplus, $60 billion in the Future Fund and an economy with just four per cent unemployment. But what they have to understand is that you can ruin the opportunity, and preserving the faith and trust of the markets and communities requires ongoing strong and prudent management of the budget and the economy. The economic and fiscal forecasts of government have to be credible. The actions of government have to provide a stable and predictable investment environment.
This illustrates why the coalition has decided to take a stand. We believe in responsible fiscal management. Dare I say it, we are fiscal conservatives and not pretend fiscal conservatives. Last week I released the principles which will guide the coalition in setting and implementing its policies for underwriting the future prosperity of this great nation. At the core of that is a belief in free, fair and competitive markets. It is also the case that the rights and choices of individuals are paramount. Well-functioning markets and individuals rather than governments are usually best placed to make decisions that maximise community wellbeing. We believe in small government. That is why we made the hard decisions about the $47 billion of gross savings. We believe in efficient government; that is why we went program by program through the savings measures that we are going to implement. And we are most acutely aware that the money being spent by government is in fact other people’s money. That is why whatever we can do to improve the strength of the Australian economy is going to be enhanced by collecting less tax, not more.
We have just heard from the shadow Treasurer of Australia complete confirmation of the risk that would be posed to Australia if the shadow Treasurer or his leader were to get anywhere near the government of this country. They are a risk to jobs; they are a risk to working families; they are a risk to the infrastructure of this country; they are a risk to skills. Everything we have seen from the opposition since the budget was delivered in this House some two weeks ago has confirmed just what a risk to the people of Australia is posed by those presently occupying the opposition benches.
By contrast, through this budget the government has delivered and will continue to deliver responsible economic management. We have presented a credible pathway back to surplus in three years, and that time frame is half the time that it was expected to take when Australia first responded to the global economic crisis. This budget delivers tax cuts for working families and for small businesses. In addition, we are investing $23 billion over the next decade in a national health and hospitals network; we are investing in major national infrastructure to boost productivity and create jobs; we are investing in skills and training.
The first aim of this government was to keep our economy strong and to protect Australian jobs and Australian businesses through the worst crisis that the global economy has faced in almost 80 years. When faced with this crisis the government understood that to contain the damage and to protect Australian jobs and businesses from the meltdown in global financial markets we had to maintain confidence in our financial system, encourage households to maintain consumption and provide businesses with the certainty and confidence to continue investing. Because of the early and decisive action taken by the government, Australia has managed to avoid a recession through what was feared to be and what now clearly has been the worst global downturn in more than 75 years. Australia’s economy is the only advanced economy that expanded in the year to June 2009, the worst period of this crisis, and, according to the International Monetary Fund’s World economic outlook update, Australia’s economic growth was positive and Australia was the only advanced economy to achieve this.
In the 2009-10 budget economic growth was forecast to be negative 0.5 per cent; the estimate in this year’s budget is that it will have been two per cent. The budget forecast for 2010-11 has improved from 2.25 per cent to 3.25 per cent. No major Australian financial institution has collapsed, none required the government to take significant shareholdings in return for dealing with toxic debt and no financial institutions were nationalised. This can be contrasted with the situation in the United Kingdom, where the government has nationalised Northern Rock and taken significant shareholdings in Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Most importantly, the government’s response to the global economic crisis has helped protect hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs. Unemployment peaked at 5.8 per cent last year, 2.5 per cent lower than it was estimated to peak at and certainly considerably lower than would have occurred without the stimulus.
It is quite clear that the government’s response has been the correct response. That has been the opinion expressed around the world. It has been the opinion expressed by the International Monetary Fund, by the OECD, by the World Bank, by governments of other countries and by finance ministers and prime ministers in the G20, all of whom have complimented the Rudd Labor government for the decisive and prompt action that was taken at the peak of the global crisis and that has ensured the financial and fiscal security that Australia is now enjoying. It needs to be borne in mind, when we listen to the muddled response—yet another muddled response—from the shadow Treasurer that the coalition, the Liberal Party and the National Party opposed economic stimulus. They would have adopted policies, had they still been in government in September, October and November 2008, which would have ensured that hundreds of thousands of Australians would now be out of work.
I would invite any member of the Liberal Party or the National Party, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition, to visit and talk to those workers who are working on Building the Education Revolution school projects throughout my electorate about how they feel the government’s programs have assisted the Australian economy and, in particular, assisted them to stay in work during this global economic downturn. Were they to do so, they would learn that it is the opinion of people, certainly throughout the construction industry, that the response of the national government, the Rudd Labor government, has been extraordinarily prompt and entirely appropriate because it has kept them in work—and that is before one even goes to the immense value that has been given to our local communities by the building of the new facilities in each and every primary school through the Building the Education Revolution program. I would also invite those opposite to visit my electorate to speak to retailers or people in the manufacturing industry, all of whom very directly attribute the continued health of their businesses and the continuation in many cases of their employment to the programs that have been adopted by our government.
With this budget, we have presented a credible pathway back to surplus. It is a pathway that will return the budget to surplus in three years. That is half the amount of time that was forecast in last year’s budget. Net debt is predicted to peak at just 6.1 per cent of GDP, which is half the level projected a year ago and less than one-tenth of the average across the major advanced economies. One thing that I noticed in the shadow Treasurer’s speech that we just heard is that at least he had the good grace to acknowledge that the average debt-to-GDP ratio in the Western economies is in the order of 90 to 100 per cent, and he acknowledged that the net debt we are going to peak at is nothing like that, but he did not go far enough. Of course he does not want to state the number, which is 6.1 per cent of GDP, because to state the number in the same context as saying that the average net debt in Western economies is 90 to 100 per cent of GDP is to show just how absurd it is for those opposite to be, even by implication, comparing the position of the Australian economy or comparing the policies adopted by the Rudd Labor government to any of the positions that those Western economies, particularly the European economies such as Spain and Portugal or the United Kingdom.
There is still a level of uncertainty faced in global financial markets. It is being highlighted right at this time by the difficulties that are being faced in Greece. Indeed, one could also point to Spain and Portugal, or indeed, by way of comparison, point not just to the net debt levels but also to the unemployment levels that have been reached in those Western economies and which are still regrettably being suffered in the United Kingdom or the United States. That puts in proper global context the success of the policies adopted by the Rudd Labor government.
This budget delivers tax cuts to working families. It delivers tax cuts to small business. And, even during this period of fiscal consolidation, there will be modest income tax cuts that will see taxpayers on average earnings keep $450 a year more. From 2011, we will provide a 50 per cent tax break for the first $1,000 of interest on savings. As I went around my electorate last week explaining the budget to different people, I went to Richfield retirement village in Aspendale Gardens. The news that there is to be a 50 per cent tax break on the first $1,000 interest on savings is particularly gratifying to people who use savings accounts as one very secure form of investment.
We will introduce simplified tax returns from 1 July 2012. The government will provide an optional standard deduction of $500 instead of having taxpayers list work related expenses individually, and it is a deduction that is going to increase to $1,000 from 1 July 2013. Every one of Australia’s small businesses will get a tax break under the Rudd government through this budget. Sole traders, partnerships and incorporated small businesses will be able to immediately deduct the cost of assets valued at up to $5,000, and those 2.4 million small businesses will also be able to pool assets costing more than $5,000, except buildings, and write them off at a single rate of 30 per cent a year. And for the 720,000 small-business companies there will be a head-start reduction in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent from 1 July 2012.
This budget also delivers a long hoped for increase in the superannuation guarantee, which will rise gradually over the next decade from nine per cent to 12 per cent, and this is another measure that is opposed by those opposite. This is an enormously important policy in guaranteeing the future incomes of working Australians and helps to prepare our nation and our national finances for the demographic shift that is already taking place.
The budget is filled with new investments, most notably the investment in the Health and Hospitals Network which is announced in this budget. The budget includes significant reforms to the health and hospitals system, which will be funded nationally and run locally. There is a total of $7.3 billion over five years for better hospitals, improved primary care and preventive health. It is a budget that allows access to more doctors, to an unprecedented level of support and training for our nurses, which is why nurses across Australia have welcomed the measures in this budget, and the introduction of personally controlled electronic health records for every Australian. And there is another measure, because one only has to go through the budget to find such measures, which the opposition opposes and would cut. The only intelligible response that one can glean from the muddled response of the opposition has been a list of worthwhile, valuable programs that the opposition says it would scrap—not, mind you, that the opposition is prepared to tie itself to any binding list of cuts, because while they say they wish to cut, for example, the introduction of personally controlled electronic health records of every Australian, they reserve to themselves the right to introduce new programs which might cost more, possibly even in the same area if one is to correctly understand the shadow finance minister, the member for Goldstein. So it is very difficult to work out just what it is the opposition has said in relation to this budget.
The budget contains very extensive measures in relation to infrastructure and in relation to skills and trade. Perhaps it is worth mentioning the record $37 billion investment in improving road, rail and port projects across Australia, all of which will boost national productivity and create jobs. The ongoing infrastructure fund of $5.6 billion will extend over a decade and is in response to the independent tax review—the Henry review. There will be annual contributions starting at $700 million from 2012-2013 to ensure that our nation-building project flourishes. There is funding for the Australian Rail Track Corporation and appropriate provision in the budget for the rollout of the National Broadband Network, another measure that this opposition of wreckers would scrap without indicating to the people of Australia in any way how it plans to take Australia further into the 21st century and further into the Information Age. There is something a bit striking about an opposition that wants to scrap not only a measure for personalised electronic health records but also the measures that the government is planning for a National Broadband Network.
The contrast with the opposition could not be greater. We have a budget that is responsible and that will return to surplus some three years earlier than planned. We have a budget that has appropriate measures for the economic circumstances in which Australia finds itself following on prompt and decisive action that has taken Australia to an economic position that is the envy of the developed world. We can be clear that the greatest risks to Australia’s economic security and the job security of thousands of Australian workers are the present opposition leader, the member for North Sydney—the shadow Treasurer—and the member for Goldstein. Everything about their response to this budget on behalf of the opposition has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with the task of managing the Australian economy.
I do not think that the expectations of the community were very high to start off with, given the way in which the shadow Treasurer last year responded to the budget, which was to suggest that the forecasts and projections on which it was based were ‘grossly overoptimistic’—that is what he said. That, of course, proved to be wrong. He now wants to say about this budget that the estimates are wrong again, but I think the Australian people can judge who should best be trusted on matters like this. I would be far readier to trust forecasts that have been adopted by this government based on the steady work of the Treasury than to listen to a shadow Treasurer who said last year that the predictions of the Treasury were grossly optimistic.
There is no credibility left in this opposition on economic matters. The response last year, which criticised the forecasts, was that the opposition would stop the stimulus. That has been bettered—they have reached a new low for an opposition—with the shambolic response to the budget, with half-baked ideas and the handballed response that we saw last week. We saw in the budget reply by the Leader of the Opposition not, as one might have expected, a plan for the economy of Australia or a plan for the future of our nation with some clear responses to the measures in the budget and not, given that the opposition is very directly saying that it wishes to cut, any indication of what is to be cut or which programs are to be scrapped but, rather, the handball approach: saying that the shadow Treasurer would respond at the Press Club the following week—last Wednesday.
Then we had the response from the shadow Treasurer at the Press Club, which—as has been much commented on in the days since—did not include the list of cuts which were relied on by the opposition in its response. Instead, there was a further handball to the shadow finance minister at a press conference which was to follow. When finally it was possible to see the supposed savings which the shadow Treasurer has again referred to—at least he is now not referring to them simply as savings but trying to pretend to some accuracy in saying that it is $47 billion of gross savings—it was apparent that the ‘budget’—if one could call it that; perhaps it is better to leave it at ‘budget response’—just does not add up. The coalition’s proposed budget cuts do not add up. The $47 billion in cuts, which is what the opposition wanted to get its headline for—and did get it for—turns out to be a mishmash of cuts to capital expenditure combined with cuts to the current account or cuts to particular expenditures. It was really an attempt to mislead the Australian public with a larger headline figure. Most of the measures that have been identified by the opposition will not have any impact on the underlying balance. They are a threat to future economic growth, they are a threat to Australian families and they are a threat to the economy, and the Australian people will be able to see, from the shambolic response of the opposition to our budget measures, just what a risk would be posed if those opposite were to reach the government benches. (Time expired)
Today, in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and cognate budget appropriation bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011, I want to talk about the third Swan budget—the budget for the 2010-11 financial year. I make that seemingly obvious point because, to date, the vast amount of commentary out of the Labor Party about this budget has been about what it thinks the budget will be in 2012-13. The government’s spin has all been about the possibility of a surplus two years hence rather than the outcome of this budget, which will of course be the second highest peacetime deficit this nation has ever seen, at $40.8 billion. That deficit will come straight after the highest peacetime deficit we have ever seen, $57.1 billion, which is expected this financial year. That will follow a deficit in the first Swan budget double any number our country has previously seen.
The Leader of the Nationals is aware he should use people’s appropriate titles.
Given that none of the major forecasts from any of the first two of this Treasurer’s budgets has turned out to be correct, it is a very brave Australian who would bet on Labor expectations about his third budget. Who would believe that they are likely to be accurate? Heaven forbid he gets a fifth attempt at putting down a budget! For example, in his first budget, we were told Labor would run a $21.7 billion surplus, not due to any hard work by the Rudd government; that surplus was built on the back of the coalition’s strong economic management. Just 12 months later, in May last year, the Treasurer had cocked up things so badly that the surplus had turned into a severe deficit. Not that you would know—in his budget speech the cowardly Treasurer refused to even use the words ‘debt’ or ‘deficit’. Indeed, it took a week to get the Prime Minister or the Treasurer to use the words ‘debt’, ‘315’ and ‘dollars’ in the same sentence.
The same trick was used for budget speech No. 3. Rather than hearing about the $40.8 billion deficit, we heard promises of the budget returning to surplus three years early. Earlier than what, and on whose calculations? On, of course, the Labor Party’s calculations—on last year’s forecasts, which all turned out to be embarrassingly wrong. Why should you believe them this time—particularly when you look at the parameters of these forecasts? They rely on the best terms of trade that Australia has experienced for 60 years. The next three years are going to be better than our country has experienced for 60 years—once more, there is going to be above-trend growth offshore and low inflation in Australia! The reality is that this budget is a giant pea and thimble trick and the people being gulled are the Australian taxpayers.
The entire credibility of the Treasurer’s third budget hangs on numbers which, conveniently for the government, will not become clear or tested until after the next election. Those numbers rely on the national economy, and indeed the international economy, following a linear path. In just a fortnight since the Treasurer handed down his budget, share markets have fallen heavily and the Australian dollar has plummeted by more than 10 per cent against the US dollar. That is because of the government’s proposed great big new tax on the mining sector. Mining shares in particular have been pummelled by fear over Labor’s proposed profits tax on resources. The Australian share market fell $95 billion last week. In the first week, something like $15 billion was wiped off the savings of Australian superannuation funds and mum-and-dad Australians. And yet these are the parameters upon which the government are now asking us to believe that they could return the budget to surplus in three years time.
As a regional Australian, I guess I am used to being at the mercy of changing economic fortunes. For the seven million Australians who create much of our exports and our resulting prosperity, the ups and downs of the economy are very much a part of life. When the city feels higher interest rates, the country feels them much more. When jobs go, they often come from the regions first. Drought and natural disasters hit us harder too. The approach of the Nationals in coalition has always been to try and make life easier for those living in regional Australia—to reward them for their hard work and to give them a helping hand when times are tough—and to make sure that all Australians are able to share in our nation’s growth and prosperity. The federal budget has historically been a large part of that approach, but regional Australia have just seen the sort of budget that fails that very important test. The Treasurer used the word ‘regional’ only once in his budget-night address, and the word ‘agriculture’ did not appear at all. That says something about Labor’s priorities.
The massive debt, nearing $100 billion—and above $220 billion on gross levels—will overhang us all for years to come. The interest bill alone will rise from $4.6 billion this year, through $6.5 billion the following year, to $8 billion. That is enough to complete the Pacific Highway in one year. It is enough to build the hospitals we need. It is enough to build the inland rail twice every year. We will not have the money we want to spend on hospitals, roads and infrastructure because future generations will be paying off this Labor government’s debt—just as 12 years ago, when the coalition came to office, it had to spend the first half of its time, or probably more, paying off the debt of the previous Labor government.
This debt will have a significant impact on all Australians. The government will be out there borrowing $100 million every day to pay for the reckless spending that is being authorised in this budget—$100 million a day. The government will be out there competing with homeowners wanting to borrow for their first home and small business people who need some assistance to carry on their businesses. They will have to compete with a government that is out in the market for $100 million every day to pay for the expenditure in a budget which is clearly out of control.
The Treasurer’s third budget increased taxes and charges by $26 billion. But what is at the centrepiece of this budget? Why do we need to spend another $26 billion? The first part of the centrepiece of this budget is to spend $1 billion to undo Labor’s roof insulation debacle. There is another billion to manage the asylum seekers, who are coming into Australia as a result of Labor’s weakened border protection. There is another billion dollars on the school computer cost overruns. There is another $530 million in extra spending to build a new health bureaucracy, after the federal government backed down to the states on hospital reform and in reality decided to build a bureaucracy rather than to provide better services to the people of Australia. And, of course, there is additional expenditure in a whole range of other areas to patch up the broken promises, to patch up the failed programs of the government.
The budget provides no new money for road funding or regional development. Local government will actually get $1.21 billion less in 2010-11 because of the clawback of an advance payment and the termination of the Community Infrastructure Program. The clawback of the advance payment is because the government is trying to doctor the books to make it look as though they are actually moving towards a surplus when in fact all they have done is transferred expenditure from one year to another.
The budget cuts another $81 million from Caring for Our Country, including $10.9 million from Landcare, as Labor continues its assault on this iconic community based program. In every budget Labor has cut expenditure on Landcare. A party that claims it is interested in the environment, on coming to office abolished the National Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and replaced them with Caring for our Country, but provided $1 billion less in funding. And it continues to take funding away from vital environmental programs.
The regional food producers program is being cut by $5.5 million. Once again, there is no new funding for quarantine—and 250 Customs staff are to be sacked. This is another example of Labor’s soft borders approach, which places the clean and green, disease-free status of our country at risk. Not only is Labor soft on our borders when it comes to defence and immigration; it is also soft on quarantine and soft on Customs.
The budget provides no new funding for the Export Market Development Grants scheme, leaving the fund at least $30 million short in 2009-10 and $80 million short in 2010-11. Once more, the government has halved the funding for TradeStart, the network of offices which are there to assist particularly new exporters to get established in difficult export markets. The government has decided that, in spite of its mounting trade deficit, we no longer need to support our exports, so the assistance they have been relying upon to open up new markets and to get some advice locally has been viciously slashed in this budget.
But, of course, that is not the end of it. The government has decided to spend another $10 billion on the bureaucracy. The Prime Minister’s own department is going to be increased by 32 per cent. But there is a 20 per cent increase in staff for the Australian Public Service Commission to assist agencies with downsizing. So the Public Service Commission needs more staff to tell other offices how to get smaller! In reality, the size of the bureaucracy is growing anyway. The facts are that this is a government that has no control over its expenditure and has been unable to deliver programs on time and within budget.
One of the other astonishing moments in the delivery of the budget was the realisation that the Treasurer had slapped a $1 billion new tax on LPG, hitting something like half a million motorists who have converted their vehicles to LPG. We discovered this fact on the night the budget was delivered, but it seems as though it was not until a day later that the Treasurer knew that he had actually imposed this new tax and was able to confirm to the LPG industry that they would now be a part of the excise regime. So the Treasurer comes into this place, delivers a budget but does not even know what is in the documents himself!
The big, other issue that overhangs this budget is the great big new tax on mining profits. Only a little while ago the government put on the couch in the back room its great big new tax—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That was a tax that would have destroyed Australian jobs, encouraged industry to locate offshore and increased the cost of living for all Australians. Now that scheme is dozing, Labor has invented another great big new tax on Australians. This is a tax that will also destroy Australian jobs, encourage industry to invest offshore and increase the cost of living for every Australian. This 40 per cent tax on mining profits will force the tax rate for the sector up to 57 per cent—yet the government claims that this big new super tax will actually increase investment in the mining sector! I have never heard of a tax yet that actually increased investment. The government is in fact putting a significant tax on cigarettes in this budget. They claim the reason for that is to reduce smoking. But when they put an increased tax on the mining sector, that is supposed to make them bigger and stronger. That is clearly a nonsense. It is all about Labor’s approach: spend big and tax even bigger. That is not a satisfactory way to run a country.
The government’s proposed mining tax is not fair. It not only penalises great big mining companies, as the government would lead you to believe, but small, battling mining operations as well. It is not a tax on super profits; it cuts in at the bond rate, five or six per cent—just over breakeven—and the government thinks that is a ‘super’ profit. It is a super tax, but not just on super profits. The reality is that it affects not just big mine operators but small operators as well. And, of course it affects the quarrying industry—the industry that delivers the gravel for your roads, the stones for the landscaping in your front yard, the clay for the bricks in your house. All of these operations are to be caught up in Labor’s great big new tax on the mining sector. They are also proposing, we are told, to justify this tax on the grounds that it will fund a $700 million Infrastructure Fund. That says a lot about the Labor government, which has actually drained dry the Infrastructure Fund that was left to them by the previous government. There is only $700 million left out of the $11 billion that was in place and heading to $40 billion. Labor did not just spend the interest, as was intended for those funds; it actually spent all the capital. So it spent all that money, with little to show for it, and now it wants a $700 million new Infrastructure Fund.
This is a tax on the mining sector. We are told the mining sector needs to deliver more to regional communities, but there is no commitment by the government that this $700 million will be spent in regional communities. There is no guarantee that any of it will go back to the communities that are directly affected by mining. It looks to me like yet another great big Labor slush fund that is likely to appear in marginal electorate promise sheets and that the funding will in fact be directed away from mining communities—the country towns and regional communities that are contributing to our nation’s growth and prosperity through the mining and the resource boom—and spent in capital city electorates where Labor is hanging on to a narrow margin. This is not an infrastructure fund at all. It is a Labor Party election slush fund, and you can count on it appearing regularly during the run-up to the election as Labor tries to hand out goodies to save its bacon in areas where it has clearly neglected the people. The Labor approach is to milk the cash cow until it is dry or burden the cow’s owner so much that he ships his cow overseas to a greener pasture, and it is only the Australian Labor Party that cannot see the folly of this policy.
Relative mining minor minnows like Papua New Guinea, Zambia and Mongolia have seen the error of their ways and dumped similar mining taxes. The Zambian tax lasted all of a year before President Rupiah Banda consigned it to history. He was blunt last year about the effect that the tax had upon his country: ‘We must ensure that we do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. There is little point in taking a few million in tax if thousands of jobs are lost.’ What is obvious to the Zambian President is apparently not obvious to our Treasurer and the Labor government—or does the government think that the tax is going to work differently in Australia from how it worked in New Guinea, Zambia or Mongolia? Does the government still hold onto this quite ridiculous notion that somehow or other higher taxes mean more investment and a more prosperous country? The reality is that countries like the United States, Canada, Brazil and China are all looking forward to this tax because they know that it will result in industries being transferred to their country, to jobs being created there. Countries that have much lower tax regimes than Australia are certain to be the big winners from this foolishness on the Labor Party’s side.
In government, let me make it clear, we will be adopting a different approach. We will rein in Labor’s reckless spending, getting Australia back into surplus far quicker than Labor ever could. There is a question of trust and form. We have the form. We paid back Labor’s debt of $96 billion left to us in 1996. Labor has form too. It has never got out of debt once it started down that track—never in history. It took the Hawke-Keating governments just 13 years to rack up a $96 billion debt. It has taken the Rudd-Swan government just three years—three years for the same amount of debt. Under the coalition’s approach, we will take pressure off increased interest rates and the cost of living with savings of $46.7 billion that have already been identified. That is made up of $24.7 billion from recurrent spending and $22 billion in one-off capital savings. Our plan is there. It is in print and it is costed. In contrast, Labor in opposition could announce only $3 billion worth of savings ahead of the 2007 election, and then another $7 billion on the eve of election day.
A predecessor of the Treasurer once boasted the title ‘The world’s best Treasurer’—the unlamented Paul Keating. This current Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is the world’s worst Treasurer. He has been able to turn a record surplus into a record deficit in just a few months. He has been able to chalk up unprecedented debt at unprecedented speed, and he has been able to turn a prosperous country that pays its own way into a debtor nation that will be mortgaging the future of generations. That is his legacy. That is the legacy of this budget. He cannot be trusted with another one.
I rise to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and cognate budget appropriation bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011. I cannot help but comment on the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Wide Bay, in this place. I find it passing strange that the member for Wide Bay, in his speech, decided to criticise the government for not continuing with the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, which was a one-off fund as part of the economic stimulus package which has put $1 billion into the hands of local government but which has now got even more money out of it as a result of the spend they have done on local communities. You cannot, on the one hand, claim that somehow that is a cut in the budget because a project fund that was about to finish has finished and, on the other, I remind the member for Wide Bay, vote against it. There would not have been any fund in existence at all had you been in government. It is a ridiculous proposition. It is also great to see the member for Wide Bay, once again, standing up for the powerful vested interests in the mining industry over those of ordinary working Australians.
I support these bills because they represent a responsible budget that strengthens our economy. It is important for us to consider this budget in the context of previous budgets. Back in May 2007, I stood up in this House and debated the Howard government’s 2007-08 budget bills. The greatest failing of that final budget of the Howard government was that it did not address capacity constraints in the Australian economy. It failed to invest in infrastructure, skills, education and health. It failed, across the board, to lay down the foundation of a nation’s future economic growth. The Howard government was happy to ride on the tails of the mining boom, but it was not happy to do the hard yards that were needed to invest in our economy’s future. For too long, the Howard government instead used budgets to buy individual votes to win elections for short-term gain and, although this proved successful for a long period of time for Howard and to some extent for the now Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, it did not prove successful for the future growth of the Australian economy and ultimately for the future prospects of the Australian people.
On coming to office, the Prime Minister and members of the Rudd government made a conscious decision to set up our nation for the future. We said to the Australian people that we wanted to work to invest in the longer term—not just the current election cycle but five, 10 or 20 years ahead. We spoke of the need for investment in infrastructure, skills, training and education. We committed to stop the buck-passing in health by reforming our nation’s health system.
In February 2009 I spoke in parliament in the face of a global financial crisis that was set to wreak havoc on local communities, local economies and economies across the globe. I find it extraordinary when, in talking and debating about the budget, members of the opposition seem to think that the global financial crisis just did not happen or that somehow, as a result of some strange fluke of fate, Australia has managed to survive the worst excesses of the global crisis and that that somehow has happened completely by accident.
The Rudd government and the Australian people were faced with tackling this global financial crisis head-on, and members of this side of the House acted decisively. At that point in time we had a choice: to deliver strong, unprecedented action to combat the nation’s worst global financial crisis in 70 years or not to act and to let the market pave the way. Let me make this point very clear: those members opposite did not want to act. They opposed our economic stimulus.
Members on our side decided to act by implementing a measured and well-targeted stimulus package. Instead of looking at the global financial crisis as an absolute negative, the Rudd government used it as a tool to invest in the long-term sustainability of our nation. We used it, on the one hand, to stimulate the economy by supporting jobs and, on the other hand, to invest in areas that the former Howard government had forgotten—areas like infrastructure, housing, education, road and rail and local community infrastructure. The result is that Australia has outperformed other advanced economies. While advanced economies collectively contracted by 3.2 per cent, the Australian economy grew by 1.4 per cent. While advanced economies were faced with rapid job losses, 225,000 Australian people found work. Without our stimulus, the Australian economy would have fallen into recession, with tens of thousands of jobs lost. Our national unemployment rate is the second lowest in comparison to other advanced economies. The results speak for themselves. These results reflect the hard work of the Australian people, the resilience of the Australian economy and the decisive action the government took in implementing its economic stimulus package. These results did not occur by accident.
The Liberals’ do-nothing approach would have been a disaster for this country. The Leader of the Opposition is quick to attempt to make light of our economic situation. At the time of the implementation of our stimulus measures, the coalition unleashed another of their scare campaigns. They failed to recognise that a global financial crisis was apparent, they failed to recognise the fall in tax receipts and its impact on the budget bottom line and they failed to support our direct action through stimulus measures. Without the stimulus, we would have lost thousands of jobs in this country. Without stimulus, we would have seen a contraction in our economy last year of 0.7 per cent, compared to the actual growth of 1.4 per cent. They are the facts. This message seems to fall on deaf ears with those opposite, who claim to be the extraordinary economic managers of our time. It falls on deaf ears because those opposite do not want to hear our nation’s good news story when it comes to how we have survived the global financial crisis.
The Rudd government has a proud story to tell when it comes to economic management. The 2010-11 budget continues this proud story. The budget reflects the success of our policy decisions over the last 18 months. The budget reflects the strong economic position we now find ourselves in, and it builds on these successes. The successes of the Australian economy through the global financial crisis mean that we now have a strong opportunity to tackle the nation’s long-term needs in skills, training, health, education and infrastructure. This budget delivers on those long-term objectives. The budget is building on hard work throughout the global financial crisis to deliver for the future. Through this budget, we will be back in the black in three years, three years ahead of schedule and ahead of every major advanced economy. Through this budget, we build on our hard work by delivering a stable budget that brings us back to surplus three years early.
This government is well aware of the impact of our ageing population combined with the current cost pressures for families in our health system. The government has put health and hospitals at the forefront of our agenda, and this budget delivers on that commitment to our national health reform. Through the budget, we have invested a further $2.2 billion into the health system, and this brings the total new investment in health from this government to $7.3 billion over five years. Our $2.2 billion package further delivers for our National Health and Hospitals Network. This government has worked hard to deliver that network.
Health reform is also a priority area for me personally, and I am very proud of what we are achieving in this field in the budget. Of this $2.2 billion in the health reform package, we have set aside some $417 million to improve after-hours access to GP and primary care services. Access to GPs is vital to Australian families and is something that has not been adequately addressed in the past. We have also invested a further $355 million to deliver 23 new GP superclinics and 425 GP and primary healthcare clinics across Australia.
Already, in my own electorate, the Ballan GP Super Clinic is up and running. It was opened back in September last year and it was the first in Australia. The clinic has proven vital to the flourishing community of Ballan; in fact, I think it will perhaps drive some of the population growth of Ballan as well. Over recent times, the local health system was struggling to meet demand, and this investment by the Rudd government has gone a long way to improve local health services. The clinic accommodates GPs—some of them new GPs who come into the area—practice nurses, visiting specialists and a range of allied health services. They include physiotherapy, dietetics, nutrition, podiatry, mental health services, pathology and chronic disease management services. There is also a psychologist who operates out of the facility. For the first time this local community has a dental service. The superclinic in Ballan is a great example of what we can do when we work with local communities in enhancing our health system and of what we seek to achieve with our $355 million investment to have a further 23 GP superclinics across the country. I know that members on this side of the House, who know the enormous benefits of these clinics in our communities, as I do, are all working pretty hard to try to get one of those clinics in their own electorates. It is a shame that members of the opposition wish to cut the program.
A further $523 million has been allocated to invest in training and support for nurses. These investments will see nurses better supported in GP clinics and there will be training and education incentive payments for nurses and personal care workers in aged care, and the first ever rural-local scheme for nurses.
The Rudd government plans to deliver on individual electronic health records. This $467 million reform to our health system will benefit patients and benefit our health system as a whole. I find it amazing that the Leader of the Opposition and former minister for health, who promoted electronic health records and who had it as part of his policy platform, said in his budget-in-reply speech that he will axe this important initiative. Coalition members have struggled to find support for cutting e-health initiatives among all of the major stakeholders across the country.
The government also announced an increase to the tobacco excise of 25 per cent. This came into effect on 30 April 2010. This excise increase provides not only an incentive for current smokers to quit but an effective measure to prevent young people from taking up smoking in the first place. This increase in the tobacco excise will be reinvested back into our health and hospital system—a total of $5 billion over five years.
While I am still on the topic of health and hospital reform, I would also like to put on the parliamentary record the Rudd government’s recent announcement to fund the new $55 million cancer centre for Ballarat in conjunction with the state Victorian Labor government. I spoke in parliament back in February this year about the importance of the cancer centre for Ballarat and the surrounding region. In April, it was my pleasure to announce—along with Minister Roxon and the state minister for health, Minister Andrews—that the Rudd government would fund the Ballarat regional integrated cancer centre. This announcement reflects the hard work of my local community and will allow for two linear accelerators, the relocation of one linear accelerator from St John of God Hospital, four radiotherapies bunkers, 16 chemotherapy chairs, a CT scanner and a wellness centre as well. This is yet another example of the government’s efforts to reform our health and hospital system.
Through this budget, we have also worked hard to alleviate the cost-of-living pressures that are facing many Australians. The announcement of tax cuts in this year’s budget was our third round of cuts in as many years. I am pleased to have seen the hard work of the Australian people, particularly in this last year, being reflected in the 2010-11 budget by these tax cuts. These tax cuts, which were an election promise, have been delivered despite the economic circumstances in which we have found ourselves. The Australian people and those across the electorate of Ballarat have worked hard to get through the global financial crisis. These tax cuts are welcome news to those families.
To give you a slight snapshot, the cuts mean that a person earning $20,000 will pay $750 less in income tax in 2010-11, a worker earning $50,000 will pay $1,750 less in income tax in 2010-11 and a worker earning $80,000 will pay $1,500 less over the next financial year. They are significant savings for families. Our tax cuts are also welcome news to low-income and part-time workers. We have lifted the low-income tax offset to $1,500 to provide an effective tax-free threshold of $16,000.
On top of the tax cuts, we are also working to make tax time simpler for families with our reforms to the tax system. From 1 July 2012, taxpayers will have the option to choose a standard deduction of $500 instead of claiming work related expenses. This will increase to $1,000 by 1 July 2013. This takes the hassle out of tax time for many families. Families will not have to go rummaging for receipts come tax time, hopefully saving some precious family time as well.
One of the things that I have often spoken about since being elected is the importance of investment in skills and infrastructure. This budget invests significantly in both of these. We have invested some $661 million to assist people enhance their qualifications by taking up one of the 40,000 additional training place and 22,500 new apprentices as part of our Apprentice Kickstart program. I have spoken to many of the young people across the electorate that have been involved in the Apprentice Kickstart program and it is great to see the investment by this government in young people’s skills through this program continuing.
The other day I was in Bacchus Marsh with Parliamentary Secretary Clare. We spoke with a number of apprentices at the Amber Hair Studio. The take-up of apprentices across the Moorabool Shire has increased by 45 per cent compared to the previous year, with 42 local apprentices getting started between December 2009 and February 2010. The apprentices and their employers who spoke to Parliamentary Secretary Clare and me are delighted by the program. There has been a boost in apprenticeship numbers across other areas of my electorate, with a 77 per cent increase across the City of Ballarat, and an in increase in Hepburn Shire from five apprentices a year to 20 apprentices in 2009-2010. This is an additional 15 young people, who would not have got the opportunity otherwise, who now have their pathway set for a future career.
Our announcement means that until 12 November businesses that employ fewer than 200 people can benefit from a $3,350 bonus payment in addition to the $1,500 commencement initiative if they take on a school leaver in a traditional trade apprenticeship. The Rudd government is absolutely determined to skill up people in my region, and that is great news for local communities.
In addition to our skills program, we have also worked hard to invest in our long-term economic growth through infrastructure investment. Project after project across my electorate is well underway to set up our local economy for the future. Through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program local governments have rolled out many projects that are benefiting local communities. Projects under round 1 have all been delivered and round 2 projects are well underway. Our funding through the Blackspots Program and Roads to Recovery has also ensured that the local governments have had the funded needed to deliver on local road projects. Not only have we seen a vast improvement in local roads—especially in terms of safety—but this has also contributed to local jobs growth.
This budget further invests in nation-building projects in the Ballarat electorate. They include the Western Highway realignment of Anthonys Cutting, which the Prime Minister and I had the pleasure of visiting the other month for the sod turning; and the Western Highway duplication from Ballarat to Stawell, which the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, and I visited the other month also. Both nation-building projects are incredibly important to my district. They are both projects that are investing in the long-term growth of communities like Ballarat across Western Victoria.
Residents of the Ballarat electorate are already experiencing the benefits of the Deer Park bypass, which I lobbied tirelessly for. Once these two new projects have been completed, the western region of Victoria will have a first-rate highway that extends all the way from Melbourne through to the South Australian border. These projects are setting up Ballarat and the surrounding region for the future. They create jobs in the short term and provide safe and reliable road infrastructure in the longer term. The budget builds further on our infrastructure investment through the new $5.6 billion infrastructure fund. The fund will commence in 2012-13 and will place infrastructure funding at the forefront of Commonwealth spending. We are doing this because we know that investment in infrastructure is one of the most important elements of a productive economy.
I would also like to discuss one of the core challenges faced by not only Australia but other nations, and that is climate change. We are boosting, through this budget, our investment in a new Renewable Energy Future Fund. This reflects our strong commitment to increase the renewable energy target by 20 per cent by 2020. A $652 million investment over four years forms part of our $6.1 billion clean energy initiative. We are using this funding to increase the take-up by business and households of energy efficiency measures. Aside from our new investment through the Renewable Energy Future Fund, the Rudd government is committed to continue our efforts internationally to form agreement with other countries about future action on climate change and on what we do domestically.
There are a number of differences between the Rudd government and the coalition. First, the Rudd government decided to take decisive action to tackle the global financial crisis. Those opposite did not. Second, our appropriations since we were elected have recognised the strong need to invest in our long-term future—in the National Broadband Network; skills and training; local community infrastructure; roads and ports; education; and national health reform. Those opposite have opposed all of these measures. Third, in the wake of a prospective global recession, we made the most of an opportunity to invest in reducing our economy’s capacity constraints. Those opposite missed opportunities during the initial mining boom. Fourth, our 2010-11 budget continues our sound economic management and targeted investment. The alternative government reflects the worst economic management team in the history of the Liberal Party of Australia. Finally, our actions have been supported by key stakeholders—from Treasury to the Reserve Bank, business and community groups and international bodies—and admired by other countries. The alternative from those opposite has been supported by nobody.
I am proud of this government’s strong economic management. The budget reflects our direct action to support jobs and to bring us back to surplus early. The budget delivers a new Renewable Energy Future Fund; tax cuts and a reduction in red tape for small business; investment in health and hospitals; investment in skills, training and infrastructure; better superannuation, tax breaks on interest and a boost to national savings; a standard deduction to make tax time easier; more money to protect our troops and our borders; and a return to surplus in three years—three years ahead of schedule. The budget takes advantage of our strong economic position and sets up our nation for the future. I commend the bills to the House.
I rise to comment on the budget brought down nearly two weeks ago in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills. The fact of the matter is that this government inherited perhaps the strongest economy in the Western World. It inherited an economy that had had 16 years of economic growth. It inherited an economy with zero government debt and close to $50 billion in reserve. It inherited an economy with unemployment at four per cent—almost a historic low. This provided the basis to deal with the unexpected global financial crisis. Every other country of any consequence—the developed countries, at least—went into the global financial crisis with significant government debt, no reserves and much higher unemployment. And we have seen the outcome. It is no different from the situation at a family level in the suburbs: if one individual and his family have no mortgage, $80,000 or $90,000 in the bank and a job, while their neighbour has a $450,000 mortgage and no money in the bank, who is going to get through a recession more satisfactorily, more effectively? It is common sense. The family that has no debt and has sufficient reserves will be able to position itself, with a prudent approach to budgeting and all the rest, to get comfortably through a downturn, while the neighbour may well end up selling their house at a fire-sale price and moving into rented accommodation and experiencing all the stress that goes with it.
It is exactly the same for the economy on a nationwide level. Our country was in exceptional shape to deal with what was a major recession, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet this government, in the space of 2½ years, has fundamentally undermined the great resilience that characterised this economy. If there is a double-dip recession around the world, our economy will be far more vulnerable to what might happen in the weeks or months ahead. This budget has done absolutely nothing to correct this situation. There are no tough decisions in this budget. This is a coward’s budget. It is the budget of people who live by the politics of the day and have no long-term vision. Where will the Prime Minister take this economy over the next three to six years if given the opportunity? You cannot answer that question. You cannot answer it from what he has done. The only conclusion you can reach is that we will continue to go backwards as a country—in terms of the resilience of our economy, the great drivers of growth in our economy—because this Prime Minister, his Treasurer and other senior colleagues have taken no tough decisions. They have been all talk and no action. There have been hundreds of inquiries and there have been major expectations built up. This Prime Minister is no different from the handyman we all know who starts hundreds of jobs and finishes none of them. He has got no capacity to implement projects.
This government is characterised by some of the most wasteful and mismanaged projects in the country’s history. The pink batts program has wasted billions of dollars. The Building the Education Revolution, the school halls program, has wasted billions and billions of dollars. This government stands condemned for the way in which it has mishandled public moneys but more particularly for the way in which it has panicked and responded over the last 2½ years to the challenges that have been thrown up for this economy. It has overspent in a massive way and this budget does absolutely nothing to address that issue.
This third budget brought down by the Treasurer is a political document, make no mistake about that. It is a political document and is not a document designed to address the challenges and opportunities faced by this country. It is a budget which is not believable. It is a house of cards. It is based on a ‘trust me’ approach, heroic assumptions and great big new taxes. It makes no allowance for any eventuality that might occur overseas. It makes no allowance for the impact of some of these great big new taxes on the ability of some of our stronger sectors to respond, to keep growing and to contribute to the resilience that they have displayed over such a long period of time. Of course the thing that we do know about this budget, one of the few things of any certainty, is that the spending keeps going. It is reckless spending and an insatiable desire to keep spending money to solve problems. The only way in which this Prime Minister and his Treasurer feel that issues can be addressed is to throw more money at them. It is a tax-and-spend budget—tax, borrow and spend. That marks the sort of sorry history of this short-term government.
The government will give us four more years of deficit, all to combat one quarter of negative growth in 2008. The response to that one quarter of negative growth has been to borrow, borrow and borrow again and to spend, spend and spend; so much so that the economy now is not in balance. The reckless spending, which this budget continues, has been the reason we have now got the highest interest rates in the Western world. It is the reason so many families across this country are now finding it extraordinarily difficult to meet their cost of living expenses and are finding it difficult to pay their power bills. Power has gone up 18 to 22 per cent across the nation over the last 12 months, petrol prices have gone up over six per cent over the last 12 months, rates are going through the roof in many areas and fruit and vegetable costs have been above the CPI. Many, many areas of our everyday expenses have well exceeded the CPI, sometimes two, three and four times as high. Yet this government, which came to office making very strong and heartfelt promises about what they would do to the cost of living and how they would deal with the challenges people face every day to meet their budget so as to enable people to live within their means and have some peace of mind, have certainly not shown any of that sort of approach. By example, the government have not lived within their means and this budget does nothing to curtail the reckless spending to bring this government and their bureaucracy back onto course which would see our record debt paid off in due course.
The government will give us four years of deficit. The deficit this year of $57 billion will be the biggest deficit in Australia’s peacetime history. You heard very little mention of what had happened with the current year we are in. They did not want to refer to this $57 billion because it is the highest deficit in our history by a country mile. Also what they did not want to say was that much of that $57 billion, something well in excess of $7 billion, was spent and not programmed in last year’s budget. They have been spending like drunken sailors with the intent of burying that spending in the $57 billion deficit this year and taking some load off next year’s deficit. It is a political budget. They plan to spend and spend in some attempt to misrepresent the figures and their record of spending.
Next year, of course, we are told we will have the second biggest deficit in our history of $40.8 billion. We will believe that when we see it. It is in all likelihood, by the way in which this government are responding, to go higher and higher. We also have not only deficit record levels but a level of net debt of $93 billion, equal to that left by the Keating government. On top of that, of course, they have foreshadowed that they will be borrowing an extra $18 billion in the next four years to fund their national broadband project; the white elephant which will materialise in seven or eight years’ time and, at best, give a return of the bond rate. It is a white elephant that they then expect to sell to somebody with a return at the bond rate. This will be a case of nationalising telecommunications. No other country in the world is heading in the direction to renationalise telecommunications but, of course, this government will. It is something in the order of $110 billion in the next three or four years, then they will add another $8 billion to $15 billion of borrowing to complete that national broadband project.
This is a reckless government. This is a government that thinks you can borrow and spend and that someone else can fix up the problem. The government continues to borrow $100 million a day. It has done so for a year and it will do so for the next two years to meet the forecasts embodied within this budget. It will borrow $100 million a day for this reckless spending. That is every week. Every week, this government is borrowing the equivalent of a world-class new hospital. A world-class new hospital could be built each week with that borrowed money. This is what we are accumulating.
The improvement to the budget bottom line is entirely due to what the government term ‘parameter changes’: stronger economic growth in Australia, with predictions of very high sustained growth, and above-trend growth offshore. They are basing this budget over the next four years on the highest terms of trade in 60 years and they are basing it on $17 billion in new taxes. Of course, another of the accounting tricks is that they classify the revenue from new taxes as savings. It is all spin—it is a disingenuous way of presenting the nation’s books and accounts. It is based on unrealistic assumptions. People can have absolutely no confidence in the quality of the forecasts, in the nature of the outcome or in the suggestion that the government will at the end of three or four years produce a wafer-thin surplus.
This budget does not rely on responsible economic management. There is not a hard decision in this budget to cut the reckless and wasteful government spending. All the cuts in expenditure were targeted in specific areas such as pharmaceuticals, as opposed to broad based programs, with close to 80 per cent of the so-called savings being achieved between 2012-13 and 2013-14. All of this is back-ended and off to the never-never, with no prospect of this government demonstrating any discipline.
We might have expected a lower spending budget, as there is no longer a need for stimulus to counter the global financial crisis and because of the pick-up in commodity prices in China and other economies and the fact that countries are now in many cases streaming out of recession. But what do we find? Over and above what the government forecast last year in the budget for spending this coming year, the year after that and the year after that, we see $26 billion of excess spending. Indeed, there was no winding back of previously allocated stimulus spending despite the very different economic circumstances. Further delays will occur in the school halls program, which will mean that $500 million of stimulus will not be spent until 2011-12, at least three years after the global financial crisis.
This is where the increased spending is now starting to compete heavily with small business trying to access finance. It is starting to compete for all other forms of borrowing by big business, small business and mortgage holders. As a consequence, it is pushing up interest rates. We have now had six interest rate increases in a row. Some of the thousands of young couples who were encouraged last year to take out a mortgage, buy a home and get on with it are this year facing between $4,000 and $5,000 more in mortgage repayments than they expected last year. That is $5,000 they will have to find after tax—they will have to earn an extra $7,000 or $8,000 between them. Many of these young couples will be facing very severe financial problems at present.
This budget is full of accounting tricks. It is full of new taxes and more wasteful spending, including $1 billion to correct the policy failures with boat people, $1 billion to fix up the pink batts program and a $4 billion a year blow-out in government debt interest rates. The government has allocated $536 million, over half a billion dollars, for new health bureaucracies as part of its health reform. This government promised in its health reform not to have any increase in the bureaucracy, yet it has budgeted for an extra half a billion dollars for new health bureaucracies as part of its so-called reform.
At the last election the government promised 36 GP superclinics; of course, only two are fully operational. This is typical—all talk, no action. But, on top of that, this budget says the government will deliver another 23 superclinics, additional to the 36 of which only two have been delivered. How can anyone possibly have any confidence in the promises made by the government? The core beliefs and values of the government have evaporated over the last few months. Their support for things like the emissions trading scheme went out the window. This was a clever accounting trick to ensure that the $10 billion that would have gone to the expenditure line did not occur and therefore the ratio of expenditure to GDP was able to stay within the parameters that they had set. It is all artificially created. The government dumped the ETS so that they could create an artificial ratio of expenditure to GDP.
This is a political document; this is not a policy document. They are giving $10 million grants to the Trade Union Education Foundation. They are giving an additional $12 million to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—that is another 14 per cent increase. The government said they would take a meataxe to the Public Service and yet 20,000 new public servant positions have been created in the space of 2¾ years.
The budget surplus relies solely on a very big new tax on the growth engine of this economy. The sector that helped pull this country through the global financial crisis, the resources sector, will now face a massive retrospective tax which will see our resource sector with 58 per cent effective tax on its operations. By comparison, the nearest to Australia will be the United States at 40 per cent—an 18 per cent greater tax load. It will put in jeopardy, and it has already put in jeopardy and prevented, work to develop $310 billion of new projects. This budget is a political document. It is a confirmation of the tax-and-spend approach of this government. This government is not fit to govern. The only way to turn around our great debt and deficit is to change the government. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and cognate bills. The budget that the Treasurer presented to this House was a budget for its time. The budget before us is a responsible budget, a budget that is in the national interest. The government acknowledges that families still need help, but the budget puts a priority on strengthening the economy and securing sustainable growth into the future. This budget is indicative of the government’s response to the global financial crisis, a crisis that Australia avoided due to both the responsible, decisive fiscal policy of the Rudd Labor government and the determination of the Australian people who pulled together to keep people in jobs.
This budget builds on the strong foundation developed by the government in previous budgets. It converts Australia’s success during the global recession into a stronger, more secure economy for working families. It will halve peak debt, bringing the budget back into the black in three years. This is three years earlier than expected and ahead of every major advanced economy. One cannot and should not underestimate this achievement. Decisive action now, as also occurred during the global financial crisis, will ensure the future prosperity of Australia and secure the economy and the financial security of the Australian people, including many families in my electorate of Kingston. The strong position of the nation’s economy ensures that the people of the southern suburbs of Adelaide will be better positioned than people in many other places around the developed world to take advantage of the opportunities ahead. The Rudd Labor government believes in the fortitude and ability of the Australian people, and this budget represents its commitment to these people by ensuring responsible economic management, halving peak debt and securing future growth.
Those opposite have opposed the government’s action to support jobs during the global financial crisis, and there is no doubt that they will now oppose its actions to keep the government finances strong. But this budget does have significant things for the people in my electorate, and the historic health and hospital reform is especially significant to people in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. The residents of southern Adelaide deserve to live in a community where they are confident about the provision of health services to their loved ones. The Rudd government’s ongoing commitment to health will go a long way towards achieving this goal.
The government’s planned reform represents the most significant reform to Australia’s health and hospital system since the introduction of Medicare. The government is investing $7.3 billion over five years, and this is an enormous commitment to our health and hospital system. The 2010-11 budget delivers a $2.2 billion package investing in the National Health and Hospitals Network over four years. This funding will have a genuinely positive impact on health providers within my electorate. Hospitals such as Flinders Medical Centre and Noarlunga Hospital will be able to provide a better level of care for the people in our local area. This spending is vital to improving the healthcare system for all Australians and also vital to my local constituents.
This budget reflects the Rudd government’s commitment to health reform and its ongoing commitment to health within Australia. The $417 million Medicare Locals program is a commitment to ensure that it will be easier for people in Kingston and around the country to see a doctor at any time, day or night. This investment will improve after-hours access to GP and primary care services. This is a significant investment in the ongoing health and wellbeing of the elderly, parents and young people in my electorate, ensuring that all Australians have access to high-quality and affordable after-hours services. This builds on the Rudd government’s commitment to making sure that after-hours GP services are provided. In my electorate alone, a number of different grants have already been announced to ensure that GP services are available after hours. Services are already being made available in Morphettville, Huntfield Heights, Sheidow Park, Aldinga and Seaford. The further improvements to after-hours services will be widely welcomed in my local area, because people know that getting to see a GP can be difficult at the best of times.
The opposition—and, indeed, the opposition leader—have indicated that they do not believe that there is a problem out there in the provision of GP services. My message to the opposition leader is that in outer metropolitan Adelaide there is a problem with getting to see a GP. I hear regularly from my constituents that there is a shortage. They often wait up to three or four weeks just to get an appointment with a GP. It is disappointing that the opposition leader, who is a former Minister for Health and Ageing, refuses to acknowledge that there is a real crisis in accessing medical services and that the private sector has not filled all the gaps in outer metropolitan Adelaide.
The budget also outlines the government’s commitment to provide up to $950 million to increase the capacity of emergency departments and improve the time line for treatment. This has also been widely welcomed by my constituents in Kingston. The Rudd government is committed to a four-hour emergency department target. This will require patients to be admitted and then either referred or treated and discharged within four hours. This is an achievable goal, and we believe that Australians ought to be able to see a doctor wherever and whenever they need one. This will ensure that every Australian has access to the advice they deserve.
As the Minister for Health and Ageing has regularly noted, nurses are the cornerstone of any effective health system. The Rudd government acknowledges the vital role that these individuals play in the provision of health care to real working Australians and is therefore committed to investing $535 million for additional training and support to Australian nurses. Nurses play a critical role in our health system, and the Rudd government is dedicated to ongoing support of these individuals.
I draw the attention of the House to the controversial issue the opposition is opposing—that is, the issue of GP superclinics. GP superclinics are an effective and necessary addition to the health field within Australia. The government has dedicated $355 million over three years to building more of these clinics across the country. We are now seeing clinics being developed in my electorate of Kingston in the form of the Noarlunga GP Super Clinic, due to be completed this year. This will provide an important service by incorporating doctors and other allied health professionals in one location. Such clinics take the pressure off the hospital system, and we have seen this in evidence with the state government provided GP Plus services. Since becoming operational, the one in Aldinga in my electorate has seen a decrease of 13 per cent in presentations to the accident and emergency clinic, with residents in Aldinga instead presenting at the GP Plus centre.
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I inform the House that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will be absent from question time today as she is addressing the Australian Davos Connection Future Summit in Melbourne. The Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women will answer questions on her behalf.
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order. Hopefully, a lot of people have got it out of their system before we even start. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Following last week’s announcement by Fortescue Metals that it has placed two projects on hold worth $17½ billion in investment and up to 30,000 jobs, I refer the Prime Minister to today’s announcement by the head of Rio Tinto, Mr Tom Albanese, that all Rio Tinto’s Australian expansion plans have been put on hold, that capital would shift to other nations like Canada and that the Rudd government’s proposed great big new tax on mining was Rio Tinto’s top sovereign risk issue on a global basis. I ask the Prime Minister: how much damage will the Australian economy suffer before the Prime Minister backs down on his great big new tax on mining?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and I draw his attention to the sort of debate which occurred in this place, and more broadly, when we brought in the petroleum rent resource tax in the mid-1980s. There were loud threats across the nation and from abroad about the impact on the Australian offshore mining industry at that time through the introduction of the tax. That tax was a tax on profits. The proposed RSPT is a tax on profits. Every economic analyst concludes that a tax on profits is a more efficient tax than a tax on volumes.
The second point that the Leader of the Opposition asked was about, I think, a reference to Fortescue Metals. Notice was given to the ASX by Fortescue last Wednesday noting that the projects in question had been placed on hold. I note the two paragraphs in the Australian newspaper on 20 May which said:
Mr Forrest’s move to delay the Solomon project was last night labelled a “political statement” more than a genuine setback to the company’s plans.
It went on to say:
Credit Suisse analyst Nathan Littlewood noted Fortescue had not abandoned its Solomon feasibility study due for completion later this year, by which time a federal election would have been held …
I also draw attention to recent statements which have been made by Mr Forrest concerning China and the response which has been forthcoming on that as well. As the Leader of the Opposition will know, there will be many, many statements by many, many companies, and all of them may have this in common: they do not want to pay more tax.
This government believes that the time has come for tax reform which delivers a fair return for all Australians, a fair return for those who depend on this tax for investing in our future infrastructure, a fair return from this tax to support super for working families and a fair return from this tax in order to bring down the taxation burden for Australian business. This reform, as the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, has been projected by independent modelling to bring about an overall increase in mining activity of 5.5 per cent as well as bringing about other deep reforms in the tax system, and incentives and global competitiveness to the Australian economy at large.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime minister, why is tax reform in Australia’s long-term interest? How has the government’s reform of the resources taxation system been received?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question. In fact, we were in his electorate only last week at a community cabinet meeting where we heard loud and clear from a number of local businesses how they appreciate an Australian government that gets out there in support of local business to protect jobs in local communities, as we have been doing throughout the global financial crisis and, with reforms to the economy, how we will continue to do so into the future as well. I remember that we spent some time with a number of businesses in the honourable member’s electorate. Penguin Composites comes to mind, a company which has benefited from a co-investment with the Australian government in the expansion of its operations.
The member for Braddon asked a question about tax reform and where it fits within the overall priorities of the government, and responses to it. The first responsibility of government is to keep the Australian economy strong. That is what this government is committed to. We have done so by keeping Australia out of recession. We have done so also through a budget which halves our net peak debt and brings the budget back to surplus in three years time—three years ahead of time. Furthermore, the strength of the economy in the future depends on the continued reform of our economy—reforms in productivity, reforms in workforce participation, and reforms also in regulation and in tax.
On the question of tax, if the opposition blocks this tax reform, Australia will look back in 10 years time and see that another opportunity to strengthen our economy and invest in our competitiveness in the future was passed up. No. 1, with this tax reform, we are aiming at boosting the overall national competitiveness of Australia. We are doing that by bringing down the company tax rate by two percentage points—
How are you going to—
The Leader of the Opposition interjects, ‘How are you going to do that?’ Not by increasing the company tax rate, as he is planning to do. We are bringing it down two percentage points; you are taking it up two percentage points. There is a big difference.
Secondly, we are also boosting the competitiveness of the Australian economy by investing in infrastructure. That is necessary in order to underpin long-term productivity growth. We are investing also in the tax competitiveness of our small business sector. We will lose an opportunity to deliver a fair share for all Australians if the opposition blocks this legislation. If the Leader of the Opposition blocks this RSPT, he will be denying workers an increase in super from nine per cent to 12 per cent. He will be denying a worker on about average earnings an additional $108,000 a year. He will be denying working Australians better super on their retirement. He will be denying all those Australian companies a two percentage point tax cut. He will be denying Australian small business a $5,000 tax break. He will also be denying some 6.4 million Australian taxpayers a radical opportunity to simplify their tax arrangements and to throw the shoebox away, if they so choose, when it comes to tax time. That is what is at stake with these reforms.
I was asked by the member for Braddon about other people’s comments on these reforms and the need to tax the mining sector more. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition alone in this country believes that our mining sector is currently paying enough tax. His state political colleague recently said the following:
The mining companies are aware of it and some of them have expressed their views. I have to say that a few people who work around the mining industry have come to me over the summer and said, ‘By the way, Colin, the mining companies are getting away with murder; they’re not paying enough.’
So says Colin Barnett, the Liberal Premier of Western Australia.
We go to Don Voelte, a leading representative of the mining industry in Western Australia, who said this:
Your original question was, ‘Can the miners give a little bit more?’ In talking to the big miners and the mid-cap miners, I have not heard that they are not willing to negotiate a different tax and a higher tax back. They want to give a fair share back to the Australian citizens.
Look at what Roger Corbett has had to say on the matter of tax reform. He said the following:
These are resources owned by Australians and Australians should extract from those resources the best possible advantage that they can. In principle I support a resources tax. I support a taxing regime that allows redistribution and I support a taxing regime that retains some of the value of this asset that is going to be consumed to the point where there is nothing left so that they can have an asset base for the future.
So said Mr Corbett, whom the previous government appointed to the Reserve Bank board.
So there you have it: the WA Liberal Premier says that the mining industry—in his words, not mine—is getting away with murder. Don Voelte from Woodside says that it is entirely appropriate for mining companies to be paying more. Roger Corbett of the Reserve Bank, a leading Australian businessman, says that in-principle support for a resources rent tax is appropriate. There is only one person in this parliament who believes that our mining industry is paying enough, and that is the Leader of the Opposition.
Me too!
Oh, and Wilson Tuckey—the dynamic duo when it comes to economic reform. The Leader of the Opposition stands in the way of tax reform for workers who want better super, stands in the way of small businesses who want decent tax cuts and stands in the way of decent infrastructure to underpin the future of the Australian economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister, in relation to his comments that the Australian LNG industry has prospered under a petroleum resource rent tax. Can the Prime Minister name one gas field in Australia covered by the petroleum resource rent tax that has exported one tonne of LNG in the last 20 years?
We now have an attack on the PRRT. From memory, it came in in 1985, which is 25 years ago. The honourable member cannot recall the Gorgon announcement made recently. Where has he been for the last 25 years? He was amazingly silent as they took receipts in from the PRRT, and now they seek, opportunistically, to change their line.
My question is to the Treasurer. What are respected economists saying about the role of the resource super profits tax in strengthening our economy and ensuring Australians get a fairer share?
I thank the member for Wakefield for his very important question. There is growing support for the resource super profits tax. Everybody on this side of the House recognises that there is a rolled-gold case for more tax to be paid. But you never hear those on that side of the House even whisper about the need for the Australian people to get a fairer share of the bounty of this country. The Leader of the Opposition was sitting in his office and all the mining companies came in. At that stage he did not have a word to say about it. They told him what to say, and you have seen the outcome here today. The opposition are simply doing what they have been told to by the mining companies. There is going to be a lot of loud noise made by those who are opposed to this tax, by those who are opposed to Australians sharing in the wealth.
At the beginning of this decade, one dollar in three of mining company profits came through royalties and charges. At the end of the decade, it was one dollar in seven. But they do not care that the Australian people have missed out on a fair share of that. That much is obvious. There is one body that said very early that we needed a resource rent tax in this community. In fact, that was said by the Minerals Council. The Minerals Council, in their submission to the independent tax inquiry, had this to say:
There is a strong argument to reform the basis of determining royalty payments to a profits based criteria from a revenue one.
That was the mining sector; that was the Minerals Council of Australia. Of course, this is now widely recognised not only here but around the world. This is what the OECD has had to say:
Whenever there is a period in which there is a price spike or a price hike then it is legitimate for a sharing of that bonanza and that benefit.
That is what everybody on this side of the House believes. Nobody on the other side of the House believes that. And today we have had Roger Corbett, appointed by those opposite to the Reserve Bank board, saying:
These are resources owned by Australians and Australia should extract from those resources the best possible advantage it can.
Who can disagree with that? Everybody over there disagrees with that perfectly reasonable statement. And you have got Michael Hawker, a director of Macquarie Group, who had this to say:
A royalties tax on the assets of Australia is a good policy position because the capital of the country should be there not just for this generation but for multiple generations.
Who believes that? Everybody on this side of the House believes that. But it is not just people in business; it is many economists. This is what Mr John Freebairn had to say on 12 May:
It is actually going to increase the level of investment and employment down the track, contrary to what the big mining companies are claiming.
You have got the IMF, who had this to say:
There is a case for this tax to promote investment and secure for government higher shares of resource rent in profitable projects.
And we have Professor Garnaut. What has he had to say?
Opposition members interjecting—
I thought you supported Professor Garnaut. He said:
It is the right sort of tax. The Henry review made a strong case and a good case for taxing mineral rent. It is an elegant approach to the taxing of mineral rent.
We go on. Even the banks are saying this. This is what Westpac had to say on 3 May:
The RSPT is a more efficient way of extracting value for both the state and resource companies than a royalty system.
So, in the face of all this evidence, what we now have is an unprecedented, hysterical scare campaign which has been sponsored by those opposite and paid for by the Minerals Council, paid for and authorised by the Minerals Council. There are many commentators who have belled the cat on that. This is what Professor John Quiggin has had to say:
The tax is a good idea and the criticisms we have seen are what you would expect from rent seekers seeking to protect their rents.
I think that describes those opposite. And you had the Secretary-General of the OECD, again, saying:
If you look at these things strategically, of course it is a wise thing to invest in Australia.
Mr John Brogden, the CEO of the Investment and Financial Services Association—not someone from our side of politics—said:
This is a visionary policy. It is visionary for Australia’s retirement outcomes and it is visionary for the Australian economy.
So there is a strong tide of support for this tax in the business community, in the economics profession and among the Australian people. Those opposite are siding with the mining industry against the families of Australia, the workers of Australia and a national retirement savings plan. You hear those opposite claim to stand for families. Phony Tony over there claims to stand for families, but he will not support an initiative like this which will support Australian families. They are happy to see the profits walk out the door and not support Australian families. They should be condemned.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister publicly claimed that the Australian resources sector pays only 13 to 17 per cent in tax, based on the University of North Carolina student research paper that was completed over a year ago which does not specifically focus on the Australian resource sector, does not include royalty payments and lumps data from New Zealand in with that from Australia. I ask the Prime Minister: to prevent further misinformation, will the government now publicly release all Treasury and tax office modelling in relation to the great big new tax on mining?
I draw the honourable member’s attention to the report which has already been released by the Treasury which contains copious information within it. Secondly, the underpinning of the Leader of the Opposition’s question again is that the mining industry in this country does not need to pay more. This government has a different view, the Premier of Western Australia has a different view and in fact many representatives of the Australian business community have a different view. The Secretary-General of the OECD has a different view. Those opposite seem to be of the view that the only way in which to advance this country’s economic interest for the long term is simply to leave things as they are, not to engineer fundamental reforms for the future. We stand for better taxation treatment for small business, better tax treatment for Australian companies and better super for Australian workers, and we also stand for better investment in Australian infrastructure. That is the basis of the reform we have put forward. The government stands by its reform plan.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why is it important that spending commitments are properly documented, detailed and costed?
I thank the member for Lyons for his question. Honourable members may recall that at the end of the last sitting week I issued a tally, a table, of existing coalition spending commitments that totalled $15.7 billion that had not been funded in any way by the opposition. They may also recall the Leader of the Opposition’s budget speech in reply on Thursday of the last sitting week in which he only managed to refer to one significant saving, with a grossly inflated estimate of how much it would deliver, and that was the Public Service hiring freeze.
Since that time, we have had a very, very interesting week. First, on the Monday of last week, we had the Leader of the Opposition on the 7.30 Report indicate that we should not treat anything that he says seriously; we should only treat his statements as gospel truth if they are in writing. Then, on the Wednesday, after the Leader of the Opposition had promised that the detail would be delivered by the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, at his traditional budget reply speech at the National Press Club, the member for North Sydney came along and there was a lot of verbiage and bluster but there was no detail in his speech. A few hours later in the day, this elaborate game of pass-the-parcel concluded and finally the shadow finance minister—the fifth shadow finance minister in this term of parliament—the member for Goldstein, launched a list of supposed budget savings, the vast bulk of which do not hit the budget bottom line. Finally, to make the week even more interesting, the member for Goldstein, late on Thursday, put out a press release entitled ‘Tanner’s numbers in tatters’—almost illiterate if not quite. It stated in a press release:
These costings leave in tatters the desperate claims of the Finance Minister, Mr Tanner, that Coalition promises add up to $15.7 billion.
It claimed that only $4.7 billion is the tally of coalition promises. Mr Speaker, as you can imagine, I found this rather interesting and rather puzzling—in fact, I was a bit mystified. How could there be such a big gap, $11 billion or so, between my tally and the opposition’s? The answer was in the fine print in the member for Goldstein’s press release because it contained this ripper phrase:
… other past commitments have been discontinued.
The older members of the chamber will no doubt remember Ronald Ziegler, the famous press spokesman for Richard Nixon who came up with the immortal phrase, ‘That previous statement was inoperative.’ We now have a new equivalent, a new euphemism. It is, ‘That commitment has been discontinued.’ The promise last year to allow small businesses to carry back-tax losses has been discontinued. The commitment of the shadow families minister, the member for Menzies, to get rid of the means-testing initiatives of the government on the baby bonus and the family tax benefits has been discontinued. The superannuation spokesman, the member for Cowper, in a speech only on 19 April this year made a commitment to reverse the government’s tightening of concessional superannuation tax treatment. That one has also been discontinued, not to mention the radical reduction in funding for the Leader of the Opposition’s so-called green army commitment that he made in a speech to the Sydney Institute and the dramatic scale down in funding for the Toowoomba bypass.
What we have is a simple explanation for the discrepancy between the costings that I announced a week and a half ago and what the opposition now says are the costs of their promises. They have junked most of their promises and given us a living example of phoney Tony’s principle: if it was a statement, ignore it; you have got to have it pinned down in writing, in triplicate, and it has got to be there in a document before you should treat it seriously.
There is a common thread across all of these events last week. It is this: panic under pressure. First, we have the Leader of the Opposition refusing to be accountable for anything he says, then we have got the pass-the-parcel game from the Leader of the Opposition to the member for North Sydney to the member for Goldstein, then we have got the phoney savings announcement and then the final nail in the coffin that previous promises have been discontinued. There is a lesson for everyone here and that is that the Leader of the Opposition is too risky, too erratic and too flaky to be trusted with managing the nation’s finances.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island led by the Chief Minister, the Hon. David Buffett. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that official ATO taxation statistics on the Taxation Office website show that the effective company tax rate for the mining industry is 27.8 per cent and when including royalties it is 41.3 per cent? Does the Prime Minister stand by the statements of his Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister that the taxation rate is only 17 per cent? I seek leave to table ATO taxation statistics 2007-08, tables 8 and 9, as proof.
Leave not granted.
Once again, we have those opposite standing in defence of the existing taxation arrangements which apply to Australia’s mining industry. The member for North Sydney referred to a statement made by the Treasurer on Sunday in reference to a report that had been put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research. My advice is that is a credible research institute. Secondly, I draw attention to the fact that, when it comes to the combined incidence of both royalties and the company tax rate on mining companies, the government has seen a 50 per cent drop in the share of tax taken from mining company profits over the past 10 years even if you factor in both company tax and royalties. Resource profits were over $80 billion higher in 2008-09 than in 1999-2000. Governments have only collected an additional $9 billion in revenue. These figures speak for themselves. We stand for reforming the system; those opposite stand for the status quo.
Mr Pyne interjecting
Order! If the member for Sturt wants to hold conversations, I can arrange for him to go outside the chamber and hold them.
My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. How is the government supporting quality teaching through the Smarter Schools National Partnership Agreement and are there any threats to this policy?
I thank the member for Petrie for her important question and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Grattan Institute today has released an important report on teacher evaluation and teacher quality. Unsurprisingly, like the reports and evidence from around the world, this report finds that the single most important thing for the quality of a child’s education is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. That is why as a government we have been systematically investing in teacher quality and in the quality of school leadership. We needed to do this because, when we came to government, whilst over 12 long years the coalition had talked about teacher quality, it had got nothing done. That was not the only problem, of course. It had talked about national curriculum, and it had got nothing done. It had talked about school transparency, and it had got nothing done. Across more than 12 long years, what we saw in education from those opposite was a track record of all talk and shameful inaction—absolutely shameful inaction.
This government has acted, as opposed to the talk, talk, talk from the other side. Our new reforms include bringing the highest quality graduates into teaching in disadvantaged schools through our Teach for Australia program. Today, as we stand here, Shaun Isbister is teaching maths at Mill Park Secondary College. Shaun got an ENTER score of 96.6 and a first-class honours degree in economics and commerce. His motto for his classroom is: results, not excuses. Shaun is one of 45—
Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat. I just remind the member for Sturt that he should be careful when going about his business as Manager of Opposition Business about standing and—
Mr Pyne interjecting
I have got myself into trouble because I understand that. I have got myself into trouble because I now have the screen that gives me the feed that is going outside, so I just suggest to some people on the right that these minor matters are being dealt with and that they should listen to what is going on. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I expect them to not be interested in education; it was their track record for a decade. Today, Shaun and 45 others are out there teaching through our Teach for Australia program, with more to come. These reforms in teacher quality mean today that the best teachers are being paid more to go to the classrooms that need them the most, and there are trials of performance based rewards in schools, including the prospect of outstanding teachers in Victoria earning $6,000 more. It means today there are differences for principal autonomy in state schools, including measures announced by the ACT government last week about school based management of staff and budgets, and in the Northern Territory business consultants are being made available to assist principals to run their schools. Today in Western Australia, as a result of our resources and reforms, more than 30 state schools are now called independent public schools, with the principals in them having greater autonomy, including the power to hire and fire. It was an honour for me to meet some of those principals on a recent trip to Western Australia.
I am asked about threats to these reforms. The threat to these reforms arises from the game of ‘pass the parcel’ played about the budget reply last week, because the $425 million which would enable us to continue these reforms is on the Leader of the Opposition’s cuts list. No more investment in principal autonomy; no more investment in paying the best teachers more to reward them; no more investment in bringing the best graduates into teaching: that is the policy of the Leader of the Opposition.
Just like the Leader of the Opposition, who believes everything he says is just dispensable, that it does not matter whether or not it is the truth, the shadow minister cannot be relied on when he makes statements. He has said, ‘The coalition believe our teachers need to be appropriately resourced, supported and rewarded.’ But they have pledged to cut the funding that makes that possible. He said today in the Australian newspaper:
“… disenchantment and disappointment teachers have in their profession will only get worse until there is a real revolution in education, which introduces competitive principals and gives schools more autonomy.”
But he has pledged to cut the funding that makes that possible—a breathtaking act of hypocrisy from those failures in education when they were in government. Even other members of their political party think they are crazy, erratic and a risk to education. Adrian Piccoli, the coalition’s shadow minister for education in New South Wales, said in the parliament of New South Wales last week:
We support every measure that can be put in place to improve teacher quality. I do not believe it is a particularly good move by the Federal Coalition to announce that it will cut this funding should it be elected.
The message to the Leader of the Opposition is clear. Even members of his own political party, the Liberal Party, believe he is a man drawn to extreme policies and crazy, erratic cuts. This just proves that the coalition are now pledged to diminish the quality of Australian education as a result of their budget reply. It is now crystal clear they are a risk to the economy, they are a risk to local schools and they are a risk to the services that working families rely on.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the letter dated 17 May 2010 from BHP Billiton Chairman Mr Jac Nasser AO to shareholders and released to the Australian Stock Exchange. Mr Nasser informed shareholders that last year BHP Billiton paid $6.3 billion in taxes and royalties to Australian governments and that its total effective tax rate was 43 per cent. Given that a public company chairman has a statutory obligation to accurately inform shareholders, does the Prime Minister accept as fact Mr Nasser’s statement regarding BHP Billiton’s level of taxation?
I thank the member for Curtin for her new-found interest in accuracy. I refer to the statements which the honourable member referred to. As I said in response to an earlier question, when we are in a process of consultation with the mining industry about a new tax, a range of corporate executives will make a range of statements about that proposition. I also say to the member for Curtin that there has been interesting commentary about those remarks as well, including from former federal leader of the Liberal Party John Hewson, who has described the reaction more generally to the RSPT by certain parts of the mining industry as ‘hysterical’. Dr Hewson said:
I must say the positions taken by people, whether it is ‘Twiggy’ Forrest or Jac Nasser—I mean I have these waking up nightmares of Mr Nasser like he used to attack us over tariff protection for the car industry 20 years ago.
That is what Dr Hewson said. I do not necessarily endorse what Dr Hewson said at all, but I do draw it to honourable members’ attention.
I also draw their attention to the fact that Dr Hewson, a former leader of the Liberal Party, has indicated that, in policy terms, these policies are right—‘This is making sure we get the settings right for resources rent tax.’ He goes on:
I think the resources rent tax has always been on the agenda for serious debate since the middle 1970s. We never got it right. This is a chance to get it right and in particular to deal with the state royalties at the same time as you deal with the federal tax.
And so say a large number of other contributors to this debate. I say to the member for Curtin, therefore: reflect carefully on what that former federal leader of the Liberal Party has had to say on this matter, what the former state leader of the New South Wales Liberal Party Mr Brogden has had to say on this matter and even what the WA Premier has had to say on this matter in terms of obtaining a better return for the Australian people and for small business, better super for working families, better infrastructure for the Australian economy and a decent tax break for small business in terms of the $5,000 tax break.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a notice to the Australian Stock Exchange which was filed about an hour ago, confirming the 43 per cent tax rate paid by BHP Billiton last year.
Leave not granted.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter from BHP of 17 May 2010, confirming that BHP paid an effective tax rate of 43 per cent.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on the implementation of the government’s GP superclinics and of the level of community support for this program?
I thank the member for Newcastle for that question. I know she has been particularly interested in the way that services are provided in the broader Hunter region. I am delighted to be able to tell her and the rest of the House that the implementation of the $275 million commitment to the GP Super Clinics Program has been going well. In fact, I can report to the House that around 50,000 services have already been provided under this GP Super Clinics Program.
I can see the member for Paterson smiling. Indeed, he should be. I was in Port Stephens last Monday to officially open the superclinic in Nelson Bay. The superclinic in Nelson Bay was a $2.5 million commitment. The GPs who were successful in their application for the superclinic intend to invest about the same amount themselves in expanding health services around the clinic. This clinic is going to have extended hours of operation. For example, it will be the first GP service open in the region on Sundays. It offers a dedicated service on Tuesday and Thursday mornings for residents of local aged-care facilities. It has received a grant to provide after-hours services as well. Four new GPs, two full-time registered nurses and a wide variety of allied health professionals are going to staff this new clinic. They are going to work in multidisciplinary teams to provide integrated patient-centred care.
Of course, this is a fantastic new addition for the community. Unfortunately, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister have turned their backs on these sorts of investments. Communities, like Port Stephens, who put up their hands for a superclinic in the future following the budget commitments made last week will not get support from the Liberal Party. Of course, they are joining a long line of Liberal members who oppose this. The shadow minister for health did not even turn up to the opening of the Strathpine superclinic in his electorate. He might have been busy looking at investments that had to be made! He did not even bother to be there.
Not every Liberal MP has given the superclinics program the cold shoulder. In fact, many people on the other side have embraced this idea with open arms. I feel it is necessary to bring some photographic evidence of this fact. I think people should be aware and I should declare first in the parliament that in politics you are sometimes required to do things that you never anticipated you would be required to do. I need to show this photograph taken at the opening of the Port Stephens superclinic. There are three people in it. One of them is Labor’s candidate for Paterson, Jim Arneman. He has a big smile on his face. The reason he has a big smile on his face is he was present at the last election when this commitment was made. He is our candidate again and I am sure he, as well as everyone on this side of the House, is delighted that these commitments are being delivered. Not surprisingly, as the health minister I was there at the opening of the superclinic. I did say that not everyone has given the superclinics the cold shoulder. I do need to provide this photo to the House.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! I think the minister has got the message across.
I did think it was necessary to preface the showing of that photograph with the confession that in politics sometimes you do do things that you never expected you would ever do. There is of course a very serious point to this. There is a reason the member for Paterson was so happy about the superclinic opening in his electorate and there is a reason that communities around the country want these superclinics, and that is that they provide essential services to communities that need them.
You may not trust the photographic evidence. Perhaps the reason the member for Newcastle asked this question is that she was watching NBN TV on the night that the opening occurred. Of course, the member for Paterson was quoted on television as saying, ‘This has my absolute support,’ as indeed it should have. But, unfortunately, 23 additional communities and more than 400 GP practices across the country will not be able to have that benefit because, despite the member for Paterson’s words, the rest of the Liberal Party will not support these investments. The Leader of the Opposition, when the Minister for Health and Ageing, pulled a billion dollars out of our hospital system and he is fast already pulling the next billion out with the commitments that they have made in their budget reply.
So you do certainly get a sense of ‘Here we go again in health’. If you put the Leader of the Opposition anywhere near a health budget, you lose a billion dollars like that. Communities cannot afford this. GP superclinics are good for the community, as the member for Paterson clearly knows. I have taken the liberty of preparing a small gift for him to display in his office of the opening of the superclinic. I hand it over to him now.
Opposition members interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
Order! I find myself in an unexpected situation, but the mirth will come to order as well.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the claim he made earlier in question time that the undergraduate research paper from the University of North Carolina was a paper from the reputable National Bureau of Economic Research. I ask whether it is not true, Prime Minister, that the paper was posted on the bureau’s website with the disclaimer:
The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Will the Prime Minister correct the record or allow his false claim to stand?
I thank very much the member for Goldstein for his question. If he would care to consult his press secretary, he would find that there is a statement on this matter which I think has been issued by the Treasurer today. I am sure the press secretary is busy with other matters at the moment, but he could pop it into the in-tray. The statement says the analysis is co-authored by Professor Douglas Shackelford and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It goes on to make a series of statements about the number of Nobel prize winners et cetera from the NBER. It goes on to say that the analysis has been commented upon by some—
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is a serious question because it goes to the misleading of the parliament. The Prime Minister specifically tried to leave the impression that this was a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research and it was not.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. That is not a point of order, and the Prime Minister is responding to the question.
I am further advised that the analysis is published with acknowledgements to many other leading authorities and refers to a bunch of other institutes including those who participated in the 2009 Institute for Fiscal Studies European Tax Policy Forum Conference et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. The paper from the Treasurer that the Prime Minister was referring to made absolutely no reference to the principal author, Mr Markle.
The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The member knows that he cannot come to the dispatch box on a point of order and then start debating. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. On a point of order earlier, there was an indication of the seriousness of this matter, but those on my left have continued to interject throughout the whole answer. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence.
I very much welcome the question from the member for Goldstein because it goes to the whole debate about what constitutes a fair return for mining interests in this country. On this debate about a fair return for mining companies —
Mr Dutton interjecting
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. To get a little bit of consistency back in the chamber, last week an expression was used which was preceded by the adjective ‘political’. After a little bit of argy-bargy, I agreed that that expression should be withdrawn. That does not permit that expression to be used in interjection and without the adjective without me now taking action in this particular sitting week. The member for Dickson will withdraw.
I withdraw.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence.
I welcome that interjection by the member for Dickson as I know he is a committed and declared shareholder of BHP.
As opposed to a fake!
Order! The member for Dickson is asked to leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Dickson then left the chamber.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to reconsider given the outrageous provocation from the Prime Minister of the member for Dickson, which he seems to be able to get away with. The member for Dickson responded and has been thrown out. I would ask you to reconsider.
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I have considered the matter and I have taken action. I remind all members on both sides of the tolerance I have shown over a number of matters. Again, I apologise to those who actually behave within the standing orders.
I would simply draw the member for Goldstein’s attention to the statement which was put out by the Treasurer this morning and commend his attention to the relevant paragraphs concerning the source of the report.
Mr Speaker—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Goldstein has approached the dispatch box. I am endeavouring to give him the call and those behind him are not assisting.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the draft paper by Mr Kevin Markle.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. How will the new Resource Super Profits Tax provide greater tax certainty for the mining industry in Australia?
I thank the member for Isaacs for his question. As I have said on a number of occasions over the past couple of weeks, tax reform has never come easy to Australia but it is the responsibility of the Australian government to actually take on this debate, a responsibility that the previous government shirked. I say that because the only sections of the Australian community arguing at the moment that the resources and petroleum sector in Australia should not pay higher taxation are the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition. In that context, can I say that we are well positioned to have this debate. Australia has come out of the global financial crisis in a very sound position. In many ways we are the envy of the OECD world.
The real debate is about how much tax is paid, who collects it and under what system. We should also remind one another that that is not just my view, it is also the view of many in the resources and petroleum sector in Australia. Let us go to the Minerals Council of Australia. This is what they have actually said about a profits based tax debate in Australia:
There is a strong argument to reform the basis of determining royalty payments to a profits based criteria from a revenue one.
I could not agree more with the Minerals Council of Australia. But I also appreciate that the devil is in the detail. That is why the government is engaged in a very serious process of consultation at the moment. With respect to the requirement of the resources and petroleum sector to pay more taxation in Australia, I remind you of what the CEO of Woodside, Mr Voelte, said on Radio National this morning:
In talking to the big miners and the mid cap miners I have not heard that they are not willing to negotiate a different tax and a higher tax back. They want to give a fair share back to the Australian citizens. The key is how you balance the right amount of money back to the citizens versus the economic return on billions and billions of dollars of investment.
I agree with Mr Voelte of Woodside. That is where we are at in this debate at the moment—the coalition is opposed to any tax reform in Australia whilst the government seriously engages industry with a view to actually getting the balance right. I say that because shareholders are entitled to a fair return for the purposes of their investments in Australia, but perhaps more importantly we should remind the coalition that so is the Australian community. They only get one chance to develop their finite resources. Those resources are 100 per cent owned by the Australian community.
I also remind the House that a number of major resource companies in Australia are also open to this debate. Let me go to what the CEO of BHP Billiton said on 9 May when he was asked, ‘But are you opposed to the resources rent tax in principle?’ He answered no and went on to say:
… we are not opposed to reform. We’re not opposed to any particular form of how that taxation takes place.
The reason for that is that the resources and petroleum sector and the Australian community now want some certainty for the purposes of the pipeline of investments that are in place potentially for Australia. They have had a gutful of state and territory governments lifting royalty rates from time to time to suit their short-term circumstances. The Minerals Council submission to the Henry tax review argued for a profits based tax system in Australia to create that certainty. I simply say that I agree with the mining industry. We require certainty. The tax announcements of the government will change that. Yes, they will tax profits at an appropriate rate, but they will also provide certainty and flexibility because you will only pay taxes on the basis of the profits you make.
In that context, I refer to an earlier question by the member for Groom who, I might say, should know better. He should go away and re-examine the question given to him by the Leader of the Opposition that he asked today. Clearly that question was carefully choreographed, yet we do not know, from time to time, whether he is telling the truth or not. Let us go to the oil and gas sector tax. That has created certainty in Australia. I remind the member for Groom and the Leader of the Opposition about the introduction of that tax. It goes to the issue of certainty. Esso and BHP actually chose to transition into the petroleum resource rent tax system of Australia, under which the life of the Bass Strait oil and gas reserves was extended for decades.
Then he goes to the question of the long-term nature of these investments. Let us go to the issue of Pluto, an investment decision made in 2007. Pluto will export LNG from Australia in the financial year 2010-11. Let us go to the biggest ever LNG investment in Australia. Let us go to the biggest ever single investment in the history of Australia—Gorgon. Gorgon will export LNG from Australia in the financial year 2015-16. We had a debate 25 years ago about the need for tax certainty in Australia—an investment horizon that created attractiveness for investment in Australia whilst creating long-term opportunities for shareholders. Let us go to the nature of that tax in the Gorgon LNG investment decision. I refer to some comments made in Western Australia on the occasion of that investment. I remind the House of what the Chevron vice-chairman, George Kirkland—not known to the Leader of the Opposition because he finds economics and investment in Australia boring but at least known to the member for Groom—said:
There’s no doubt … this positions Australia very, very strongly in the gas world. It really and truly does.
He then went on to say:
The good news is Saudi Arabia is all about oil, and what we’re seeing in Australia is all about gas.
… … …
Asia has been growing, growing significantly. And where’s Australia? Great position to really deliver on a cost advantage basis, that market.
He went on to say:
… for Chevron we have four focus exploration areas of the world that we push the predominance of our exploration money. Western Australia is one of those and we feed our exploration budget here very well, and we’re going to continue to feed it very well, because we have the view that we can grow the resources here …
That is because we took on a debate 25 years ago. It was a debate which ensured we had certainty in the tax regime in Australia for the resources and petroleum industry and a debate which ensured the Australian community got a fair return for the development of their resources—100 per cent owned by the Australian community.
That is why this government, unlike the opposition, who should have done this over the previous decade, is committed to putting in place a resources rent tax that provides for the broad development of the Australian resource community and creates efficient and effective mining but also ensures a better return for the Australian community. I simply say to the resources and energy sector and the petroleum sector: there is a genuine process of consultation underway; we are interested in the issues that you are raising; and we are absolutely committed to getting it right. Unlike the opposition, we believe in investment certainty and the right of the Australian community to get a fair return on their investments. The only people arguing against higher taxation for the resources sector in Australia are Tony Abbott and the opposition, because all they are interested in are grubby donations from certain sectors of the Australian community.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: obviously the opposition take offence at that last phrase of the minister and we ask him to withdraw it in the interests of the House.
The use of one word makes this a borderline case and, on the basis of that one word, I would ask the minister to withdraw.
I withdraw, Mr Speaker, but I stand by my comment about their interest in donations.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Flinders will contain himself. The member for Leichhardt will also contain himself or he and the member for Flinders can go outside and have a cup of tea. The minister will withdraw.
I withdraw.
The minister has withdrawn.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statements of the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, based solely on the paper of a student from the University of North Carolina, that the effective tax rate of Australian mining companies is between 13 and 17 per cent. Is the Prime Minister aware that the paper is in draft form, that the paper does not include royalties and other business taxes, that the paper is not designed as a policy tool and that the student author, Kevin Markle, who has not yet graduated, is involved in a website that claims ‘I love taxes’?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! I take it the question was asked as a serious question. I therefore expect that the Prime Minister would be allowed to respond in silence.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and where is the member for Goldstein’s press secretary when you need him. He digs himself in on a question about which the opposition are most sensitive, which is the actual level of taxation paid by the Australian mining industry. He refers in particular to the publication from the NBER, and he says that the NBER does not publish these sorts of publications. One piece of information I have from the National Bureau of Economic Research is an NBER publication by Douglas Shackelford of June 2009 entitled, Do multinationals or domestic firms face higher effective tax and rates? written with Kevin S. Markle. That is what it says—with him. That is actually listed under NBER publications by Douglas Shackelford.
What I find stunning about the use of question time for this purpose is that it actually seeks to mask the opposition’s refusal to engage in the substance of the debate, which is the best form of taxation for the Australian mining industry. Firstly, what grows the industry over time? Our answer is a profits based tax; not a volumes based tax. Secondly, we have the example of the PRRT as to how it has worked over time. Now by their questions they are walking away from the PRRT. Thirdly, with the RSPT we bring in a new system of proposed taxation which provides an upfront assistance to industries to offset their costs involved in the initial investment in order to broaden the base of the industry. That is what we are seeking to do. This is the basis of the reforms that we are advancing and the projections contained in the papers provided by the Treasury and the Econtech modelling, which underpin that the long-term growth of the industry increases by 5.5 per cent as a result of these reforms.
Those opposite, consistent with their engagement on every matter of policy—whether it is health policy, education policy or any other form of policy including Work Choices—are negative, consistently attacking and never provide an alternative. I would just draw their attention, again, to the former head of the Liberal Party, Dr John Hewson, and his remarks, the former head of the New South Wales Liberal Party, Mr Brogden, and his remarks and also to the earlier endorsement of the PRRT by the former Treasurer of Australia, Peter Costello.
Order! The member for Goldstein on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the evidence based policy.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. How will the government’s stronger and fairer superannuation reforms benefit young people? What threats are there to Australia building a world-class retirement income system?
I thank the member for Fowler for her question. The reforms announced by the government do act on our commitment to improve our superannuation system and ensure that some of the social dividend from the mining boom is directly channelled into national savings. This is a long-term economic reform which will have long-term benefits.
I am asked by the member for Fowler about those benefits for young people. I can inform the House that an 18-year-old entering the workforce today will be $200,000 better off at retirement because of these reforms. This is important when you consider the amount of time that 18-year-old will need to spend in retirement. The expected time spent in retirement, because we are all living longer, will almost double from 1960 when it was 12.5 years to 22.4 years when we get to the year 2050. When it comes time for today’s 18-year-olds to retire from the workforce they will need enough retirement income to last at least 22 years. It stands to reason that those who will be in the workforce longest under this reform system will be those who benefit very substantially.
The member for Fowler asked me what threats there are to Australia building a world-class retirement income, and the threat sits opposite. Last week the opposition got around to announcing their response to the budget. In their own special way they responded to the government’s budget. The member for Goldstein released a list of things that would be cut. This list confirmed that the opposition opposes the increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent. They oppose the re-funding of the contributions tax to low income earners, and they oppose allowing people over 50 to make concessional top-up payments to their superannuation funds. They also oppose paying workers aged between 70 and 75 superannuation.
It was this last one that really got my attention. I get a lot of letters about this from older workers in the workforce saying, ‘Why should we be discriminated against just because we turn 70? Why shouldn’t we receive superannuation payments?’ The government considered this and, in order to encourage workforce participation and in order to deal with this discrimination, we announced that we will change the law and will have superannuation guarantee payments for people aged 70 to 75. The opposition oppose this as part of their savings measures. I thought this was a bit curious because this measure does not cost the government any money. They included as a savings measure the abolition of a measure which does not cost money because people who receive superannuation payments for the first time pay tax and this will increase government revenue by $15 million. So the opposition hate superannuation so much that they use as a savings measure the abolition of a measure which will actually make the government money. That is how much they are opposed to the retirement incomes of Australians. This takes their sloppiness to new heights.
Their inconsistencies do not end there. One month ago the shadow minister for superannuation—and, yes, there is one; it is the member for Cowper—gave a speech to the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees. It was a scripted, written speech. As far as we know the member for Cowper might have even rehearsed in front of the mirror, so we should have been able to take what he said as the gospel truth. He said that the opposition in government would allow people over 50 to make concessional top-ups to their superannuation payments. That was a commitment from the shadow minister for superannuation. It lasted one month.
On 19 April this was announced as policy by the shadow minister for superannuation. On 19 May, the shadow minister for finance announced this was no longer opposition policy; it had been discontinued. It lasted a month. Their commitment to people aged over 50 lasted a month. How inconsistent can you be? But the Leader of the Opposition is probably very pleased with this. He is probably pleased with the inconsistency. I noticed in the Financial Review today the former Leader of the Opposition and former Leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson—somebody who knows the current leader very well—said that the Leader of the Opposition thinks:
… consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
That is the view of the Leader of the Opposition, and that was just before John Hewson said:
Tony is genuinely innumerate—
that he finds economics ‘boring’—
He has no interest in economics and he has no feeling for it.
That is what Professor John Hewson thinks of the current Leader of the Opposition. That is what he thinks of his economic skills. So we should not be surprised about this inconsistency and this complete lack of economic policy skills from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer, who together are the weakest frontbench economics team from opposition in living memory. But we will not be distracted by the inconsistency and the myopia of those opposite. We will continue with our policy of improving the retirement incomes—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is on relevance and indeed the common-sense rule applying to whether the answer is relevant. I draw your attention to page 555 where it simply says that lack of provision in the standing orders relating to answers does not preclude you making a decision and a determination that it is clearly relevant. The minister should sit down.
Order! Whilst I cannot read my own handwriting for the last part of this question, I was acting in the belief that the minister was being relevant to that aspect. But having said that, I am sure that he is bringing his answer to a very quick conclusion.
It fell to the Labor Party in the 1990s to introduce a national superannuation scheme, against the opposition of the Liberal Party. It now falls to the Labor Party to strengthen the national superannuation scheme in a reform that will have lasting benefits for decades.
My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to the mining companies BHP and Shenhua Coal, and their coal exploration licences on the Liverpool Plains in the electorate of New England. The Prime Minister would be aware of the widespread concerns of these potential projects on the enormous groundwater reserves and the alluvial floodplains of the region and the Murray-Darling system. Given recent statements in China that Shenhua Coal would eventually mine under the floodplain and the Mooki River, and given that Shenhua Coal is refusing to await the results of an independent water study, which is partly funded by the Commonwealth government, would you, Prime Minister, visit this area and see for yourself the unique geographical and hydrogeological features of this area and the associated risks to the Murray-Darling system?
I thank the member for New England for his question. I am familiar with the company, Shenhua, and I have known of its operations for many, many years. The particular project that the honourable member refers to in his part of Australia I am not familiar with. But I have listened very carefully to his question and he goes to the core point of environmental approvals. I do not know what stage those approvals are at and the extent to which they currently involve both the state and federal governments, given that it involves not just the water system but I presume other environmental dimensions as well. On the question of statements made by Shenhua from Beijing on this, that it is their predisposition to proceed with this project prior to approvals being granted, prima facie I would find that unacceptable in terms of the provisions of Australian law. However, as the member has raised it, I will go into the detail of the matter and report back to him separately on it. As for visiting the area, given he has raised it in this place, either I or another minister of the government, as appropriate, will seek to visit the area with the honourable member to ascertain what the best way forward is.
My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Leichhardt seems to have a fan club that gees him on every time. Please, can he get his question out.
Will the minister advise the House of the outcomes from his recent visit to China and any implications for Australia’s trade and economic performance?
I am in his fan club because he is a very strong advocate for his area of the importance of trade, in particular the relationship with China. The recent visit had three purposes. The first was the annual economic dialogue that we engage in with China, now Australia’s largest trading partner and the fastest growing nation in the world. As nations, our two economic areas of activity are intricately entwined. The economic dialogue provided the opportunity not just to review where we are at but also to talk about how we could strengthen that relationship, in particular diversify it. We had good discussions about opportunities in the services sector and in advanced manufacturing. It was a very rewarding dialogue indeed.
The second part of the visit was to continue what we have referred to as the second-track approach to China. Members would be aware that we have not yet been able to conclude the free trade agreement, but we are making progress. The important thing though is that we have not let this deter us from looking for commercial opportunities in key regions and key cities in China. I visited the Shandong province and the governor from that province is going to visit this country later this year. They are very keen to develop an MOU with the Australian government as a region on the basis of key areas of their interest. We look forward to that visit. That engagement with the Shandong province builds on many more engagements that we have already had and under which we have signed six MOUs with various cities and regions within China.
The third dimension of the visit was to visit the Australian pavilion at the largest expo ever held in the world being held in Shanghai at the moment. The Australian pavilion is a magnificent structure. It was formally opened by the foreign minister. This pavilion is now receiving up to 40,000 visitors a day, close to 800,000 visitors have already gone through and the Australian draw on a daily basis is in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. It is one of the most visited pavilions in the whole of the expo site. Beyond it being a striking feature and a drawcard in its own right, the Australian pavilion has been an important platform on which Australia has engaged some of the key sectors I have spoken of before. We conducted forums in relation to financial services, sustainable building and urban design, as well as the auto sector. Sustainable building is a vital area of opportunity. In the next two decades, China is going to have to house 300 million people. This will be the biggest urban development in the history of the world and they are looking to countries such as Australia to advise them on smart buildings, clean energy, recycling and clever design. So those platforms are particularly important. The expo also provided us with the opportunity to launch internationally ‘Brand Australia’, an exciting new concept which will present, in a multifaceted way, the great things Australia does on so many different fronts. More than just a tourist destination, this is a great place to invest, to do business and to trade on so many fronts.
It was a very worthwhile visit. There will be many more to that part of the world. China, as I said at the outset, is our largest trading partner at the moment. It is going to have a significant bearing on the economic future of this country, as is Australia on theirs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to today’s comments by insulation small-business owner Ms Kellie Jackson of Albury:
He, Mr Rudd, has ruined an industry and is getting away with it. I came to Canberra on February 24th where he met installers and promised them he would fix it. I came back on 30 April to let him know that he hadn’t fixed it. Now insulation installers from across this country are going to Canberra to let the government know it is not okay.
I note that neither the Prime Minister nor any other minister was available this time to meet with installers such as those now in the gallery. Will the Prime Minister apologise to Kellie Jackson and other legitimate installers for both misleading them and sending longstanding small businesses broke?
I thank the honourable member for his question. When the various installers were here in Australia some time ago, we did indicate that there would be a replacement scheme.
Opposition members interjectingWe are in Australia, yes!
Order!
We did indicate when they were here in Canberra that there would be a replacement scheme. We also indicated at the time that safety would be first priority. That is why, having commissioned the Hawke review and obtained its recommendations, it was decided, based on those recommendations, that we should not proceed with the replacement scheme because safety could not be guaranteed. I draw honourable member’s attention also to the fact that we have now committed $56 million to assist insulation workers and companies affected by the closure of the Home Insulation Program. I also draw attention to the fact that the member for Flinders has also supported the government’s decision to cancel the program.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women. How is the government tackling housing affordability for working Australians and their families? What are the government’s housing programs delivering in my state of Western Australia?
I want to thank the member for Hasluck for her question. She knows, as well as people on this side of the House, that housing affordability is intricately and directly linked to housing supply. We have not been building enough homes across Australia for at least a decade now. Because of that, we have seen price pressure both on homes for people to buy and on homes for people to rent. Of course the previous government ignored this problem for 11 years. The only real moves they made in housing were to cut $3 billion from housing programs during 11 years in government.
In contrast, since coming to government we have helped almost a quarter of a million young Australians into a home of their own through the first home owners boost. In the member for Hasluck’s state, Western Australia, the number is 28,800 first home buyers who have been helped by the first home owners boost. We have also supported the building of thousands of affordable rental properties through our National Rental Affordability Scheme and other programs. I have been very pleased with the uptake of the National Rental Affordability Scheme. In fact, in the first two rounds of the scheme we have approved 11,000 National Rental Affordability Scheme properties. In this current round, round 3, which is open until the end of August, we have so far received eight applications from right across the country for over 12,000 National Rental Affordability Scheme incentives. I am very pleased to inform the House today that the first major proposal in round 3 is from Western Australia, from a wholesale company called Yaran, which specialises in affordable housing projects. They are building across 47 sites, right across WA, more than 1,100 new homes for Western Australians which will be offered at affordable rentals.
Of course that is terrific news for those families in Western Australia. The homes are spread right across the Perth region. Yaran is the name of the company, and the homes are spread right across the Perth region from Mandurah in the far south to Merriwa in the outer north. The projects are proposed for regional areas like Denmark, Mount Barker and Bridgetown in the south-west as well, and I am sure that the member for Hasluck is very happy to know that up to 170 of these new homes will be in her electorate alone. That goes with the 20 homes in the first two rounds of the National Rental Affordability Scheme at Gosnells and Midland and with the 53 homes built through the stimulus package—social housing homes, including the 16 that we have visited together, which were being built for seniors in Gosnells. So there are 243 new rental homes for the member for Hasluck’s seat as part of about 4,000 new rental properties right across Western Australia. And it is not just the new rental properties; it is new homes to buy. Through the Housing Affordability Fund we will see a total of $31½ million going to WA for 13 projects, saving homebuyers in Western Australia around $16½ thousand on about 1,820 new homes and housing lots.
In the Hasluck electorate, the City of Gosnells has received over a million dollars from the Housing Affordability Fund, and 100 homebuyers will receive discounts of around $11,000 each on their homes. This is a massive investment in housing right across WA, a state that desperately needs affordable rental housing and affordable homes for people to buy. This investment means more homes sooner and better affordability for those Western Australians who want a home to buy, to live in or to rent.
My question is to the Minister for Education. Can the minister explain why, under the school hall program over which she has presided, a cubbyhouse canteen, like this one at the Orange Grove Public School, could cost taxpayers $25,000 per square metre yet not be able to fit a stove, but a canteen like this one at Holy Trinity Catholic School costs only $2½ thousand a square metre and even has space for coldrooms? Does the minister understand why people like Rick Bennett, P&C chair at Tottenham Central School, whose government-issue canteen cost $600,000 and cannot fit a fridge, could be absolutely, bloody gutted by the waste and mismanagement of the school hall rip-off program?
I thank the shadow minister for education for his question, and I await his explanation of the $425 million they want to rip out of quality teaching and the more than $3 billion they want to rip out of education after having governed for almost 12 long years, a wasted decade. But, on the question that the shadow minister has asked me, I will take some advice from the Attorney-General about whether he has breached the copyright of the Australian newspaper. Should it turn out that he has breached that copyright, then I am sure that publishers of the Australian newspaper will take the appropriate action. Having seen the story in the Australian newspaper from which the photograph has come and which has just been held up to the House, I read the words in the newspaper as well.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mrs Hull interjecting
Order! Has the member for Riverina finished?
Yes.
Order! The member for Menzies has the call on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. This is just waffle. It is not relevant. You should draw her back—
Order! The member for O’Connor, on the point of order?
No, Mr Speaker, you have just been witness to remarks which, I believe, are a breach of privilege and I ask you to report to the House on that matter. It was a direct threat of a legal attack. This House has dealt with this on a previous occasion.
The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. I am pretty sure that there is not a prima facie case, but I will have a look at it. If he does not hear back from me, I stand by that point.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Order! We will not apply ‘phone-a-friend’. We will have fifty-fifty, and 50 per cent of you will be out! There was a point of order from the member for Menzies, and to that point of order I would caution that there was reference to a program. It may have been placed in such an argumentative way that people might not have realised that. The Prime Minister—the Deputy Prime Minister—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order! Order! It is now time for me to phone a friend! But anyway, on the point of order, the argument having been allowed by me in the question in contravention of the standing orders, there is a little bit of leeway in the answer. The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question.
If only they put such energy into developing policies and their budget reply! Coming back to the question from the shadow minister for education, brought to you by the Australian newspaper, yes, I did see the story. Of course, as I have said on the public record on a number of occasions, often the cost comparisons we see published are not correct. But I am very determined that we see value for money. I want every dollar that goes to schools to make the biggest difference for schools. That is why I have appointed the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce, led by a leading Australian businessman, Brad Orgill, to focus on these questions. I say to the members opposite: if they actually have any serious concerns they should research them themselves, as opposed to just reading things in the media. If they ever spend just one minute doing any work and if they actually have a complaint then they can raise it with the implementation task force.
On the matter of photographs and Building the Education Revolution, I am very happy to say to the House that I have some photographs, and I would love to see them in the Australian newspaper. In this photograph we have the member for Fairfax breaking into song because he is so happy, at the opening of a Building the Education Revolution project in his electorate, at Kenilworth State Community College.
Order! The Deputy Prime Minster has made her point.
There he is, sitting next to the President of the Senate, John Hogg. Once again, he is very happy to be there, at the opening of a Building the Education Revolution project. I look forward to seeing that photo in the Australian. But then there are some members—
Mr Speaker—
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat. Before giving the call to the member for Sturt, can I say that it is not usual to give advisory rulings. In fact, I try not to do that. But I would suggest to him that he does not, as part of his point of order, try to supplement it by showing things, as he is attempting to do at the moment. So he will place his props back on the dispatch box.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. At least my props were relevant to the question. The Deputy Prime Minister’s props have absolutely nothing to do with the answer to the question.
The member for Sturt will resume his seat. He has made his point. The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question.
Obviously, what we never see on display from the shadow minister is intelligence or policy other than cutbacks. But, in conclusion, there are some members of the opposition who are so exhausted from turning up at all of their Building the Education Revolution openings—to try and associate themselves with a program that they have opposed in this place—that some of them, like the member for Gilmore, actually send a staff member to the sod-turning because it is all just too much for them to get to every opening. That is the real picture from the opposition on Building the Education Revolution.
Honourable members interjecting—
On the assumption that the interjections were not broadcast, I am ignoring them, but on some occasions I will not do that.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Why has the government prioritised upgrading the national rail freight network? How will this benefit regional Australia? How is this investment being received?
I thank the member for Page for her question and indeed for her welcome back to the electorate of Page last week, where I announced community infrastructure projects in Grafton and Kyogle. Later that day I was in Parkes, announcing a project in Moree. The member for Parkes chose a different path. He was in Moree in the morning, but he left before we made the announcement giving grants in Moree.
An opposition member—He didn’t hear you were coming.
He did hear I was coming. I rang him, as I always do.
The Rudd government’s third budget injected an additional $1 billion into the Australian Rail Track Corporation. Last Thursday I visited Broken Hill, a place where investment and jobs are welcomed. As result of our record investment, we will see re-railing and re-sleepering from Broken Hill to Parkes in the east and re-railing from Broken Hill to Whyalla in the west, not only creating jobs directly in construction but also creating jobs in manufacturing. Overall, 600 jobs will be created, through that project, in regional Australia. We have now more than quadrupled our investment in rail. It has been welcomed in other parts of regional Australia as well, where two-thirds of our $37 billion nation-building infrastructure investment is going. We are creating jobs, strengthening local communities and building the transport infrastructure that will secure our prosperity for the long term.
After this announcement last Tuesday, I waited with some anticipation for the opposition leader’s budget reply. I must say I was somewhat disappointed. I waited because I thought we were going to get a considered, well thought out, well-structured, gospel truth statement from the opposition leader. We did get that. After he had been part of a government that presided over an infrastructure deficit and ignored 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank, the number of mentions of infrastructure made by the Leader of the Opposition in the opposition’s budget reply speech was exactly zero. I thought, ‘Given that he’s flicked it to the shadow Treasurer, we might get something of substance about infrastructure, dealing with capacity constraints and growing productivity from the shadow Treasurer in the National Press Club speech.’
The shadow treasurer did manage to mention infrastructure during his National Press Club debacle. He did at least get to it. He made four comments about infrastructure. The first thing he said was that he had what he thought was a new idea: he would actually get an incoming government to undertake an audit of Australia’s infrastructure needs. Sound familiar? Done—done by the Rudd government, done by Infrastructure Australia. The first thing they did was an audit of Australia’s infrastructure. They reported to the Council of Australian Governments in December 2008—tick, done.
I go to the second thing that the shadow treasurer said. He said they would ‘better utilise existing infrastructure’. If he had actually read the report, he could have read page 28 and the chapter on—wait for it—better use of existing infrastructure. Done. He had a third position in this great announcement, having done nothing for 12 years. He said they would look at access in terms of infrastructure. He could have gone to section 2.4A, ‘Open access to infrastructure’, in the audit report.
Then he said a fourth thing. He said they would work with the private sector to help address the infrastructure deficit that the Howard government had left behind. He could have gone to pages 72, 73 and 74, the whole chapter about financing of infrastructure, including how you mobilise private-sector infrastructure financing. Or he could have welcomed the changes that we made in the budget to provide incentives for private investment in corporate bonds for infrastructure—in the budget on Tuesday night, ignored by those opposite. But instead we got absolutely no new ideas, no new initiatives and no alternative proposals.
When the pass-the-parcel game ended with the member for Goldstein finally making a statement, it was plain to see that there is no funding for the promises that the coalition has been making locally in electorates right around the country. We know from the finance minister’s answer that they have got a disclaimer: disregard all previous comments; all previous commitments are not worth anything. They are worth as much as a statement from the Leader of the Opposition. So no funding for the members for Gippsland, Gilmore, Wide Bay, Maranoa and Dickson. They have all been out there promising major infrastructure spending and we now know that that is all gone.
There is one thing that was in the statement. Members would recall that during the last sitting week I made a statement about the commitment by one of the former ministers for infrastructure to the Toowoomba bypass. I informed the House that that was worth $1.75 billion. How do we know it is worth $1.75 billion? Because after the member for Groom promised in his first election campaign that he would deliver on this and mentioned it in his first speech, they did nothing about it until 2006. Then they set up an inquiry to look at costings of this road, the Toowoomba bypass. It was their costings that costed it at $1.75 billion, yet in the document they have allowed $280 million. The bypass has become a footpath. You cannot build the Toowoomba bypass for $280 million. You are treating the Australian people like mugs. Those opposite could not walk away completely from their commitment so they came up with $280 million. Phony Tony and his colleagues are treating the Australian public like mugs. They say one thing in their electorate but they do something else when they come here.
Mr Speaker—
Order! In expectation of the point of order from the member for Canning, the Leader of the House will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.
I will indeed, Mr Speaker. On Wednesday of this week I was due to debate the fourth shadow minister for infrastructure at the National Press Club. This is a bloke who never misses an opportunity—he does not have an office in Parliament House; he lives at Sky News, in the studios. But he will not debate me about infrastructure at the National Press Club because they are simply unaccountable.
Swanny won’t debate me either.
I wouldn’t raise the National Press Club if I were you, Joe. I wouldn’t raise it, mate. It is a nightmare.
Order! The minister should refer his remarks through the chair and refer to members by their titles.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The point is relevance but it is also outrage. It is time that this little idiot carried on like a minister of the Crown—
The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. There is no point of order on outrage. On relevance, whilst the minister is being relevant to the question, I would expect that he is now getting to a conclusion.
To assist the shadow treasurer and the latest shadow minister for infrastructure, I table the Infrastructure Australia audit already done and reported to COAG.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a statement on indulgence concerning the sinking of the Republic of Korea naval vessel the Cheonan. Members would be aware that the stability of North-East Asia has been threatened recently by the actions of the North Koreans. On 26 March the South Korean naval corvette the Cheonan was sunk, with the loss of 46 lives. In response to that tragic event the government of South Korea launched an international investigation into the circumstances of the sinking. This was a prudent and considered response. Australia, along with the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Canada, participated in the Republic of Korea led investigation into the causes of the sinking. Five Australian Defence Force personnel assisted with the investigation. Australia’s agreement to provide this assistance reflects the importance of security in North-East Asia to our own interests.
The results of the joint international investigation were announced on 20 May. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the Cheonan was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine. The conclusions drawn by the international investigation team represent an objective and scientific analysis of the evidence. This evidence is compelling. It includes the fact that the damage to the hull of the Cheonan was caused by a large external underwater explosion beneath the vessel consistent with damage from a heavy torpedo. Further, remnants of the torpedo were found on the sea floor in the vicinity. Third, the torpedo was identified as belonging to North Korea, as it matched a North Korean torpedo previously obtained by the South Koreans as well as blueprints of a torpedo design North Korea had previously tried to export. Also, Korean script was found on one of the torpedo parts.
I spoke to President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea on 20 May to reiterate Australia’s condolences for this tragic event and to underline Australia’s solidarity with South Korea. I emphasised Australia’s condemnation of North Korea’s deplorable act and assured him that Australia would confer with South Korea and others, including the UN Security Council, on appropriate responses.
North Korea’s hostile and unprovoked attack in sinking the Cheonan represents a flagrant violation by North Korea of the United Nations Charter and the 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement that halted hostilities on the Korean peninsula. It is a challenge to peace and security on the Korean peninsula. Such conduct is completely unacceptable. The international community cannot let this act pass without an appropriate response.
President Lee, today, has announced the RoK response to the sinking. South Korea has shown admirable restraint. The measures he has announced are responsible ones that send a strong message to the DPRK. He has banned DPRK vessels from using the Cheju Straits, he has suspended inter-Korean trade and exchanges and he has said that the government will pursue a resolution in the UN Security Council. He has also reiterated South Korea’s principle of proactive deterrence. At the same time, he has demonstrated South Korea’s ongoing concern for the people of the North. He has said that his government will maintain humanitarian aid for infants and children in the DPRK and will consider ongoing cooperation in the Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea.
The Australian government stands by the government of the Republic of Korea at this testing time. We offer our condolences to the families of all those who have lost their lives in this terrible incident. The relationship between Australia and the RoK has a long history. Members of this place will be familiar with the sacrifice made by many Australian soldiers during the Korean War, some 340 of whom now lie buried at the United Nations War Cemetery in Korea.
We share a commitment with the Korean people to peace and stability in the Asian region. The actions of North Korea are deeply disturbing and deeply destabilising. What the region needs is dialogue and cooperation, not rash acts of aggression of the type that we have seen. In the days ahead, Australia will be conferring with South Korea, United States, Japan and other like-minded countries to determine the best way to take forward the international response to this incident.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I join with the Prime Minister in condemning the actions of North Korea and in complementing those members of the Australian Defence Force who were able to assist with the investigation. I also join with the Prime Minister in expressing solidarity with the South Korean people and I agree with him that the actions of the South Korean government in response seem appropriate.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports Nos 34 to 39 of 2009-10: No. 34, Performance audit: management and use of double taxation agreement information collected through automatic exchange; No. 35, Performance audit: administration of the Superannuation Co-contribution Scheme; No. 36, Performance audit: emergency management and community recovery assistance in Centrelink; No. 37, Performance audit: lightweight torpedo replacement project; No. 38, Assurance report: campaign advertising review July 2009-March 2010; and No. 39, Performance audit: Medicare Australia’s administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
—In accordance with the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the report of the Independent Auditor, dated May 2010, on a performance audit entitled Australian National Audit Office IT Performance Review.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
A document is presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members. Details of the document will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following document:Snowy Hydro Limited—Report—Financial report for the period 29 June 2008 to 4 July 2009.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
by leave—The government’s plan for a stronger, simpler, fairer tax system was announced three weeks ago. Since that time, it has been the subject of robust debate around the country—particularly on the Resource Super Profits Tax. We welcome this debate about the future of our economy, and we hope it continues. It is important that debate remains constructive—contributing to increased public understanding and a robust design for the RSPT. Inaccurate information and scare campaigns risk getting in the way of this, undermining the important work we must do to strengthen our economy and secure higher living standards for working families.
We must not lose sight of the key aim of the policy—to ensure a fairer share of the proceeds of the resources boom are invested in a stronger economy for all Australians. We will do this by replacing royalties with a Resource Super Profits Tax and directing the proceeds to higher retirement savings for Australians, more roads, rail and ports, and less business tax and red tape, especially for small business.
The Australian people own 100 per cent of Australia’s natural resources and they deserve a fairer share of the superprofits mining companies make, particularly during this boom. As these profits have risen in recent years the Australian people’s share of those profits has fallen. Before the last boom, the country got $1 in every $3 of mining profits through royalties and resource charges, but at the end of that boom that was down to just $1 in $7. It is impossible to justify a system where Australians pay proportionately more tax as their income goes up, while mining companies pay proportionately less as their profits go up. The companies have been unable to justify this, and I cannot let the situation stand.
Profits were over $80 billion higher in 2008-09 than in 1999-2000 yet governments only collected an additional $9 billion in revenue. The government simply wants to take the Australian people’s share of mining profits back to around where it was in the early 2000s. The Howard government was not overtaxing the resource sector then, and this government won’t either. In fact, we will get the same share with a more pro-investment tax structure.
The reforms will broaden and strengthen the economy, ensuring all sectors grow in a sustainable way that benefits all Australians. We must finally grapple with the policy failures of past mining booms by ensuring the resource and non-resource sectors grow together, not apart.
Of course, we have analysis to support this. Independent modelling by KPMG Econtech of the RSPT and the effective abolition of royalties says resource investment increases by 4.5 per cent, resource sector employment by seven per cent and resource sector output by 5.5 per cent. The modelling also shows that the tax reform package—including the RSPT and our cuts to company tax—will actually reduce the price of food and housing.
National conversation
In the last week I have travelled across most Australian states discussing the story of our budget, a story of our nation’s successful navigation of the global recession. I have also been discussing our economic plans for the future, including our important tax reforms.
I have met with big miners, and smaller miners. I have met with some of the people who will pay more tax given current high profits under our proposal. I have also met with many of the businesses who will pay less.
People have explained their concerns about how the last boom was handled, how capacity constraints and an infrastructure deficit choked growth. I have also spoken to South Australian and Victorian manufacturers, and Queensland tourism operators, who have outlined the challenges created for them when the dollar is high.
As a Queenslander, I recognise the particular importance of resources to my home state, but also to Western Australia. I have seen the problems of infrastructure deficits in cities and towns along the Queensland coast. My many visits to Western Australia have convinced me of the need to keep reinvesting in the resource-producing regions.
The government’s infrastructure fund is designed to do just this. It will provide a permanent structural source of funding for infrastructure, especially targeted at resource states and regions. It will start at $700 million in 2012-13, and grow over time, delivering more than $5.6 billion in additional funding over the next decade.
Countering the myths
I welcomed the opportunity over this past week to get out and engage directly with businesses, especially the mining sector. Now, I am the last person to stand here and tell this House that the miners are all thrilled with our plans. Those who will pay more tax are unhappy, and I will not whitewash that.
But you cannot make big reforms, and you cannot attempt to remedy the policy failures of past mining booms, while keeping everybody happy. It might be the job of those opposite to pretend you can, but government is a very different and a much harder business.
I used my time with miners this week to explain the core design features of our RSPT. I discussed with them that we were effectively abolishing royalties by refunding them against the RSPT. That the 40 per cent rate is fair because it gets us closer to where our tax take was in the past. It is also the rate of the existing resource rent tax that has been operating for 23 years.
Sometimes in these discussions I heard a few myths, and I want to deal with those now.
The first is that this tax threatens Australia’s economic prosperity.
Nobody disputes that the existing arbitrary and continually changing state royalty regimes result in less mining investment, fewer mining jobs and less mining production. Royalties tax production and ignore the costs involved in generating that output. Many of our mines shut down too early, while others can’t ever get off the ground. It also means we poorly manage our resources—we leave too many commercially viable resources in the ground, purely because royalties make them uneconomic.
Similarly, all reputable economists agree that resource rent taxes like the RSPT do not affect investment, jobs or production. I encourage members to read the article by Ben Smith from the Australian National University in today’s Canberra Times, or other pieces by Professor John Freebairn from the University of Melbourne and, of course, Professor Ross Garnaut.
Second, some have claimed the RSPT is a triple tax on mining.
The leader of the miners’ campaign, Clive Palmer, even talked about a 70 per cent tax. This is blatantly false and has never been substantiated. The RSPT will not be imposed on top of royalties and company tax. It will effectively replace royalties by providing firms with a refundable tax credit for royalties. Where royalty payments are higher than the RSPT liability, firms will get a cash refund for the difference.
The RSPT is also deductible against company tax. Regrettably, even some sophisticated commentators have talked about the theoretical maximum rate of 56.8 per cent as if every project will pay that rate. This is also incorrect for a number of different reasons.
One reason these estimates are wrong is that they ignore that the RSPT only taxes super profits, not all profits. If a project does not generate super profits it does not pay any RSPT. And it will benefit from a company tax cut to 28 per cent and the government refund on the royalties it pays.
Firms that have lower profit levels will have a lower effective tax rate—for example, on reasonable assumptions a project with a risk-free return of 15 per cent—still a very, very healthy return—might still have an effective tax rate of 45 per cent.
However, even this calculation is an overestimate, because it does not allow for the generous company tax concessions that mining companies already benefit from.
The effective company tax rate for mining companies is well below the statutory company tax rate. This is due to a range of concessions that benefit the mining industry, most particularly generous deduction concessions.
Independent research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, and co-authored by Professor Douglas Shackelford and Kevin Markle, looked at company tax concessions across industries and countries. They found that domestic mining companies in Australia face an effective rate of 17 per cent and multinationals face an effective rate of 13 per cent. That is well below the statutory company tax rate of 30 per cent.
Perhaps the most pervasive myth is that every return over six per cent will pay resource super profits tax. I regret to say this is a calculated and deliberate misrepresentation. If you hear a mining executive saying it, they are either lying to you or they are ignorant—either way it should be of concern to their shareholders.
It deliberately ignores three offsetting elements of the tax design. Royalties are rebated; RSPT is deductible against company tax; and the company tax rate is being cut. Once you add the combined effect of these elements, a project earning six per cent in fact pays substantially less tax under our reforms.
So for those—especially those opposite—who say the uplift factor is somehow a tax on entrepreneurialism, I say this: compare the RSPT to current royalties, which tax every dollar of return you get. But they don’t stop there. Royalties also tax your wage costs, your operating costs, this on top of applying to your investment costs. Royalties tax you before you even make a profit.
Another myth is that the economic impact of taxes depends only on how much money they raise. Every serious economic commentator understands that different taxes have different impacts, depending on how they are structured. A core finding of the independent tax review is that raising a dollar of revenue through different taxes has different impacts on growth. Royalties are one of the worst taxes for growth; resource rent taxes are one of the best.
Shifting revenue from royalties to resource rent taxes increases growth, including in the resource sector. This is because it reduces the tax paid by the smaller, more marginal mines, and increases how much we charge for the use of the highly profitable mineral deposits. And, because they are highly profitable, production will continue regardless.
That is why these reforms will improve our economy. The government’s very strong view—and the Treasury’s view—is that our reforms will grow the mining industry and the broader economy in the longer term. Again this is supported by independent economic modelling.
Investing the proceeds
So let us talk about the benefits of the package as a whole for a minute or two. All revenues from the RSPT will be used to deliver a stronger economy for Australian families. About a third of the package will directly assist the resources sector. This will be delivered through the resource exploration rebate and the new ongoing infrastructure funding.
Our plan will also improve the competitiveness of the entire economy. It will deliver a company tax rate cut for all companies. The general company tax rate will be cut to 29 per cent from 2013-14, and to 28 per cent from 2014-15. Small business will get a head start, with the rate cut to 28 per cent from 2012-13. Small business will also have access to instant write-off of assets up to $5,000 and a single depreciation pool for most other assets. These changes promote growth across the entire economy, giving some of our other industries a better chance to compete on the world stage, even with the continued success of our resource industry.
We are also determined that Australia should have something lasting to show from the sale of our non-renewable resources. We cannot squander the next boom like those opposite squandered the last one. That is why the government will boost national savings. We will boost savings through an increased superannuation guarantee, phased over 10 years. We will also boost savings by making superannuation concessions fairer for low-income earners, and we will provide more generous contribution caps for the over 50s looking to make catch-up contributions to their superannuation. And we will introduce a 50 per cent tax discount on interest income, including on deposits held with any bank, building society or credit union, as well as bonds, debentures and annuity products.
Nature of the debate
Let me comment on how this debate has played out over the past few weeks. As I said earlier, I did not expect our reforms to be greeted with singing miners in the streets. Nor did I expect any support for strong economic reform from an opposition that showed last week it has completely lost what little grip it ever had on economic policy. If you really want to judge whether to believe the Liberals’ scare campaign, look at what they do, not what they say. In the very week they were saying the mining industry would totally collapse, one of their most senior frontbenchers was buying shares in BHP because he thought they offered good long-term value.
But let me talk about the reaction from the sector more generally. I welcome Ross Garnaut’s call for a rational and reasoned debate on the RSPT—this of course is a call that has been echoed by John Hewson. As Professor Garnaut has said, the campaign against the RSPT has been long on rhetoric and threats and very short on reasoned argument. John Hewson has said that a lot of posturing is going on, but in policy terms this tax is right. Ben Smith, one of Australia’s leading resource economists, wrote today that:
… the natural reaction is to think that the industry’s predictions about its impact may well be correct. In fact, they are entirely false.
He goes on to say:
In fact, the only danger to future exploration and mining activity is the possibility that suppliers of finance might believe the industry’s rhetoric.
And David Buckingham, a former head of the Minerals Council, has lifted the veil on the hysterical scare campaign that some miners are still waging.
Company reactions
I have a lot of respect for the leaders of our business community. I do value their constructive input to any number of political debates. I say this publicly and I say it privately to them when we regularly meet or talk on the phone. I do expect a healthy degree of argy-bargy and brinkmanship with some people in business who do not want to give up any of their super profits. I understand their position. But even the mining bosses in their heart would know that there is a rolled-gold case for a fairer way to tax the industry. Their own submission called for a profits based tax.
Unfortunately, we have had a relatively small number of large companies choosing to conduct a vocal and public campaign. It has also been very strategic: companies have taken turns issuing threats to investment, so as to create maximum publicity for minimum share price impact on their own companies. They have also been careful to put projects on hold, rather than cancel them, again to minimise share market impact. They can always be taken off hold later when needed—as most think they will. As Professor Garnaut says, any project that is profitable before RSPT is profitable after. The opportunities from the mining boom are simply too big to ignore, even if the super profits are a little lower.
The government will not be swayed by a political campaign from the miners. So I call on companies to engage properly in the consultation process. The RSPT is not going away, but generous transitional arrangements will be put in place, as we have said all along.
These last three weeks have seen a few very noisy companies, and many more very quiet ones. I have been impressed by the quiet, professional engagement of some companies with our Resource Tax Consultation Panel. I do not think those companies like our RSPT any more than the noisy ones, but they do accept the right of the government to govern, and they accept our offer of consultation as genuine, and they are engaged with us in getting the implementation right.
Since our announcement of the policy, we have had more than 80 companies engaging with the Treasury consultation process. This is a serious commitment of time and effort by government and business. We believe that it is important that all companies engage so that all views can be taken into account.
Stronger Economy
Every business in Australia and every working family in every corner of Australia has a stake in sustainable and broad economic growth. Our tax package is expected to grow the economy by 0.7 per cent in the long run, boost investment by 2.1 per cent and reduce prices by 1.1 per cent.
I invite the House to compare this with the opposition’s policy to lift the company tax rate by 1.7 per cent. Our modelling shows this policy will reduce GDP by 0.2 per cent, reduce investment by 0.55 per cent and increase consumer prices by 0.25 per cent.
Australia has many significant economic advantages that can provide the foundation for growth and prosperity into the future, provided we get the policy settings right. This side of the House has a pro-growth, pro-investment policy to leverage Australia’s strengths, but that side does not.
Our substantial natural resources, strong growth in demand for our exports from countries in our neighbourhood and the quality and resilience of our people—as demonstrated most recently during the global financial crisis—give us cause for confidence that Australia’s best days lie ahead.
We are also confident that our reforms will maximise Australia’s opportunities while also meeting the challenges posed by the ageing of our population and shifts in the global economy that will see the return of boom conditions in our mining sector.
We never expected this tax to be applauded by every company, domestic or foreign. But we do expect our reforms to build a broader, stronger economy for working families and that, after all, is why we are all here.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for North Sydney to speak for 19 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Hockey speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 19 minutes.
Question agreed to.
The Treasurer today put the government’s case for a great big new mining tax on Australians. He has locked the government in. He has emboldened the government’s case for the tax. So be it—the battlelines are drawn. The coalition believes that this is a bad tax. We will oppose it as an opposition and we will rescind it in government.
The government’s case for this new tax is built on an enduring untruth. The economic rationale behind it is that it is an inefficient royalty system that is being replaced with a more efficient resources rent tax. It is claimed this will lead to greater investment in the industry and stronger growth. This argument might make some sense if the total tax take from the mining industry was unchanged, but this is not the case. The government’s own projections suggest that the new tax will increase net tax revenue by $3 billion in 2012-13 and $9 billion in 2013-14. This is a huge additional impost on the resources sector.
The ATO tables which I sought to table today but which the Prime Minister refused to recognise—the actual tables that record the dollars received by the government from the mining industry—tell the truth about the state of the contribution of the mining industry more generally. ATO table 8 states that the mining industry paid $8.1 billion in company tax in the 2007-08 financial year. In that year they also paid $3.9 billion in state government royalties. While company tax can be expected to rise over the next few years as a result of higher commodity prices and higher mining company profits, the additional tax take of $9 billion a year net represents a very significant additional impost on these companies. It is something like a 100 per cent increase in the contribution of the mining companies to the federal government. This is the bottom line. This is where the debate is at. The government will mouth weasel words about all sorts of transitional arrangements, but understand this: the bottom line is the government collecting nearly 100 per cent more in revenue from the mining companies each year as a direct result of this tax.
I note the government does not have the agreement of the states to abolish royalties. Royalties will still exist. We have been advised that companies will need to maintain four sets of books. Even though royalties will be rebated in part, the inefficiencies will remain. The royalty rebate applies only to royalties in place or foreshadowed on 2 May 2010. There is absolutely nothing to stop the states from lifting royalties from current levels. The government has not committed to refunding any additional royalties. If it does not, then the mining companies will pay twice and pay more—a much forgotten piece of the policy debate at the moment.
There is much debate about rates and transitional arrangements. It is still the case, even by the Prime Minister’s own claims, that anything above the long-term government bond rate of around six per cent is deemed a superprofit. The fact of the matter is that the long-term bond rate is seen as a riskless investment by investors. It is AAA rated and a six per cent return is clearly insufficient. Investors I have spoken to in the United States and the United Kingdom about international benchmarks declare that in the US they are looking for a 15 per cent after-tax return on investments and outside the US it is about 20 per cent in returns.
Even the appearance of Australia Post before Senate estimates today was quite telling. My colleague Senator Cormann asked, ‘Does that put Australia Post in the category of earning superprofits?’ Australia Post replied, ‘I wouldn’t have thought so, Senator.’ Senator Cormann then asked, ‘So you don’t think a return on capital of 12.2 per cent is a superprofit?’ Australia Post responded, ‘I wouldn’t have thought so, Senator.’ Senator Cormann asked, ‘Why not?’ The reply was, ‘I think it is a reasonable return on equity.’ So it is okay for Australia Post to have a return on equity of 12 per cent, but for anyone involved in mining where of course there are significant risks, which I will allude to a little later, that is deemed to be a superprofit.
The government claims that increasing the total tax take from an industry will lift investment and growth. It seems difficult to believe that lifting the tax take will lift economic activity. If that were the case, it would seem to be a simple policy decision to increase Australia’s economic growth through the simple expedient of raising taxes. There would be few commentators, if any, who would agree with that proposition. Indeed, I refer to BHP Billiton’s notice to the Australian Stock Exchange that in the year to 30 June 2009 their effective tax rate, including company tax royalties and production taxes, was 43 per cent. The average between 2004 and 2009 was 42 per cent. The government would have us believe that it is somewhere between 13 and 17 per cent. CEOs of small, medium and large sized companies have an obligation under section 181 of the Corporations Act to act in good faith—to tell the truth, effectively—and their statements to the Stock Exchange, from the larger ones at Fortescue right through to the smaller players, are all warning of the real impact of the government’s tax on declared projects. We can also look at the experiences of other countries which have suffered loss of investment and growth in the face of regulatory uncertainty.
This would all appear to indicate that an increase in taxation will be negative for the mining industry. The government’s own rhetoric seems to contradict its claims that an increase in taxation is to the benefit of business. The Treasurer notes that the cuts to company income taxes:
… promote growth across the entire economy, giving some of our other industries a better chance to compete on the world stage.
The coalition would not disagree with that. However, reducing taxes leaves more money in the hands of business for them to invest and create jobs. Reducing taxes lowers the dead hand of government on business. It seems inconsistent for the government to claim that increasing the tax take from the mining industry will lift investment and growth at the same time they claim that they have got to lower company taxes to stimulate investment and growth.
The Treasurer says that in the last week he has travelled across Australia discussing the government’s changes to taxation. I have also travelled across Australia over the past week discussing the proposed new super mining tax and I have received a very negative reaction to the tax. This was not just from the mining companies but also from the industries which service this sector such as manufacturing and services, from the workers who are employed in mines and associated activities such as transport, and from local government and state government officials. They were all very concerned about the impact of this tax on investments and jobs. I noted the Premier of Western Australia being repeatedly and outrageously verballed by the Prime Minister during question time today in that regard.
All of these business people, from small business to large business, are very concerned about the impact of this tax. They do not accept that this great big new tax will be good for their businesses or for their employment. The new tax will apply to all mining activities. It is not just the big companies which mine minerals in strong demand from offshore, such as coal and iron ore; it will also apply to gravel, sand, clay for bricks and rock for aggregate—the base materials which feed directly into Australian industry. Increasing the taxes on companies involved in other areas will reduce their profits. This will either cause them to absorb it or increase their prices—a simple equation. The increased prices will feed into the costs of building homes and factories. They will impact on every Australian. Unquestionably, it will lift the price of building homes, factories and infrastructure.
The government claims the mining industry does not pay its fair share of taxes. Data provided by the mining industry and based on ATO data shows that the mining industry’s average corporate tax rate on income was 27.8 per cent. Including royalties, that was lifted to an effective tax rate of 41.3 per cent, the highest of all industry sectors. This compared with an average across all industry sectors of 27.18 per cent. I note that the finance and insurance services sector—basically the banks—paid 21.5 per cent. Therefore, if this is a tax that other industries think will only apply to mining under Labor, they should think again.
The Treasurer claims the intention of the changes to the tax system is ‘to build a broader, stronger economy’. We certainly support that objective. During our last term in government, the coalition doubled the size of the economy. We did that through real tax reform, with the introduction of a broad based consumption tax and the elimination of a raft of inefficient state taxes. Reducing the number of taxes is real reform. Labor is not reducing the number of taxes; it is increasing the number of taxes. The coalition also boosted economic growth by keeping taxes low, by running surpluses, by repaying Labor’s debt, by reducing the regulatory drag on business and by reform of the financial system. Most importantly, we maintained an environment which encouraged foreign investment in Australia.
Since the announcement of Labor’s resource tax, there has been considerable disquiet expressed from commentators offshore. Moody’s Investors Service said on 17 May that the government changes to the taxation of the mining industry ‘could reduce earnings for firms by nearly a third after it takes effect in mid 2010’. They went on to say:
Australia’s mineral resources will stay put, but global producers such as BHP, with half its assets in Australia, and Xstrata, with a third, can decide whether to extract the minerals or shift some operations to lower-cost countries to avoid the higher tax regime.
The government has cast this tax as a justified way of recouping income from foreign shareholders who are in some way—outrageously, according to our Prime Minister—taking something that belongs to Australians. On 4 May, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
These massively increased profits … built on Australian resources are mostly in fact going overseas.
That is what the Prime Minister, who is meant to be encouraging investment, said.
The Treasurer continued this assault on the miners with his comments today that mining executives were either ‘lying’ or ‘ignorant’. I do not think this is the right way to treat someone from whom we want investment or dollars. The greatest bone the government is throwing to people it wants to invest in Australia is, ‘If you lose $100, we will give you $40 back.’ Anyone who has been on a roadshow, as I have, knows that, when you ask someone for $100, you want to give them more than $100 back. It is in fact no incentive at all to give someone the line: ‘Good news, guys! If you lose your money, you’ll get 40 per cent of it back.’ That is not a sell job. That is not something you can say to international investors, nor to Australian investors for that matter.
What the government forgets is that Australia is critically dependent on foreign capital. Australia has never had sufficient savings to finance the investment we need to build the country, to build business. Australia is currently importing $17 billion of capital every quarter from overseas investors. It is critically important that Australia do everything it can to preserve faith in Australia as a safe and dependable place to invest and do business.
We the coalition believe that you do not win a game by hampering your best-performing player. The mining sector is hugely important to our prosperity. It is an industry where Australia has an international comparative advantage. Mining accounts for nearly two-thirds of the value of Australia’s exports of goods and half of Australia’s total exports of goods and services. Mining directly employs 172,000 Australians. Most of these are in regional areas. In 2008-09, mining accounted for fully one-third of all business investment. The crucial importance of this for the Australian economy overall has been recognised by the RBA. In its May statement, it said:
… mining investment has been at record levels as a share of GDP and further increases are expected, with very large projects in the LNG, iron ore and coal sectors. This pick-up in investment will support growth in the Australian economy at a time when the boost from the earlier expansionary policy settings is diminishing.
Beyond these direct advantages of mining, there are huge economic benefits for associated industries such as manufacturing and various mining services. This new tax does not just hurt overseas shareholders—it hurts Australians. If you use a conservative industry price-earnings ratio of 10 to one, taking $9 billion a year from the industry’s earnings will reduce the net worth of companies which comprise the industry by around 10 times that number or $90 billion. This reduces the value of shares held by Australians.
The new tax regime also carries significant fiscal risk. The revenue gained from the resources industry will vary according to the cycles in demand and prices for commodities. The industry is currently riding a period of strong demand and high prices, but it is not always so. It was only 10 years ago, at the beginning of the 2000s the Treasurer referred to, that demand was weak and prices were low. The government has tied this new tax to a regime of spending which will inevitably rise over time. This is the point I made at the Press Club. This mismatch between ever-rising spending and cycles in resource revenue is building a structural imbalance into the budget. This is not responsible nor sensible fiscal management. In this respect, I note that the Treasurer said in his address today that he:
… wants to take the Australian people’s share of mining profits back to around where it was in the early 2000s.
That was a time when the mining industry was in the depths of one of its regular cyclical lows and there were plenty of mining engineers and geologists driving cabs around Perth. The industry has advised that this was a time when it was barely recovering the costs of its investment capital. This period is hardly a rational benchmark for determining an appropriate share of profits. We do not agree that entrenching that state of affairs would be good for the resources industry or for the nation.
There is another aspect to this new tax regime which increases the risk to Australian taxpayers—the proposal for the government to share in the losses as well as the profits from resource operations. The reason why we are reluctant at this stage to get into a debate about modelling is that the government keeps talking up transitional arrangements, which adds to the uncertainty for investors and leaves everyone wondering whether the government truly knows what it is doing. The best illustration of that is its commitment to pay for 40 per cent of the losses. The government will refund accumulated RSPT losses at the 40 per cent RSPT rate when projects are closed.
In the 2008-09 financial year, one major company closed an unsuccessful project with a write-off of US$3.6 billion. Under the Treasurer’s plan, this would have rendered the Australian taxpayers liable for up to US$1.6 billion of that loss. Note that in the parliament the week before last I asked the Treasurer exactly how much money is budgeted for to allow the government to write out cheques to those businesses that fail. The Treasurer refused to answer the question. The fundamental question is: is this Treasurer being honest with the Australian people? We know he is not, because a motion was passed by the Senate:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, no later than noon on Thursday, 13 May 2010, all modelling, costings, consultancy statements and other relevant documents used by the Government to inform its response to the ‘Henry Review’ (Australia’s Future Tax System report).
The government has not done that. So the government is happy to provide us with a model without any inputs. It is happy to claim that it has modelled our taxes, but it will not release any modelling of what it wants to do to the Australian people. This illustrates that the government has failed to think through this scheme. The government has failed to think through the impact of this new tax on Australian jobs or on foreign investment. It is one thing to talk about economic modelling, which might appeal to all the tax boffins, but the fundamental issue is whether people have confidence to invest in the mining sector in Australia as a result of this government’s tax. Emphatically, the people who actually run the companies, the people who employ people, are saying ‘Not with this tax’ and the coalition joins them in that charge.
Debate resumed.
Before question time, in the debate on the appropriation bills, I was talking about the importance of the GP superclinics and, in particular, the positive impacts that similar clinics—the GP Plus Health Care Centres—have had in South Australia. That impact has seen, as I mentioned before, a decrease of presentations to A&E by 13 per cent from the postcodes in which the GP Plus Health Care Centres are operating. This is a particularly important initiative and I know that people in my electorate are very much looking forward to the opening of the Noarlunga GP superclinic, which is being built as we speak. However, it is not surprising to see, when we look at the opposition’s response to the budget, money once again being ripped out of the health area. The Rudd government is committed to health. That is why we have a national health and hospitals plan and why we are committed to delivering good quality health care to people around the country.
The Rudd government is also committed to the provision of quality childcare services. It is an important and very rewarding investment for the future. I regularly visit a lot of childcare centres throughout my electorate of Kingston. It is evident that childcare centres, parents and staff all want to ensure that children are receiving the best quality care in their important formative years. The budget provides over $273 million over four years to raise the quality of early childhood education and care across Australia. This funding will mean that parents within my electorate can be assured that their child will be receiving quality care by trained staff. Where needed, centres will receive capital upgrades to help services to meet the national quality standards. Families within southern Adelaide who have access to the Hackham West community JET creche can expect additional federal support for the provision of their much needed services. This is a key message of the government that families can rely on getting quality services through improved amounts of federal funding.
Access to justice is also a right of all Australians. In a further display of the government’s commitment to the people in my electorate and right around Australia, the government is to invest an additional $145 million over four years in legal assistance programs. An amount of $83,700 is to be provided to the southern Community Legal Centre for the Family Relationship Centre pilot to ensure they continue to deliver legal advice and assistance for separating families. This is a particularly important provision for any family going through a time of separation. It is extremely hard and very distressing and it is imperative that these people continue to receive quality legal assistance.
The government acknowledges the importance of providing a dignified and secure retirement income. As part of the budget commitment, from 1 July 2013, the superannuation guarantee will be increased from nine per cent to 12 per cent. This is an extremely important step that will significantly improve the retirement income and, indeed, the quality of life for many people when they retire. Even someone who is now 50 years of age will be approximately $22,000 better off at retirement, indicating just how important this measure is. Compulsory superannuation has been one of the great legacies of previous Labor governments. I am very proud that the Rudd Labor government is building on the previous legacy to ensure that when people do reach retirement they can establish, through superannuation, a better quality of life for their future.
Further to these improvements in superannuation, the government has also offered generous tax breaks to older Australians who have low super balances to help them boost their superannuation savings. Workers over 50 years of age with a total superannuation below $500,000 will be able to make concessional superannuation contributions up to $50,000. An additional $500 will be provided to workers on incomes up to $37,000 effectively refunding the tax that they already had to pay on super. This will have a positive impact on countless moderate income earners right around Australia and also in my electorate in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. The Rudd government remains committed to ensuring that all Australians are able to enjoy a secure retirement.
Right around the country the Rudd government has provided pensioners with greater flexibility in how they receive their payments. As part of the budget, from 1 July 2010, pensioners will be able to choose to receive their pension supplement quarterly rather than fortnightly. This provides pensioners with greater flexibility and choice in how they receive their payments. It also builds on, I think, the significant contributions that this government made in the last budget, the substantial reforms to pensions where, since coming to office, the age pension has been increased by more than $100 a fortnight for singles. This equals a real change in the quality of life for pensioners in my electorate of Kingston.
Australia does need more electricians, carpenters, chefs and welders—just to name a few. We need more apprenticeship training. That is one of the matters that comes up regularly as I visit communities. Young people tell me that they want to upskill themselves and to make sure that they are preparing themselves and getting the best opportunity to enter the workforce in skilled employment. One of the particular things that has been widely welcomed in my electorate was the Apprentice Kickstart program initiative announced as one of the responses in the global financial crisis to try and ensure that companies, despite having difficulty during the global recession, still continue to take on new apprentices. That is why the Rudd government is investing almost $80 million to extend the very successful Kickstart initiative. As mentioned this initiative has already boosted the traditional apprentice numbers above the pre-global recession numbers in just one year.
There were 24,400 young Australians who began an apprenticeship in the traditional trades last summer. I think this is a particularly important initiative. I note that in my electorate in southern Adelaide the Kickstart program has helped 92 local apprentices to get a start in their chosen field, and that is really important. I was speaking to one of the local building companies in my electorate that is undertaking a number of constructions with the Building the Education Revolution. They told me is that, because of the work that the Building the Education Revolution has provided, they too have been able to take on apprentices in the traditional trades to upskill them. The government is really committed to this measure and upskilling our nation was a particular focus in the budget. We invested over $660 million in the budget to ensure that our training system is responsive to the skills needed in our economy.
This is in stark contrast to the opposition, who have shown a complete disinterest in how we might tackle the skills shortage. It is very disappointing not just to me but to many in my local community that the opposition have announced that they will scrap the trades training centres in schools. This is really threatening an opportunity for young people in my electorate in the southern suburbs of Adelaide and right across the country to gain the skills they need for the future. I know how really important it is because I have heard firsthand from young people about how they want to take a different vocational path—maybe not year 12 and then to university to get a degree. They want to study a trade and get skills but they also want to finish year 12. Scrapping the trades training centres in schools threatens the opportunity for young people to continue on with their year 12 and also perhaps to get a certificate.
The coalition’s announcement has threatened trade centres that have been planned in my electorate: Willunga high, Hallett Cove R to 12 school, Reynella East high, Wirreanda high and Seaford. They all enthusiastically took up the program of trades training centres in schools because they want to deliver good training. It has been needed in our community. Young people want it. It is very disappointing that the coalition have indicated that they will axe this program and perhaps put at risk those trades training centres in the suburbs I have mentioned.
Turning now to the budget measures for small business. We all know that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy. Over 9,000 small businesses in my electorate will benefit significantly from the budget. The budget will provide for every one of those over 9,000 small businesses to instantly deduct the costs of assets valued at up to $5,000—an increase from the current $1,000 limit. These are real savings for small business owners and will make a big difference.
The other thing I have said many times in this place before is just how important the National Broadband Network is going to be for small businesses in my electorate. Despite the rhetoric we hear from the opposition, small businesses in my electorate have nominated lack of access to broadband as their No. 1 impediment to growing business and taking advantage of economic growth around the world. The plan to scrap the NBN as proposed by the opposition is of serious concern to many small businesses in my electorate. This is their No. 1 issue. I urge the opposition to rethink their proposal to scrap the National Broadband Network. It is critical to improving productivity for small businesses in my electorate. As I said, it has been nominated as the No. 1 issue for small business in the southern suburbs of Adelaide.
I would like to finish by saying that this budget the Rudd Labor government have put forward is a very economically responsible budget. It is one that really delivers on some of the successes we have had following the global financial crisis and will ensure that we continue to have a strong and prosperous future. (Time expired)
The government has just handed down its third budget. I remind the House that since coming to power, and under cover of the global financial crisis, the government has taken us from $22 billion in surplus to a deficit this year, 2009-10, of $57.1 billion. In the process, it has spent 60 per cent of the capital in three savings funds that were created by the previous government for national investment: the building fund, the health fund and the education fund.
I was in the coalition government party room when then Treasurer Peter Costello announced that these funds would not be spent, that they would be used for investment and that the interest from these funds would be available as and when required. It is devastating to imagine that 60 per cent has already been spent. Next year the deficit is tipped to be $40.8 billion and the budget is expected to return to surplus in 2012-13. We do not believe that it will.
The opposition’s response to the budget finds two overarching problems. The first is that the two arms of policy, fiscal and monetary, are moving in opposite directions. Lazy and unrestrained fiscal policy means that monetary policy alone is controlling the economy. This budget reveals that stimulus spending will continue until 2014, four years after the end of the global financial crisis. That is what I mean by lazy fiscal policy. But, meanwhile, on monetary policy, there have been six interest rate rises in a row. That is the first problem with this budget and this government’s economic management.
The second problem is its resource superprofits tax, which we find so abhorrent that we have centred our budget response around our determination to do all we can to make sure that this tax does not see the light of day. The government has described Australia as simultaneously suffering from the fallout of the global financial crisis—why else would we be continuing to spend the stimulus dollars, 40 per cent of which remained unspent only three months ago?—and being in the midst of a resources boom courtesy of our most globally competitive industry, mining. It is a boom that is apparently so problematic that it requires a superprofits tax to bring it back to earth.
What is the government’s response to this apparent inconsistency? They have talked about our two-speed economy due to the demand from China for our mineral resources from Western Australia, Queensland and offshore. I have actually never accepted this two-speed economy argument. I was pleased to see a paper by Deloitte released last week titled Clouds in the silver lining? The two speed economy and Dutch disease, which provides the analysis to debunk this argument. It is recommended reading and it states:
Australia does not have a ‘two-speed economy’; it has thousands of industries operating at different speeds, with price and resource adjustments taking place constantly.
If states like New South Wales where the drivers of economic growth are the commercial property market and South Australia where the drivers of growth are public infrastructure projects and defence shipbuilding are falling behind, why is it the fault of states like Western Australia and Queensland where industries are booming? It is just not that simple.
Take my electorate in the Murray Valley of New South Wales, where a town called Deniliquin is struggling with low water allocations, a savage drought and a declining in many of the activities which have made that town strong. In Deniliquin there is a small airline which is chartered regularly to Roxby Downs in South Australia, taking individuals who work in mining. The effect on Deniliquin is quite substantial. It is reasonable to say that the income from that fly-in fly-out charter is keeping some parts of the town of Deniliquin stronger than they otherwise would be. That is an example of why this is just not a straightforward exercise about an economy in one state performing in one way and an economy in another state performing in another.
The government is running some crazy lines. They go like this: ‘Resources are more of a curse than a blessing; manufacturing and the services industries are falling behind; it’s not the fault of debt-laden state governments who have failed to re-invest in their infrastructure; it must be the fault of the mining industry. How dare it pull so far ahead of the rest of us!’
Mr Swan was in Adelaide last week talking about—in the new jargon—‘mining boom mark II’ and remarked that, ‘The revenues from the resources superprofits tax will be invested in growing the economy—ensuring Australians benefit from the exploitation of non-renewable resources long into the future.’ As an aside it appears we are being re-educated to replace the term ‘mining’ with ‘exploitation of non-renewable resources’. The real problem I have with this statement is that it is the private sector, not governments, who should be making decisions about investment. For Mr Swan to talk about investments from the resources superprofits tax somehow growing the economy better than the private sector would is just plain ridiculous.
I also note the Treasurer said that, ‘A high degree of flexibility within the workforce here in SA has helped avoid massive lay-offs and skills destruction.’ I remind the Treasurer that there is one year to go before Julia Gillard’s new workplace laws come fully into operation. I wonder if the same flexibility, which the Treasurer was remarking on and praising in Adelaide, will exist then?
In the context of the resources boom, the Treasurer and other government ministers like to mention Dutch disease and raise the spectre of us having fallen victim to it. The Dutch disease theory is this: an increase in revenues from natural resources will de-industrialise a nation’s economy by raising the exchange rate, which makes the manufacturing sector less competitive. It gets its name from the decline in the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands after the discovery of a large natural gas field. In fact it is difficult to prove the relationship between an increase in natural resource revenues, the real exchange rate and a decline in another sector of the economy that is lagging—that is right; it is very difficult to prove. There are a number of different things that could be causing the appreciation of the exchange rate. There are so many factors at play and every economy is different.
So in the Netherlands, which gave Dutch disease its name, economists have since argued that the decline in the Dutch manufacturing industry sector was actually caused by unsustainable spending on social services. Nigeria is also often quoted as a victim of Dutch disease. In fact the abundance of natural resources in that country gave rise to governments that were less accountable to the people, had little incentive for institution building and failed to implement growth-enhancing reforms, and so higher corruption, more rent-seeking activity and greater civil conflict resulted.
As economists have studied Dutch disease, they have found that to the extent it really exists at all, the manufacturing sectors with the highest capital intensity are less affected by windfall shocks and a diverse manufacturing sector is the key to being cushioned from resource shocks. We do have a high level of capital investment, the policy responses about a diverse manufacturing sector are there and this government has no right not to be acting on them.
The present government used to lecture us about house prices going up and how that showed we were mismanaging the economy. I used to think it’s not a bad problem to have if you own the house. It’s a lot better than the house price going down. The mining boom is a good problem to have, but every boom is followed by a bust. Our previous 150 years of history tell us exactly this. I cannot believe that our Prime Minister really thinks China will sustain a never-ending commodity boom—and he has, in fact, pocketed the proceeds already.
You cannot escape the fact that to levy a tax at 40 per cent and then make miners pay 28 per cent is a double tax whammy which singles this industry out for punishment like no other. The effective tax rate post supertax would be 58 per cent and if companies had a heavier level of debt, for which there is no compensation as the tax is currently designed, their effective tax rate could be as high as 70 per cent. I am taking into account the credits along the way and the fact that the supertax would be a deduction for company tax. Our tax system contains many complicated mechanisms to avoid the same income being taxed twice—dividend imputation, credits for withholding tax, separation of superannuation balances and so on. What really offends me about the resource superprofits tax is the double taxation aspect.
The government claims that the tax will result in a 4.5 per cent increase in investment, a seven per cent increase in employment and a 5.5 per cent increase in output from the sector in the long term. They will not show us the modelling but we know it was based on the assumption that resources are location specific and therefore investment will continue to flow. This is illogical, as we all know that capital transfers freely around the globe. There are no shortages of resources around the world and capital can just as easily leave our shores. So much of the government’s answers to our questions on this new mining tax centre around economic modelling. When has a Treasury model ever realistically demonstrated what will happen in the real world? It gives indications, it gives input and it gives suggestions, but for a government to rely on an economic computer based model to determine a policy as wide-ranging as this is an insult. I can recall when the Murray-Darling Basin Commission developed a model for environmental flows in the River Murray. It was sung from the rooftops by environmentalists at the time as demonstrating that, ‘We have to return flows to the Murray. It is absolutely essential.’ From there the Living Murray Initiative kicked off and unfortunately for those who believe, as I do, that too much water is being allocated to the environment, there have been devastating effects on communities.
I raise that, important though it is to my electorate, to mention that the model upon which the original analysis was based was inexact, because there was not enough scientific data about what happened with water flows, stream health and catchment health. There were 23 indicators of catchment health. They were not all built into the model. They built an assumption into the model that the river health would improve if you added more water, so of course there are no prizes for guessing what the model then predicted. If this model in Treasury is so good then the government should release the modelling. If they are basing their policy upon it too, if it is the rationale, then they should release the modelling.
Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, I do not have it with me, but I could show you a table—and I will ask listeners to imagine this table—showing the top 15 countries in the world ranked by the volume of their reserves. Australia is one of the 15. Russia has more reserves of iron ore than we do, Guinea has more bauxite, Chile has more copper, China has more zinc, South Africa has more gold and Canada has more potash. We have the most nickel. Another table that I could show you would show the top 20 richest nations ranked by the value of their resources. South Africa and Russia are first and second, respectively. Australia is third. Then there are Canada, Brazil, China, Chile, USA, Ukraine and Peru, followed by 10 more. So as you can see, most metals have a very good geographic spread. If capital is taxed too heavily in Australia, it will move elsewhere.
I was insulted by the government’s dismissal of mining companies as repatriating profits overseas. They are an easy target, according to the government, because they are not really Australian. I was insulted. It is true that investment in Australian mining has more than doubled in the past decade. Approximately $150 billion of offshore funds have been invested to help extract Australian natural resources, much more than our own government has invested over this period. We do of course have a simple choice: either we use the savings of Australians or we use the savings of foreigners, and the savings of Australians are not there to the extent required for this investment.
The town of Broken Hill in the west of my electorate has a fly-in fly-out operation to Olympic Dam. We have heard reports that that project is on hold. The investment required there alone would be $20 billion. Clearly, we need investment from overseas in order to realise these projects. That is a good thing and not something that our Prime Minister should be whispering about behind his hand as something that we should be ashamed of. The Prime Minister should not be suggesting that our mining industry is tainted by its overseas ownership. That is outrageous.
At the very moment that he was doing this, my opposite number, Assistant Treasurer Nick Sherry, was in the Middle East selling Australia as a global financial hub for Islamic finance products! He has been spruiking changes to the managed investment trust regime in Australia to make Australia a more attractive destination for offshore funds, because of the stability of our financial services industry. I agree with all of that, but isn’t it a little bit hypocritical of the Prime Minister, at the same time, to be rubbishing those who would seek to put overseas dollars in investments in Australia?
It is generally estimated that over 75 per cent of all cash generated by mining companies is invested back ‘in country’. Shareholders have received 25 per cent of the company’s cash through dividends. So 75 per cent is reinvested back into projects or other projects, and 25 per cent is in dividends. That is what should be regarded as a fair share.
According to Philip Lowe, Assistant Governor of the Reserve Bank in Australia, the main task is to expand the supply side of the economy so that demand can grow solidly without causing inflation to rise. It is a much better problem to have than the other way around. The key to improving the supply side of the economy is investment and productivity growth. We have become a high-investment country in recent times because of the resources sector, which has quickened the increase in our capital stock. Investment in Australia is high because of high returns on capital, particularly in the resources sector.
This is not going to continue if Mr Rudd’s super tax gets up. Mr Rudd believes that revenue from the resources boom is needed to invest in the nation’s long-term human capital. With respect, this is a meaningless statement. As economists know, capital is the material means of production, and labour is labour. What raises living standards is sustained economic growth, a rise in the ratio of capital to labour. When that ratio improves, the value of labour’s marginal product and therefore wage rates increase. That creates the prosperity that the government says it wants to secure and that we say is under threat from the resources tax. Remember, a dollar of tax is a dollar not invested.
The real problem that we should all have with the proposed mining tax is the way that the issue has been handled. The mining companies put their submissions into the Henry review process and were not consulted further. The government allowed some strategic leaks so that everyone sort of knew it was coming. The announcement on 3 May followed, but not the detail. A consultation panel has been formed so that affected mining companies can tell the government and Treasury officials how to make their tax actually work.
You can imagine the opening line of the consultation process going like this, ‘We want to tax you so that we get $9 billion a year. We want the rate to be 40 per cent and everything above a six per cent cost of capital to be called a super profit. You tell us how to do it.’ I am not surprised at the response from the mining companies. And it was all so unnecessary. All Treasury officials and government ministers had to do was to pick up the phone during the period of the Henry review process and talk. But, because the Henry review was so politicised, it took two years. It arrived with the government at Christmas time last year and was sat on for four months—so that we now have the problem that we do. Just think of what would have happened had the review being released at Christmas. People could have talked about it. Mining companies could have stepped forward and said, ‘Before the budget, when you make these announcements, we have got some ideas for you.’ But no—the Prime Minister, so intent on micromanaging every stage of the process, had to be just a little bit too cute, and the problems that he now faces are entirely of his own making.
Meanwhile, a multibillion dollar industry is supposed to enter a holding pattern and wait and see. From opposition there is one certainty we can offer the resources sector: we will vote against the tax in opposition and we will rescind it in government. I do not accept that the government believes its own lines on the resources tax. It is imposing the tax because it needs the cash.
In the budget announcement, Wayne Swan referred to the lowering of personal income tax rates on 1 July. These were the tax reductions they voted against while in opposition and finally, through gritted teeth, agreed to just before the last election. The Treasurer is now spruiking these tax cuts as contributing to 85,000 more jobs. I do not necessarily disagree, but remember the Treasurer’s statement that the resources tax will contribute to a seven per cent increase in employment. So the question is: if a tax cut is good for the economy, why is a tax increase such as the resources tax just as good for the economy?
As policymakers what we should be doing is reducing the infrastructure bottlenecks to encourage more investment in our mining sector. The government’s response? A new infrastructure fund, initially paying $700 million to the states. This is not a savings fund; this is a slush fund. I have covered the opposition’s two main issues with the government’s budget. We urge them to rethink the mining tax. The shadow Treasurer has proposed $46.7 billion in opposition cuts in response. (Time expired)
I join with many members on this side of the House in fully supporting Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and cognate bills. It would be remiss of me if I did not start my contribution to the debate on the legislation by saying that it is a responsible effort by the government to bring the economy back into surplus as quickly as possible. I know that in their scaremongering some time back those opposite were declaring that it was likely that the economy would be in deficit for a decade or more. But one of the responsible aspects of this particular budget is that we have designed it to bring the economy back into surplus in three years. I know there are others around who want to dispute that. The shadow minister at the table, Mr Robb, is already on record expressing a number of views about that. But I urge them to go to the document itself and see what plans and proposals are there, see what the government are doing to bring the economy back into surplus. I think it is evident to all those out there listening to this debate that we should put aside the scaremongering that is taking place here, put aside the politicking that is taking place here. Those who are serious about building the community will see that this is a responsible budget.
I must stress that bringing the economy back into surplus in three years time is in excess of three years earlier than what was planned 12 months ago. Clearly, a number of things have happened over that period of time. Do not forget that our last couple of budgets were framed around a situation where we were planning our way through the worst economic crisis that had confronted the world in 75 years. That fact seems to have disappeared from this debate altogether. It certainly will not be raised on that side of the chamber. They will not raise the fact that Australia was one of the only OECD economies that did not go into recession.
The opposition finance spokesman is sitting at the table. The member for Goldstein criticised the government widely in his contribution to this debate. But, when he got down to talking about the world’s worst recession in 75 years, he categorised that as being simply one quarter of negative growth. I think they were his words. In his view, the stimulus package was all about addressing one quarter of negative growth. I do not think there would be a person out there—and certainly no-one at school who has read the papers a little—who does not understand that this was a very serious world economic crisis. It required attention. We are not going to point the finger at those opposite and say that we inherited office from a government that caused that crisis, because we know that is not true. But the thing is that we did not predict it either. We did not predict that there would be a crisis. We had to work towards addressing the situation, to overcome our position and to ensure that Australia’s economy stayed in strong hands.
It was only last week that the Secretary-General of the OECD commented on this. It did not take me by surprise that one of the things that he had to say was that Australia’s response to the global economic crisis was an exemplar to many of the mainstream economies. The fact that we went out and specifically targeted our stimulus package was something that was praised by the leaders of the OECD. That is what kept our economy from going into a recession—not one quarter of negative growth, as it is being portrayed now.
It was not all that far back that we were all shocked—and clearly the Americans were shocked—when Lehman Brothers became insolvent. The American government did not propose bailing that bank out. It was just going to be treated as a commercial reaction to the market. However, when that situation became more commonplace, the Bush administration found itself moving in to prop up America’s banks. In the land of the free they were moving in to nationalise some of their banks to make sure that they kept them afloat. Look at the world’s largest bank, the Bank of Scotland. It almost got renationalised. The British government, the British taxpayer, bought into 80 per cent of its shareholdings to keep that bank afloat.
We are not talking here about one period of negative growth, a blip on the horizon when everything was hunky-dory. This was a very significant period in Australia’s economic history, one that had not occurred in some 75 years and one that required an immediate and targeted response. For what it is worth, I was proud to be part of a government that took up the challenge to do that, to make that response, even when those opposite tried to vote down at each and every opportunity our proposals to spend stimulus money. Whether it was education, infrastructure development or community infrastructure projects, they were all opposed by those opposite.
We went on to guarantee bank deposits to keep our banks afloat. This did require a concerted effort, but it was left to one side of this place to put that effort in, to do the heavier lifting. We now reap from that the criticism of those opposite because there was a debt. Of course there was a debt. But, as opposed to what was being said 12 months ago, that there would be debt for the next generation, we are now paying that debt in three years.
Without apology, this is not a pre-election spendathon. This is not the traditional election budget we had over the 12 years of the Howard government, where people were hooked on middle-income welfare—where people with household income of over $1 million still had welfare payments going to those households. This is not one of those budgets. This is in stark contrast to what we saw during those 12 years. This is moving to do something with this economy by returning it to surplus and then allowing market forces to be stimulated as a consequence.
As an aside, Madam Deputy Speaker, last week I heard a comment that a former opposition finance spokesman, Barnaby Joyce, made on ABC radio. We are pretty thick skinned on this side of the place, we are used to a bit of criticism, but Senator Joyce wanted to criticise the government for not introducing the promised dental scheme.
Ha!
My colleague the member for Wakefield laughs. But the laugh is this: that bill has been held up in the Senate and been opposed by Senator Joyce, and now he goes on radio and say it is a disgrace that the scheme has not been introduced. There is one way he can help that to be introduced, and that is to change his vote. This is the hypocrisy we have got to learn to live with, I guess.
We hear the Liberal Party talk tough about cutting government spending by blocking and opposing measures, but look at what they have been doing. What they want to achieve would only make the deficit worse. Last week the shadow treasurer during his speech to the Press Club indicated that the opposition wanted to cut basic services to Australians, basic services that Australians actually rely on. They plan to cut funding for education and health. Why should we be surprised about that? The current Leader of the Opposition was health minister and he knows full well that he and his government took a billion dollars out of health. I know a lot has been said about it, but the facts remain. Look at the bottom line: a billion dollars came out of health. And that is not to wallpaper over the money that was taken out of education, particularly vocational education. All those things that have contributed to our skills and trades deficit over the time of the Howard government can be traced back to when they decided to rip money out of the education budget.
I know a lot of crocodile tears are being shed at the moment for the mining companies, but it was not all that long ago that the mining companies were lobbying here because they wanted those skills. One of my boys was working in the mining industry for some time. They get paid quite well, I grant you that. That is probably why you could not get a power point put on in Sydney or Launceston or in the member for Wakefield’s area in South Australia. The young fellows were out there working in the mining sector because, going back a number of years, it was booming then. But there are ebbs and flows in the mining industry, and, like many others, my son got laid off and he is doing other things now. Now the boom is moving back into gear and we are seeing a two-speed economy developing. We do need to address that. We also need to look out for the interests of other businesses, particularly businesses that rely on the same basic skill sets that are used in the mining industry, particularly those mainstream trade areas which are in demand in the mining community but also in demand in a community that is still trying to recover from the worst economic crisis in living memory.
Simply gutting education and health cannot be the way to go if we are clear about building a community for the future. I know the real differences being made so far in the south-west of Sydney. I see what we have been able to do there only through our funding of $16 billion in the BER. I do not know about the member for Wakefield but I have not had people knocking on my door in Werriwa and complaining about investing in their schools—not a one. I would challenge people opposite not to cower and oppose it when all your colleagues are around but to stand up when those photos are being taken at schools as we are opening these halls and new classrooms and commercial cooking facilities and say, ‘We actually really oppose it.’ I do not get much opportunity to talk to principals who say, ‘We don’t want this investment.’ As a matter of fact, I do not get any of that. That is one of the things that have been particularly successful. I know that out of 9,500 projects there will always be something that will require attention and, to her credit, the Deputy Prime Minister is looking at addressing those issues.
$8 billion.
But like the member for Goldstein I have not got people complaining to me about schools. They would like more investment in the schools and they would like to see a greater role for the Commonwealth, although there will be budget limits to that. What we are doing, apart from putting money out there that is generating jobs, is producing those skills for the future.
I do not want to have to do a roll call through the family but I also have a son—not the son working in the mines—who is a builder. For the last 12 months or so all he has been doing, in a succession of schools, is going out there and constructing school buildings. All the young fellows I know who come to our house and eat us out of house and home are also working on these packages. From the Hayes household, I know what the stimulus package is doing. It means that these young people are in work. They are utilising their skills. I see more apprentices out there. This was the intention of the stimulus package. It is not what the other side I know want to hear. They are nitpicking, going through whether the projects should have been six metres this side or that side of the fence or whether somebody’s sunlight has been blocked off. This was about generating jobs and generating jobs now to stimulate work in our community. All those employees getting work through these stimulus based projects are generating our local economies.
I would have thought that concept was something that we should be applauded for. I know it is a bit hard for those on the other side to applaud because they voted against it and every other measure of the stimulus package, but they are things that really do need to be looked at in the cold light of day and acknowledged for what they are, apart from an investment in education. Bear in mind that every dollar you put into education will over the next 10 to 12 years actually have an economic dividend in a productivity increase and will generate people through tertiary education or into the trades et cetera. What it does is generate employment for us here and now. I see it firsthand, as does everyone else, but those opposite are too afraid to admit it.
The other big thing that is clearly on the way back, if you listen to what is being said, is a return to Work Choices. Perhaps that is not the word that will be used, but we are now being lectured about there being room to have individual statutory employment contracts out there in the workplace. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, I was very involved in talking about ‘Your rights at work’ when we were in opposition because I genuinely believe in it. I represent a working community. I see the mums and dads out there struggling with their mortgages. Most households in my electorate are supported by two incomes. I know how important this issue was. I also had—and I tried to table on many occasions for Prime Minister Howard—work statements from people who were getting paid less than the award. For the first time in living memory, it became legally possible to employ people and to change their conditions to below the award. I—and no doubt many other people too—have had people turn up in my office, or I have seen them in the street when I have been doing mobile offices, who have become physically and emotionally upset. I saw the real effect of that.
I cannot point the finger just at those companies. When I spoke to the directors of one of the companies—it is on the record; I will not name the company again but it is a major pharmaceutical company—they checked through the law and they came out and said, ‘Yes, we are doing that.’ I asked them for the reason they were doing it. I said: ‘I can see your profit line and I can see all the other stuff. Why are you doing this to people in my local community?’ Regrettably, and with some degree of embarrassment, they said, ‘Because we can.’ The previous government made laws that allowed people to pay individuals below the award rate of pay. I saw the effect of that in electorates such as mine. Those in the previous government should hold their heads in shame. I understand why they would not want to go back to calling it Work Choices, but they must be reeling from the fact that their leader has now indicated that there is room for individual contracts in the workplace.
Despite all the joviality about Tony Abbott’s contribution to the 7.30 Report on Monday a week ago, if we have to get to the point where, unless it is scripted, unless you get it from me in writing, you cannot believe it, this is going to be an extremely low ebb in politics. We all know what the cut and thrust of politics is like. It is a very combative business that we are in. It is a hard business. We are out there to compete for the hearts and minds of people based on our ideals. We are trying to sell the ideals to people in this competitive world that we support one over the other. That is the basis of democracy. But, when we have the Leader of the Opposition coming out and saying, ‘You cannot necessarily trust everything I say unless you get it in writing,’ it really demeans our whole concept of Australian democracy. I know he probably was not put up to that, and it is probably a rare display of honesty, one which will not go away, but if a backbencher said that I am sure the whips would take them aside and explain to them the error of their ways. But, when the Leader of the Opposition says it, you wonder whether that is now going to become opposition policy.
One of the things I wanted to get across was community building. What we have tried to do throughout the course of our response to the world’s worst economic crisis is to continue to build our community. Build it now and build it into the future is what this budget continues to do. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and cognate bills. I listened with interest to the words of the member for Werriwa when he talked about truth in this place. It is interesting to note that yesterday we had the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister of this country trying to tell us that the corporate tax rate paid by Australian mining companies was 13 per cent. Where did the Treasurer get that figure from? One would think that a reasonable Treasurer would rely on the advice of the Australian Taxation Office as the appropriate thing to do. The Australian Taxation Office says that the rate of tax paid by resources companies is 41.34 per cent. So when we ask about truth and integrity, which the member for Werriwa has raised in this place, the question is: why did the Treasurer of this country falsely claim—a political fraud—that resources companies are only paying 13 per cent? Why did he do that? The member for Werriwa is silent, and he is now slinking out the side door and even giving me a wave. But how could any Treasurer of this country misrepresent such an important figure? For what reason would he do that? When the Australian Taxation Office is telling you that resources companies are paying 41.34 per cent, why would you say the tax rate is only 13? Was he having a bad hair day? What was the reason?
It was a gross misrepresentation made by an important public figure purely for the purposes of political spin. That is what this government is all about. That is what this Prime Minister is all about. That is what this Deputy Prime Minister is all about, because she also participated in this sport of misleading the Australian people, making the same false claims, going on with the same tripe. The people of Australia will judge them for that. You would never have seen Peter Costello get figures so drastically wrong as we saw our Treasurer and our Deputy Prime Minister do just yesterday. For what reason were they misleading the Australian people? Purely because the Hawker Britton book said: ‘We’ve got to have a diversion, we’ve got to have one of those weapons of mass distraction. We’ll create some figures. Where can we get them from? We can’t find them from the Taxation Office because those figures don’t support the claim, so what we’ll do is find a US student who produces figures that aren’t even for Australia, they’re for Australia and New Zealand, but that’ll do. There are some published numbers out there on the internet, we’ll bring them in and we’ll try and spin a yarn.’ Well, they have been caught out pretty badly using figures from a student, not from the Australian tax office, that were not even solely for Australia—and the members opposite try and talk about truth and honesty. What sort of ridiculous argument is that? Thirteen per cent? That’s not far out! I guess that is Swan-onomics.
It’s a rounding error for Labor!
Yes, Swan-onomics. Thirteen per cent is pretty close to 41.34 per cent—it’s not far out! They needed a distraction, they needed to bag the mining companies, so they just invented some numbers. What does that say about the credibility of the Treasurer? He keeps trying to justify it. I have to say that the Australian people will not wear that.
In the same vein, the Australian people should rightly be concerned about Wayne Swan’s budget. If he cannot quote figures accurately, if he cannot act with integrity, if he cannot properly reflect the taxation regime that applies to resources companies in this country, how can he be trusted with a $400 billion budget? He claims the most slender surplus in 2012-13 of $1 billion, but everything has got to go right for that to happen. We have to have low inflation at a time when we are having very strong growth and the most favourable terms of trade for 60 years, yet he is going to promise us a billion dollar surplus. Well, if he does not know the difference between 41.34 per cent and 13 per cent, if he cannot get that right, how can we trust him to get the budget right?
Seldom in recent years have there been issues in this debate that are so clear. In recent years there have been arguments about whether the government has struck the right balance between different policy areas: health, education, the environment, agriculture, infrastructure and social security. Every government has to make choices. The arguments have reflected differing priorities amongst members of this House and, of course, differing political opinions. The arguments have been about what we as politicians do to shape this country and our society. But this year it is very different. I would go as far as to say that there is only one issue related to this budget that is really the central focus, and that is economic credibility. We saw, just yesterday, the Treasurer of this country shred his credibility by trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people by quoting false figures in the media, as did the Deputy Prime Minister.
This is a Deputy Prime Minister who cannot manage the Building the Education Revolution, who has presided over a massive cost blow-out in that program and in the computers in schools program. Where on earth would you find, in commercial practice, jobs being let for 10 times the proper rate? The worst thing is that these problems have been highlighted since last year. The Deputy Prime Minister has been warned that the government is paying too much for projects, that the government is being ripped off by state bureaucracies and that there is gross profiteering occurring in the program. Does she spring into action to save the public purse? No. What does she do? She sits on her hands, in a state of denial, trying to mislead the Australian people that all is well. She started off by saying, ‘It’s only an isolated incident—this is not what is happening across the board.’ But we now know it is happening everywhere. It is happening in New South Wales and in Victoria; it is happening right around the country. Taxpayers are being ripped off, and this minister, the heir apparent to Kevin Rudd’s throne, is sitting on her hands waiting to glide into the position of Prime Minister, but she is not acting on this. She has appointed a task force. First she said, ‘There’s an audit going on, so I don’t have to worry.’ What was the result of that audit? It simply compared one grossly overpriced project with another. It was not comparing the price of a building delivered in the private sector with the price of a building delivered under the BER program; it was comparing one grossly overinflated BER project with another BER project. It was an audit that was actually planned to fail. It was an audit that was planned to conceal the waste and mismanagement that this minister knew, or ought to have known, was part and parcel of this program. It is an absolute outrage, just as the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement yesterday claiming that the rate of tax on resources companies was only 13 per cent is a blatant lie, a blatant untruth, which does nothing for her credibility as a potential future Prime Minister, I might say.
What is really important with this budget is what has not been included. A very important item has not been included in this budget—that is, an increase in expenditure on the Pacific Highway. We saw over the weekend yet another tragic accident on this road. Far too many of my constituents have been killed or injured as a result of the poor state of the Pacific Highway, yet in this budget we do not see one additional dollar for the most important infrastructure project in this country.
Freight levels are massively increasing and heavy vehicle traffic is massively increasing and yet we still have on the Pacific Highway B-doubles driving through the main streets of small towns and villages and B-doubles struggling to pass on very narrow bridges that were designed and built in the 1930s that are not up to modern traffic levels and are not up to the weights that are going across them. It will be only a matter of time before we have more serious accidents. Everybody knows that; the government knows that. Despite this fact, in this budget there was not one extra dollar for the Pacific Highway. Tragedies happen all too often.
On the weekend I attended the 50th anniversary of the Halfway Creek Rural Fire Service. It was a great celebration of the great work they do. They said that most of the work they do now is not to do with fires; tragically, the most common call-out they have is to attend traffic accidents, mainly on the Pacific Highway. It is a national tragedy that deaths are still occurring that could be avoided. More resources need to be put into the Pacific Highway.
Labor has form on poor budgeting. The Hawke-Keating government left us with $96 billion in debt. When the coalition came into power what did we find? We found a $10 billion budget black hole. The Labor government of that time was fudging the figures and concealing from the Australian people and the then opposition the exact state of the nation’s finances.
We have seen in just one term this government totally turn around Australia’s fortune. We have seen this government turn a surplus into a situation of debt and deficit. The Australian people are rightly concerned. When I go down the street people say to me, ‘I’m worried that my kids and my grandkids will still be paying for Labor’s debt.’ That is precisely the situation.
We have the promise of a convenient, wafer-thin surplus in 2012-13. That surplus is unlikely to be realised and it depends on a range of assumptions. The massive new mining tax is going to have to come into effect to balance the budget in the future. We have a dependence on future profits in the mining industry, which can be a very cyclical industry. The settings that this government is putting in place leave us absolutely unprepared for a potential downturn.
When it comes to economic credibility and the resources tax, what are those in the industry saying? They are saying they do not trust this government. They are saying they do not trust this government with the prospect of paying back 40 per cent of future losses. They are saying they do not trust the government at all. If there are major mining losses, rather than mining companies being able to send a cheque to the government for $400 million or $500 million, the government will simply change the law at the time and avoid its responsibilities. So, rather than it being some form of safety net for junior miners, the industry sees it as nothing more than another hollow promise from this government. This government is all about underdelivery.
We had the pink batts program. It was going to be a great environmental program. What happened? The taxpayer has been left with the bill for Labor’s gross mismanagement and gross incompetence. I have many people concerned about the insulation that was put in their roof. We have got spot checks with the pink batts program. If the insulation put in your roof was faulty and your house burned down, it would be of little consolation to know that you were not randomly selected for a spot check. You suffer the same fate: your house is destroyed—destroyed largely because of the poor administration of this program.
I have schools in my electorate complaining about the mismanagement under the Building the Education Revolution program, which I touched on earlier. We have had problems right across the electorate. Where there is a public school, there has been a problem with the BER program. At Eungai and Stuarts Point there are concerns. There are concerns about cost overruns at Scotts Head. And there are concerns about not getting what was required at Willawarrin and Corindi Beach. Where there is a project there is a problem and a cost overrun. It is just not good enough.
The people of Australia have a right to expect that public moneys are expended in an appropriate way, that there is a proper focus on value for money, that there is a proper focus on due process and that their taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. Everywhere you turn this government has underdelivered. Everywhere you turn not only is their economic management suspect; their program management is suspect. People are getting very sick of it. As I go round my electorate the call comes out time after time: ‘Get rid of this lot before they drive us deeper into debt. Get rid of this lot before they make the country broke.’ People are really concerned.
Spin only gets you so far. On the weekend we saw the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer trying to spin the resources tax fraud that has been perpetrated on the Australian people with false claims about 13 per cent or 17 per cent. The truthful figures were available, but they were ignored conveniently by those two parliamentarians.
This is a budget that raises more questions than it answers. It is a budget that leaves Australia in debt. It is a budget that is unlikely to achieve the projections that are in it. It is a budget that should be of concern to the Australian people. I certainly would not commend this budget to the House.
This budget has to be seen as all the previous budgets have been seen in this era in the context of the global financial crisis. We are still not out of that crisis yet and we only have to look at the events in Greece and the Eurozone economies to know that. We only have to look that far to see the IMF bailout and the problems in market confidence in terms of Greece to know that the effects of the global financial crisis are still very much with us. We only have to look to the United States, where they have just passed a major financial industries reform bill, to know that the consequences of that crisis are still with us as well.
If we look internationally at the No. 1 international economic problem, it is this global imbalance between the low savings rates of the developed world and the high savings rates of the developing world, most notably China. On top of that is the recycling of petrodollars where economic windfalls flow into OPEC countries and other oil producing countries, mainly out of the pockets of Western consumers. These are then reinvested in these established economies, often seeking relatively low rates of return. This has led to a flood of cheap credit over the last decade or so in developed economies. It is that cheap credit which has helped to fuel irresponsible lending in the United States and, in general, consumer indebtedness. That is something that we should all be concerned about.
It is said by a number of economists that what has to happen now is for the developing world to start consuming and for the developed world to start saving again. We need this to happen because the combination of economic factors that existed prior to the global financial crisis produced a very large asset bubble. That bubble and the bursting of it produced the greatest threat to the financial system since the 1930s, since the Great Depression. We are lucky in many ways that we had the action around the world from different governments. I think Gordon Brown, the previous Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, while not electorally successful and having many detractors domestically, will go down in history as having saved the British financial system and probably, along with Ben Bernanke, the world financial system. Because of their actions, a crisis which could have been far worse was averted. That is not to say there has not been massive economic cost, particularly to working people who typically have to pay the price as a result of unemployment, budget cuts and wage cuts—the sort of restructuring we see in Greece today. It is in that context that we have to see this budget.
Australia was spared from many of the problems experienced by the United Kingdom and the United States, because of the government’s actions and the nation’s economic strength. The economic historians will probably be the true arbiters of this, but I think they will look back at this time and see the decisive action that was taken by the government—investing in schools, investing in infrastructure, investing in the economy, keeping consumer confidence at appropriate levels which helped to maintain economic growth, and backing the banks. The banks were well regulated and well capitalised—to give the pervious government its due—but the banks had to be supported by the government in terms of their wholesale lending guarantees nonetheless.
Despite all of that, we have to note that Australia has a low savings rate. We have that in common with the rest of the developed world. If you take the superannuation system out, we have a savings rate which is the same as that of America—that is, it is probably in negative territory. The previous crisis just highlights the absolute importance of our superannuation system to our national economic buoyancy, to our national economic growth. I think that is the most important thing about this budget. It increases our national savings through the increases in the superannuation guarantee. This is something that has been very close to my heart all my working life. It is something that I have always believed in.
It is something that I believed in the entire time I was with the Shop Assistants’ Union. That union has a membership which is predominantly young and female—people who were up until Labor’s historic superannuation changes in the Hawke and Keating governments excluded from superannuation. Previously workers like those in retail and hospitality were excluded from occupational superannuation and had no retirement savings. They were reliant on the pension. I have seen the consequences of that in my own electorate while I have been doorknocking pensioners who live week to week. I have seen the consequences of it and I have represented the workers who have the most to benefit from an increase in the system. We know that it has an important effect for individuals and for the nation overall. So the increases from nine to 12 per cent and the increments of 0.25 per cent in 2013-14and 2014-15—followed by 0.5 per cent increments until it reaches 12 per cent—allow employers and employees to factor them into their wage bargaining arrangement, and we hope that they go further in many instances. We hope that they make additional provision for superannuation. It is a good way of providing non-inflationary wage benefits to people because generally it does not get spent, it gets saved.
These very important reforms add $85 billion to our national superannuation savings over the next 10 years. That helps set us up as a financial hub, it helps economic growth, it helps increase our national savings and it helps increase the amount of capital in the country. It is a tremendously important thing for the nation overall and it provides a cushion of national savings for any future economic shocks, which cannot necessarily be ruled out. We look at the events in the Eurozone and we know that the prospect of future economic shocks cannot be ruled out. That is one of the reasons why the stimulus, although it is tapering downwards, must continue. We cannot be sure that economic growth worldwide will necessarily continue.
I think we must have a weather eye for what could happen. We have economists like Paul Krugman talking about a lost decade in the United States because of the withdrawal of stimulus too quickly. He speculates they may suffer the problem that the Japanese economy suffered in the nineties, where they had a terrible economic collapse and they had zombie banks roaming around the place not really functioning properly. They lost a decade of economic growth. That is a prospect that must be countenanced when we look at world economic growth.
These superannuation savings are also terribly important to individuals. An 18-year-old will be $200,000 better off in retirement. A 30-year-old will be $108,000 better off. A 40-year-old will be $57,000 better off. Those figures highlight not just that individuals will benefit but that the earlier we get people to start saving for their retirement the better off they are and the more they end up with. The nature of retirement is that, when you are 18, you just do not think about it. When you get a bit closer to 40 you start thinking about it and when you are 50 you really start thinking about it. One of the key parts of this strategy for the nation’s savings is that it gets individuals to start saving when it is not necessarily their highest priority.
It is interesting that the Investment and Financial Services Association, which is headed by Mr John Brogden, called the government’s superannuation increases a stunning win for Australians and strongly supported their introduction. Mr Brogden was quoted as saying:
I congratulate the Government on today’s announcement. Every Australian will benefit from increased savings. Australians will face retirement with greater security and confidence.
Mr Brogden is of course a former opposition leader in New South Wales and not necessarily an ideological supporter of the government. So his support for the government’s changes is notable.
The changes are in the long-term national interest. They should receive bipartisan support. It is a great pity that they are not receiving bipartisan support. The opposition know that this is the right thing to do. They have always known that it is the right thing to do. Even when the previous government shelved the Keating government’s plan, they knew it was the right thing to do. Many of them will acknowledge it to you privately. Ultimately, they will not dismantle any increases that we put in place if they return to government because they know that it meets a vital national economic need—that is, to increase our rate of national savings. Australia’s long-term economic vulnerability has been that we have always had to draw in capital from overseas to fund productive investment in this country. It is in the vital national interest that we start to address that long-term vulnerability.
We have also heard all about the problems of a two-speed economy. This is a common problem for resource-rich economies. High resources prices force up the currency value, which squeezes the nation’s exporters—agriculture and manufacturing. I have seen this locally in Wakefield. I have seen hay exporters complain to me about the high currency. I have seen the pressure it puts on wineries. I have seen firsthand the pressure it puts on our car industry. I represent an electorate that relies on exports in nearly all of its major industries and a rising currency caused by a resource-rich economy places severe competitive pressures on the nation’s exporters.
There is also a tendency in a resource-rich economy for capital and labour to move to that expanding resources industry. Inevitably, this places pressure on the nation’s non-resource based exporters to compete, both for finance and for skilled labour, and this tends to increase the cost of both for these companies. A boom in the sale of non-renewable resources can severely affect the economic viability of the long-term wealth creators in manufacturing and agriculture. We do have to have an eye for when these non-renewable resources are sold. We have to have an eye for the long-term future of this country. We want a manufacturing industry and we want a viable agricultural industry to be there when the resources eventually, as they must, run out.
The government’s budget changes deal with this phenomenon by firstly ensuring that all Australians receive a fair share of the non-renewable resource revenue that is exported from this country. Secondly, they lower company tax rates to assist the nation’s companies to develop, despite the challenges of a two-speed economy. The government’s package lowers the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent by 2014-15 and small business gets a head start on this reduction, receiving it in 2012. That is a very important reduction. In the ranking of competitiveness, it takes us from the 22nd most competitive country to the 17th on current advice. Sole traders, those in partnerships and incorporated small businesses will be able to deduct assets up to the value of $5,000 in one year. They will be able to pool assets costing more than $5,000 and write them down at a single rate of 30 per cent. So businesses across the nation will benefit from these changes and, most importantly, they assist exporters who are at our economic front line.
It is worth noting the opposition’s approach to company tax—to these exporters, to the car manufacturers, to the wineries and the hay exporters who are confronting the difficulties of the world post the global financial crisis and who are facing the challenges of a two-speed economy. Their approach is to add to the company tax burden, to add 1.7 per cent to the current 30 per cent rate. They do this to fund their rather lavish parental leave scheme, a parental leave scheme that seemed to come out of the middle of nowhere. One minute we had Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, saying that he was against taxes. The next minute we had him saying that he was going to add 1.7 per cent to the company tax rate to fund a parental leave scheme that can only be described as upper-middle-class welfare, benefiting those who are very wealthy the most and slugging the nation’s exporters to do it. By 2014-15, the difference between the Rudd government’s company tax rate and a potential Abbott government’s tax rate will be 3.7 per cent if you take into account the government’s proposed reductions and the opposition’s proposed increases.
Essentially, the opposition say that miners should be let off the hook and we should let other exporters shoulder the full burden of the emerging two-speed economy. Essentially, they propose that an additional 1.7 per cent company tax burden should be put on the backs of our nation’s exporters, at a time when they are struggling, to fund maternity leave proposals that reek of indulgent middle-class welfare. It is a massive impost to place on hay exporters, on wine exporters and on car exporters. It is a massive impost which will slug companies in my electorate in order, on the one hand, to kowtow to the big end of town—those who are making extraordinary profits out of the mineral wealth of this country—and, on the other, to lavish middle-class welfare on those who can afford to go without it.
I think the Treasurer and Prime Minister should be applauded for their economic stewardship through the global financial crisis. In future, as I said, economic historians will debate this period in time. I sense that Australia will be held up as a country which had all the right policy prescriptions for what was a very serious crisis—and it could still be an uncertain economic future unless the world makes some pretty difficult decisions and embarks on appropriate global regulation to deal with these sorts of crises. This budget marks the beginning of a return to surplus in 2012-13 and a pathway out of the global financial crisis. Most importantly, it deals with the long-term international and national economic challenges, and I commend it the House.
When the Treasurer rose to his feet on budget night, for a moment or two I thought we had been transported back in time. But no, he was taking us forward in time to 2012 or 2013. The Treasurer spent most of his speech talking about what will happen three years from now. There was very little about what will happen during the next 12 months. It was bordering on the surreal. The Treasurer was supposed to be handing down a budget for the 2010-11 financial year, but all he talked about were events that may occur years from now. I believe there is a good reason for that. The Treasurer is highly embarrassed about his budget. For the second year in a row, the Treasurer is so embarrassed about the state of his budget that he finds it difficult to talk about it in detail. Do you remember last year when the Treasurer could not bring himself to say the word ‘deficit’ within his budget speech? It reached such comical levels of absurdity that the Treasurer was avoiding saying the word ‘deficit’ and the Prime Minister was avoiding saying that the projected government debt was $200 billion. They found themselves physically unable to say the words ‘deficit’ or ‘$200 billion’.
Again this year the Treasurer finds it difficult to talk about what is going to occur in 2010-11. That is because the Rudd government’s spendathon continues unabated. The Treasurer is too embarrassed to admit that the headlong rush into massive debt continues. He is too embarrassed to admit that this government will be borrowing $700 million every week for the next financial year. This government’s reckless spending and borrowing means that the interest bill alone on government debt in 2010-11 will be $4.6 billion. The budget reveals that the interest payments will be $6.5 billion by 2012-13. This is money that has to be found to pay the interest on the government debt. It is money that could and should have been invested in schools, hospitals and other important services for the Australian people.
So how should the Australian people judge the Rudd government? The truth is that the Rudd government inherited the strongest set of national accounts since Federation when they took office in 2007. The Rudd government took over from the Howard government a budget that was more than $20 billion in surplus. There was zero net government debt and there were tens of billions of dollars in investment funds for the long-term future of this country. Members will recall the Higher Education Endowment Fund, the $6 billion fund for universities. There were funds for healthcare research and more. Yet this Treasurer has now presided over the biggest turnaround in the national finances in Australia’s history. This reckless government has spent money like water and plunged the budget deeply into deficit. Government debt will reach nearly $94 billion, and this is a debt that will be repaid by cutting government services or by the Australian people through their taxes. It will not be repaid by this failed Labor Treasurer or this failed Labor Prime Minister. It will be repaid by the Australian people. The government has raided many of the savings and spent, spent, spent.
What does Australia have to show for it? We have witnessed a disaster unfolding in the school building program, which has been rorted to an unbelievable extent. It is a school building program that has fundamentally failed every test of good governance and every test of competent ministerial oversight. We have also witnessed the tragic home insulation program unfold where four young Australians lost their lives and thousands of people are living in homes with unsafe roofs. There have also been dozens of house fires. The program will cost almost as much to fix as it took to roll out in the first place.
We have witnessed the litany of broken promises from the Rudd government. There was the failure to build the promised 260 childcare centres and the failure to build the promised 2,650 trade training centres with only 12 currently operational. The computers in schools program has delivered only a quarter of what the Rudd government promised for double the cost. The backflips and broken promises came so thick and fast in the weeks before the budget that it was impossible to keep track of them all.
Let me turn to one of the Rudd government’s most important policies. The Prime Minister called it the greatest moral challenge of our age. He claimed that climate change was so important, and that it was so necessary for his emissions trading scheme to be enacted before last year’s Copenhagen conference, that to do otherwise would be absolute political cowardice. He said it would be an absolute failure of leadership. Yet the Prime Minister has walked away from what he described as the greatest moral challenge of our age. What kind of Prime Minister would say that climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our age, tell the Australian people he had a policy to deal with it and then walk away from that policy? That is, by the Prime Minister’s own standards, an act of absolute political cowardice and an absolute failure of leadership. It is beyond belief that this Prime Minister can continue to expect the Australian people to believe any future commitment that he makes.
The Treasurer’s entire budget framework is based on a house of cards held up by a great big mining supertax. This tax strikes at the heart of Australia’s future prosperity. We know that the Prime Minister would love for this debate to be about Kevin Rudd versus the big, greedy, foreign mining companies. He would love to portray this as foreign companies taking their profits overseas and ripping off Australians. But the truth is that this is a tax that will impact most severely on the 500,000 people who are employed directly or indirectly by the mining sector. Amongst that group there will be young families struggling to pay off a mortgage and raise a family. There will be thousands of small business owners who have sunk their life savings into ventures that support the mining sector. These are the people who will be casualties of the Prime Minister’s supertax grab. It will not be the mining executives that this government is personally denigrating. It will not be BHP and Rio Tinto for, of course, they have options. They have obligations to their shareholders to operate in the most cost-effective environment to get the best returns on the investment. That is no longer Australia. They have options in other countries overseas, including Canada, whose effective tax rate will be less than half than that of Australia if this supertax is imposed on our mining sector.
One can only wonder what message this government is trying to send to international investors. Surely this government is not intending to send a message that, if you come to Australia, invest billions of dollars in this country and employ thousands of Australians, you can then expect to be subjected to retrospective taxation on your investments and your mining executives can be subjected to vicious, personal attacks from the Prime Minister, no less. The Rudd government has sent a clear message to the international investment community that Australia is now a more risky investment environment. It is hard to believe that the words ‘Australia’ and ‘high sovereign risk’ are being used in the same sentence by the global capital markets. Every Australian government for decades has worked tirelessly to promote Australia as a safe and stable investment destination. This reputation has been trashed by the Prime Minister for the purposes of domestic political gain. To make matters much worse the Prime Minister continues to misrepresent key facts about the impact of this mining supertax.
Question time today was quite a farce as the Prime Minister falsely claimed the status of a document, which he wished to rely upon to support the extraordinary claim of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer yesterday, that multinational companies in Australia pay 13 per cent tax and other companies pay 17 per cent tax. That claim was made in support of the government’s imposition of this tax. It is just not true. Worse still the document upon which the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister relied was in fact a draft paper written by a student from the university of Carolina. It was not Treasury modelling; it was not a Treasury analysis; it was a paper done for a PhD student’s thesis.
We have to be deeply concerned when the Prime Minister is unable to describe what constitutes a superprofit. The Prime Minister said:
Well, a super profit is calculated in this way. If you have for example, in a mining company, a normal profit is made up of revenues minus expenses. What’s a super profit? Revenues minus expenses minus what we call an ordinary return on investment. How do we define an ordinary return on investment? If you took your investment capital and, for example, invested it at the long term government bond rate, that runs at about six per cent.
That was the Prime Minister’s description of a superprofit. Profits in excess of that he defines as super for profit. The Prime Minister went on to say:
… what we do is say that those companies running those super profits can keep 60 per cent of that but 40 per cent of it, we believe, should come back to the Australian people in investment in better super for working families.
This was another misrepresentation. The government has deliberately sought to mislead and misrepresent every aspect of this new tax. But that is the hallmark of the government. The government has misrepresented the total tax and royalties paid by the mining industry. The Prime Minister and his ministers have claimed the sector has only paid an additional $9 billion in revenue, when in reality it has contributed $80 billion over the period claimed. The government has been caught out using the statistics from the United States graduate student rather than the official published statistics of the Australian Taxation Office to attack the amount of tax paid by the minerals sector. Rarely have we seen an act of such utter desperation from a government rapidly losing control of its agenda. Rather than the 13 to 17 per cent quoted by the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister from the paper by the US student, the government should use the Australian tax office figures which show the effective corporate tax rate paid by the mining sector is 27.81 per cent and when royalties are added the effective rate increases to 41.3 per cent.
In fact, BHP went so far today as to issue a notice to the stock exchange to point out that its effective tax rate for the year 2009 was 43 per cent. The chairman of BHP Billiton, Mr Jack Nasser, sent a letter to shareholders of BHP on 17 May 2010 pointing out that the effective tax rate paid by BHP was 43 per cent and that if this supertax were added to the tax rate, BHP would be paying about a 57 per cent effective tax rate, which would make it the highest taxed mining and resource sector in the world. I asked the Prime Minister in question time today whether he accepted as a fact the statement by the chairman of BHP Billiton that BHP’s effective tax rate was 43 per cent. The Prime Minister pointedly refused to answer.
There has been the very damaging campaign by the Prime Minister in concert with the unions to portray global mining companies as foreign carpetbaggers taking profits overseas. This is simply not true. For example, Xstrata has claimed that it generated $44 billion in revenue and has reinvested a total of $45 billion in Australia —in other words, Xstrata has invested more in Australia than it generated.
The Prime Minister has also sought to compare the mining supertax with the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which was introduced in the 1980s. It is important to note that the North West Shelf, a major petroleum project, was exempted from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. The government is not able to point to any development that occurred in the 20 years between the introduction of the tax and when the Gorgon project was announced last year. The fact is further development in the oil and gas sector was severely retarded after the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax was introduced. In fact, it is only in recent years, more than 20 years later, that development has begun as the long-term demand for energy appears to be very strong. The Gorgon project, in other words, has taken 20 years to come on-stream. This contrasts with the government’s claim that the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax has made the oil and gas sector prosper as a result of its introduction.
The head of Woodside, Don Voelte, has said that the Pluto project would not have got off the ground had the government’s proposed supertax regime been in place. And we have had a number of mining executives state publicly and to the stock exchange that projects will be put on hold as a result of the government’s mining supertax. It is beyond belief that the government can claim that whacking a 40 per cent tax on the mining sector is somehow good for the mining sector. If it were so good for the mining sector, why aren’t other sectors in the Australian economy lining up and begging the government to impose an additional 40 per cent on their operations? It just beggars belief.
Over the last few weeks we have seen a very damaging campaign by this government to give the impression to the Australian people that the mining sector is not paying its way and that somehow the Australian people are being ripped off. This is causing considerable consternation around the world, particularly in global capital markets and international investment circles. It is strange, because when Kevin Rudd was in opposition he used to speak very highly of the mining sector. Indeed in one of his first overseas trips as Prime Minister he went to Beijing, and in Beijing he said:
Australia is an open market when it comes to foreign investment. And if you look at Australia, we have had a history of relying upon internationally sourced capital to fund the country’s long-term development. In the great state of Western Australia, it’s like that.
I mean, you have a relatively small population, a huge land mass and therefore foreign investment has been necessary.
That is a statement that stands in stark contrast with what the government is now proposing to do. His extraordinary attack on mining companies as foreign owned and having massively increased their profits and denied the Australian people their fair share just does not ring true when you think how effusive the Prime Minister was about the mining sector and its contribution to ensuring that Australia could weather the storm surrounding the global financial crisis.
As the Prime Minister drags Australia’s international reputation through the mud for his own domestic political purposes, we in the opposition will stand firm. We believe that this supertax is bad for the Australian economy. It will cost jobs and drive mining activity and mining investment offshore. It will hurt small business owners. It will harm Australian consumers as the cost of living will rise as a result of the imposition of an additional 40 per cent tax. Housing costs, electricity costs and an increased cost of living will all go through the Australian economy. (Time expired)
In the budget this year, Tasmania has continued to fare very well. The 2010-11 federal budget is about securing Australia’s long-term economic future. With what we were facing in Australia 12 months ago, the original forecast for the budget for 2009-10 was for a fall in the GDP of 0.5 per cent and unemployment to be at 8.25 per cent, with a deficit of about $58 billion. Things have been turned around quite well by the budget which has been brought down, with the opportunity for growth for 2010-11 being stated at about 3.25 per cent and unemployment to remain around five per cent, or I think even a little less, with a deficit of about $41 billion. So it is a bit of a different picture from last year.
We should commend the Treasurer for bringing that budget together. It reflects a commitment to strong financial management and the budget returning to surplus in 2012-13. This is responsible management which will mean that the government will halve peak debt and get the budget back into the black three years early. This was clearly a budget for the years ahead and for securing Australia’s future. It helps working families. I am particularly pleased about the commitments to health care, including GP services, superclinics and addressing the shortage of nurses. In the Lyons electorate, this has been a major question and I have been lobbying for many years now to ensure that we have the appropriate mix of health staff available to try to take pressure off the city hospitals.
I welcome the funding for skills training in renewable energy. In my electorate I have a major wind farm proposed for the Lake Echo area. I certainly hope that comes together in future. It is in the Central Highlands and only a couple of kilometres from the distribution hub for Hydro Tasmania. Concerning infrastructure and rail networks, I look forward to projects already underway in the electorate of Lyons and across Tasmania coming together. Other projects can be supported and some are already being funded. Here I think about Rhyndaston and the area of the old train route between Hobart and Launceston, built in 1880 with horse and cart, being renewed and many of the more rigorous curves of the rail being removed. It will be straightened considerably, which will mean less wear and tear on the train traffic using it in the future.
During the period this government has been in Canberra, there have been some great changes in emphasis in communities across the Lyons electorate, assisted by federal government funding. This has encouraged hard work and persistence from community members to come up with the projects which have been funded. Let us have a look at some of those projects, with a focus on the many good things happening in the communities around the Lyons electorate.
I keep reading in the national press about some problems with the Building the Education Revolution. I saw people today on the other side trying to promote politics around these projects, but every time I visit a school or attend an opening in the Lyons electorate I find very grateful and enthusiastic school communities who are delighted to have these funds spent in their area and on their schools. In some places they tell me that this is the first major upgrade of their facilities in 30 or 40 years. So, of course, they are very pleased to have these upgrades to take their schools forward over the next 20 years. Without funding of this sort, these communities would have found it very hard to achieve through fundraising the large amounts of money needed to build and equip any new facilities. These projects in small communities will benefit the whole community, not just the education community. In many of those small communities the school is a real community school, playing a very important role over and above its educational role.
They tell me that the new technology that has been provided, along with the upgrade of the infrastructure, has enabled children in more isolated areas to link into mainstream education programs and talk between schools. Both teachers and students are learning to use the IT together. Some teachers are finding the large whiteboards difficult, and the kids are teaching them as they go. It also helps the school to again become the focus of the community. I recently opened a new multipurpose building in Wilmot, costing about $250,000, which was funded through Building the Education Revolution. This funding allowed the online access centre to function more efficiently. It provided a great area for the local playgroup to meet and also for the whole school community to meet as one body. The online centres not only give people the chance to learn new skills and participate in e-learning activities but, in the case of small communities, also provide a place for people to come together and share experiences and ideas. The local playgroup will now have a new area in which to meet, giving local kids a chance to become familiar with the school atmosphere before starting school in the future. The learning programs across Lyons are a major success, and having an area big enough for those programs to come into play is a major opportunity for young people.
Another project was the refurbishment of the Carrington Mill at Oatlands in Central Tasmania. This was done just after the last election as part of the Rural Infrastructure Program. When you drive past Oatlands you cannot miss the Carrington Mill. It is a great landmark and tourist attraction in the Midlands of Tasmania. Many people do not know about this mill but it is playing a central role in the reinvigoration of the whole town of Oatlands. Over the past few years, Carrington Mill has received $1.2 million in federal funding, with matching funding from the state. The work is well underway. The long-term goal is to see the mill up and running again as a working venture. This will not only be a tourist attraction but will have a huge ongoing economic benefit for the whole area. Already, we have seen one new business open—a bakery specialising in baking bread using traditional methods. The bakery is now also holding courses in breadmaking. The overall plan is to turn Oatlands into a tourist precinct with many opportunities to experience within the area. It is also only a short distance from the highland lakes. The plans include the growing and harvesting of spelt wheat, a heritage variety of wheat, which is used in the grinding process at the mill. Existing attractions such as the Oatlands Spring Festival and local businesses and accommodation will all benefit from these major plans. This has been a long process that started many years ago with a vision to turn Oatlands from a quaint but fading country town into a tourist destination. It has taken much work and dedication from many community members, volunteers and the local council to make this dream a reality.
This is what these injections of funds into small communities are all about. They not only stimulate the economy but, in the process, can also motivate a whole region or two. Many of the success stories around Lyons owe everything to groups and committees of hardworking volunteers who persist in the face of many problems to achieve their goals. Recently, we have seen a new childcare centre called Little Penguin open at Bicheno. Over 10 years ago a group of parents saw a need for child care in the Bicheno and Freycinet communities. Since then, with a few changes in the committee over the years, the group has worked tirelessly to see its dream become a reality. This culminated with the opening of the centre, which is sponsored by the Northern Children’s Network, in May, and it was a wonderful event. This stimulated other investments in the local community—in particular, the upgrading of the primary school, which was opened just last week. The Beaconsfield childcare centre and early learning centre is another vital project that is being funded as part of the rollout of childcare centres in disadvantaged districts, and it is now well on the way to providing a good service to the parents of Beaconsfield and the upper Tamar Valley.
On the mainland there have been stories about pink batts. I can tell you that this program went down very well in the Lyons electorate. It was delivered mostly by local companies, and I guess that was the key to there not being many complaints. The only complaints generated were in more populated areas outside the Lyons electorate, where fly-by-night companies took advantage of gullible consumers who trusted them to do the right thing. I believe this was a good program. It has allowed many people to at least have some insulation in their homes, and I am sure that contributes to bringing down their fuel bills.
I believe we have again been responsible in this budget. We have moved to strengthen the economy to help Australian families where they really need assistance and to secure growth for the future. Our decisive action has kept the economy strong and protected jobs during the global financial crisis. We must now take decisive action to return the budget to surplus and keep our finances strong.
In Tasmania we are going through a major period of restructuring of our primary industries. We have been addressing the question of climate change in our agricultural industries and there have been some assistance packages to help with the delivery of water to drought-proof individual properties.
Now we turn to look at forestry. Despite the Greens attempts to derail any initiatives taken by the industry, there is general agreement that the restructuring of the industry needs to occur to retain a very important side of our economy. Federal capital already put into road and rail infrastructure will assist part of this and I know that there are close negotiations going on between the state and federal spheres and industry players to build a new and more sustainable industry.
We have the rollout of the National Broadband Network which is already underway in Tasmania. This will mean businesses and industries in Tasmania will be able to compete on an equal basis with those overseas as they access markets and opportunities. Without a fast and reliable internet service, this has been impossible to achieve before. Many people coming to Tasmania find a valley or a glen where they would love to live, but they are not able to get proper internet service so they have had to leave again.
Tourism is another area where Tasmania has an active interest as we have some of the most sought after tourist venues in Australia. I know our east coast has been featured as one of the most popular and heralded tourist destinations. Tourism is a $1 billion industry for the Tasmanian economy, and it is an industry that employs 14,000 people—some 16 per cent of all jobs. The federal government has recognised the importance of this and has launched a program called There’s nothing like Australia on a website in which individuals, states and businesses can interact with the marketing program to ensure that the places people visit and which they enjoyed most can be documented and spread to the whole world. So it will certainly help Tasmania to attract more visitors and thus create more jobs.
There are tax cuts in this budget as well, and a more simplified tax system that will allow automatic deductions from 1 July 2012. There will be modest income tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer from 1 July this year. Small business will also be given a tax break from 1 July 2012.
The new investments in the Launceston General Hospital, the rehabilitation work and the opportunities that will go on there are major investments in the health of Tasmanians. There are opportunities from the $417 million investment to improve after-hours access to GPs and primary health care. This is a major way of keeping people out of hospitals. There are the superclinics, and one is close to getting started in the electorate of Lyons. They are a wonderful opportunity to deliver primary health care. And, of course, electronic health records for every Australian who wants one from 1 July 2012 will be a major initiative, something which the other side failed to deliver to the Australian health system.
The money being put into mental health through this budget will also assist enormously, especially the 3,500 young people aged between 16 and 25 years who can benefit from early treatment support. This is a major opportunity as we know that early assistance and treatment in the area of mental health is of major benefit.
There are 39,000 training places for the Skills for Recovery program, with the Apprentice Kickstart initiative to support around 22,500 apprentices. This is targeted to small to medium businesses in areas where we, as a nation, need to improve those skill bases. There will be 140,000 Australians building core foundation skills such as language, literacy and numeracy. It is a tremendous program which will assist many apprentices getting started.
I mentioned infrastructure in the electorate of Lyons. There is the National Broadband Network being rolled out in parts of the Lyons electorate and other parts of Tasmania. The Australian Rail Track Corporation received about $1 billion in this budget. This will help to enhance rail and track throughout Australia.
So this budget is a very responsible one. It allows us to build on the programs before us, making sure that we are well placed in the global economy to deal with the changes that are continuing to face us. (Time expired)
I rise today to address the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011. This bill represents everything that is wrong with the Rudd Labor government: reckless spending, broken promises, waste, new taxes and gross mismanagement. This is a big-spending, big-taxing budget. But what else can we expect from a Labor government? Just like Whitlam and Keating before him, Prime Minister Rudd has taken a huge surplus and driven it into massive debt. This is a case of deja vu.
Prime Minister Rudd would have you believe that his spending was necessary because we were part of a global financial crisis. In fact, Prime Minister Rudd has tried to take credit for the performance of the Australian economy during the global financial crisis. The facts are that Australia was buffeted from the economic tempest with a $23 billion surplus left by the coalition, a mining industry boom and a well-regulated and secure financial industry. At no point during the crisis did our banks require bailouts like those in the USA and the UK. Mr Rudd would have my constituents believe that he spent their money wisely to avoid an economic tsunami. Yet, when we actually got hit, it was nothing worse than a king tide.
Allow me to compare the economic management of Labor and the coalition. During the Keating years the cash interest rate reached 10.5 per cent and stayed there for almost two years. During the Howard years the cash rate fell to less than six per cent and stayed there for 6½ years. During the Labor Hawke-Keating years, unemployment peaked at 10.9 per cent and remained in double figures for more than two years. It took John Howard just three years in government to bring this to below seven per cent, and for the next 8½ years unemployment consistently fell, bottoming out at four per cent in March 2008. Labor is now celebrating a figure of 5.4 per cent as at April 2010.
Why is it that the Labor Party is so bad at managing a budget? It is because the Labor Party consists of people who have no real experience in business. Before becoming Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd studied Mandarin, worked in foreign affairs in Sweden and China and worked as a consultant. Before becoming Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard studied arts and law, worked as a lawyer and was a secretary of the Socialist Forum. Clearly these are people who know absolutely nothing about making tough decisions in order to make ends meet and keep small business afloat.
I know what it is like struggling to manage a business and keep workers in a job while providing for a family. Prior to entering politics I owned a scuba-diving business, Scuba Industries of Australia. I also had a construction business called Central Coast Carpenters and Builders. A great majority of my coalition colleagues have also worked as farmers or in small business, including Warren Truss, Judith Adams, Cory Bernardi, Bruce Billson and Steve Ciobo, to name but a few. The people of Australia can trust the coalition with their household budgets because we have been out there employing them, listening to them and providing for them. We know what it is like to have our own money on the line, to be risking our future and that of our children with good business and good money management. That is why we can be trusted with the finances of this great country.
Having personally managed my own businesses and dealt with budget issues on a daily basis, I cannot describe the anger, dismay and helplessness I have felt watching Labor waste billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. These bills reveal the extent of Labor’s waste, including $1 billion which will now have to be spent to fix the bungled and tragic Home Insulation Program. The bills also include $1 billion to be spent on dealing with the influx of illegal boat arrivals that have occurred since Prime Minister Rudd weakened our border protection policies. This is all money that could have been saved if the Rudd Labor government had not rushed into things without proper consultation. Australia never had to go into this massive debt, which will now have to be repaid by every man, woman and child. This Labor government only knows how to throw money at its problems. Now it has no money left to throw.
I want to speak in particular about four of Labor’s biggest failures because I simply do not have time to list them all. Firstly, we had the Home Insulation Scheme, where Labor did everything wrong. Firstly, Labor handed out rebates that were too high because it did not properly consult with the experts, and, when the coalition convinced Prime Minister Rudd that the taxpayers were being ripped off, $200 million had already been wasted. Secondly, Labor did not monitor its program or the people who were delivering it. Dangerous work was done and four people lost their lives in tragic circumstances. Thirdly, rogue installers did dodgy work and ruined the reputation of professional, trustworthy insulation businesses. Fourthly, Labor promised to review and then reinstate the scheme but then changed its mind, resulting in businesses which had bought tonnes of insulation material being left with costly storage bills, with many being forced to dump their insulation because they simply could not afford to store it. Fifthly, insulation businesses claimed for their government rebates, but Labor was so slow in paying them that some businesses almost went bankrupt. For example, Insulmaster, in my electorate of Paterson, was owed hundreds of thousands of dollars and had to let go of staff.
I would also like to talk about Labor’s so-called Building the Education Revolution, which is more like a taxpayer rip-off. I would like to make it clear that I wholeheartedly support investment in local schools and in the education of our children. But what taxpayers need is value for money—and they simply did not get it in this program. The BER saw some prefabricated classrooms costing more per square metre than a luxury home. For example, Booral Public School in my electorate got a double pre-fabricated classroom for the same price that Black Hill Public School got three classrooms, a basketball court and a rainwater tank. The difference? The latter achieved such a great result because the school managed the project itself. The Booral Public School project was managed by the state Labor government.
We have seen a massive increase in illegal boat arrivals as a result of Prime Minister Rudd weakening our border protection policies. The coalition had this problem under control and between July 2002 and June 2008 there were just 18 boats. Since Prime Minister Rudd took over, we have had 128 boats in less than three years. That is a rate of about three boats a week under Labor, compared with three boats a year under the coalition. Labor now needs to spend $1 billion fixing this problem. This would not have been necessary if Labor had simply made the tough decisions and stopped the boats, like the coalition did.
Finally, I would like to talk about the great big new tax on mining that Labor wants to inflict on the Australian economy. This ‘supertax’ has hit mining companies hard on the stock market while cutting huge amounts from ordinary Australians’ superannuation accounts. This ‘supertax’ will hit hard on the profits of the Hunter’s mining companies, which will likely have to cut jobs and shift allowances in order to cope. If their products become more expensive, it will lead to big increases in power bills. It will also force overseas consumers to go elsewhere in search of competitively priced coal, therefore sending our jobs offshore. This tax is not just on big mining companies; it is also on small quarries and will impact on the cost of sand, gravel and cement. At a time when the property market is already struggling because of rising interest rates, this is a cost we simply cannot bear. As the Hunter struggles with a huge shortfall in rental vacancy, we should be encouraging people to buy new homes, not making them more expensive and out of reach. Furthermore, this tax is not just a hit on mining companies. Like Labor’s postponed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, this is a tax on everything and everyone and will flow on to every sector of the economy and hit families where it hurts—in the pocket.
According to Labor, this reckless tax is the best way to pull Australia out of the huge debt the Prime Minister has created, but the Rudd Labor government clearly does not understand that the Australian economy will suffer enormous damage as a result of this tax and the effects will be far reaching. The Labor government has failed to explain to the Australian people that the surplus forecast in its appropriation bills relies on the continued mining boom. A slight change to this boom would mean that the supposed surplus becomes nonexistent. Prime Minister Rudd would have you believe that I am a doomsayer for questioning the continuing mining boom, but he himself said in 2007:
The future I see for Australia is one in which our current mining boom does not last forever, and rather than simply being the lucky country—instead of a country which makes its own luck—we will have to make our own luck.
He said:
… our current economic circumstances are propped up by the mining boom which this year alone will bring in some $55 billion to the national economy.
But working families legitimately fear this. ‘What happens, Mr Howard, when the mining boom is over?’
Prime Minister Rudd criticised John Howard for the mining boom, claiming that the coalition did not have a plan to safeguard our economy when it ended, yet now that he has spent all the money and wasted the surplus Mr Howard worked so hard to achieve Mr Rudd wants to hinge Australia’s entire economic recovery on the mining boom. Clearly the Prime Minister cannot be trusted when it comes to the economy or to keep his word.
The money wasted on these four mistakes alone could have paid for vital projects across the country, including life-changing improvements for the people in my electorate of Paterson. My constituents need urgent upgrades in order to watch television and access the internet. My constituents need urgent road upgrades to the Pacific Highway, the New England Highway, Bucketts Way and the Nelson Bay Road to erase black spots and save lives. They need a Fingal Bay bypass and quicker action to build the F3 link road, not to mention action on Dungog roads. My constituents need more aged-care beds, more mental health facilities, more doctor’s surgeries and another local hospital. My constituents need more childcare places and they need a high school in Medowie.
Of course, Labor could not deliver money for any of these projects in this year’s budget because it has no money left. Labor could not deliver any of these projects, even though the $1 billion it wasted on the Home Insulation Program alone would have paid for many of these projects and a whole lot more. Sadly, monumental mistakes define the Rudd Labor government. Broken promises have also featured heavily over the past three years and have caused disappointment after disappointment for the people of Paterson.
Prime Minister Rudd has repeatedly declared that climate change is ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’. Likewise, his deputy, Julia Gillard, said in January this year that ‘delay is the same as denial’. But now, just a couple of months later, Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard have delayed their ETS. This cowardly backdown is clearly designed to win votes because, as this bill confirms, Mr Rudd intends to reintroduce the ETS if he wins the election. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has made it clear that the ETS would result in a 64 per cent rise in electricity bills in New South Wales. In addition, Labor’s own report, commissioned through Access Economics, shows that the ETS would place 17,000 jobs in the Hunter at risk, and that is without the impact of the great big new tax on mining proposed by this government.
This is bad legislation which will cost jobs and threaten household budgets. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister wants voters to forget about it in the lead-up to the next election, but if we cannot trust a Prime Minister to deliver action on what he believes to be ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’ how can we trust him to deliver anything else, including a budget surplus? After all, he would not even consider the coalition’s direct action plan on climate change, even though it would deliver the same emissions reductions as his ETS. This is a Prime Minister who is all about playing politics, not about hard decisions.
I now come to my portfolio area of defence science and personnel and, more broadly, the defence budget. This budget has again shown that the Rudd Labor government cannot be trusted even on matters as important as the defence of our nation. For instance, the Rudd Labor government’s much maligned 2009 defence white paper promised 12 new submarines, which were to be built in Australia. At the time, the Prime Minister even said that the next generation of submarines would be ‘Australia’s largest ever single defence project’. Given such an assessment, you would expect the 2010-11 budget to have provided some level of initial funding for this highly complex project, but again the budget has revealed the Prime Minister is all doorstop and no delivery. If this government were at all serious about the submarines, the budget should have allocated at least $70 million to $100 million on the design and development phase. Instead, all it has managed to do is transfer the risk of the project to future governments, which is hardly the act of a responsible Prime Minister.
This budget also revealed an overall decrease of $2.42 billion in defence expenditure over the next three years, despite numerous commitments from the Rudd Labor government to a three per cent real increase to the defence budget until 2017-18. By way of comparison, the 2009-10 budget stated that total government funding for defence between the years 2010-11 and 2012-13 would be $77.48 billion. Yet, in the 2010-11 budget, total government funding over the same period for defence totalled $75.06 billion, an overall decrease of $2.42 billion in defence expenditure and another broken promise. Unlike the Rudd government, the Howard government not only quarantined the defence budget from cuts but also increased it from $10.6 billion to $22 billion and rebuilt the hollow structures left by years of Labor neglect.
What this budget has succeeded in doing is to increase the level of concern in the defence industry sector, and it is easy to see why. In 2009-10 there was $631.5 million earmarked for the unapproved major capital equipment program, yet the 2010-11 budget only shows $277.9 million spread over 45 major projects. This is a massive drop in expenditure that has the whole of the defence industry sector worried and is putting numerous defence jobs at risk.
This budget has also successfully managed to increase the number of Defence bureaucrats—by some 1,500 over the next 12 months. This came as a particular shock, as before the 2007 election Kevin Rudd attacked what he considered to be a bloated federal bureaucracy. He has since added nearly 20,000 more public servants during his time in office. And, if all of that was not hard enough to swallow, the government has also reduced the number of uniformed soldiers by 501. The large increase in bureaucrats is coming at a time when Defence is supposed to be saving $20 billion over 10 years, and will simply result in the diversion of resources away from major acquisition programs and Australia’s front line troops.
Without reducing the importance of the support provided by those who serve behind a desk, there is nothing more important than those who serve on the front line. This must be the first time in history that a government has increased the number of public servants in order to save money! Again more spin, smoke and mirrors from a government that has turned fiscal belt tightening into a growth industry. The audacity of this government and its spin machine knows no bounds. When the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science, Greg Combet, proudly announced that the Defence Science and Technology Organisation would receive a funding increase of $138 million, he failed to articulate over how many years this funding would be spread. But that is not the worst part. The reality is that, while the Rudd Labor government may claim to be investing $138 million in the DSTO, it had already ripped out $108 million soon after forming government. The real devil, as they say, is in the detail—and, in this case, that detail was purposely omitted.
Before concluding, I would like to make mention of one last item contained within the budget—one that I am sure will disappoint many Australians—and that is the government’s decision to further reduce the number of available places on the highly successful ADF gap year program. This is a program that was introduced by the coalition government in 2007 in order to give school leavers the opportunity to taste ADF life. It is a program that has proven to be both highly successful and cost effective. In 2008-09, 465 people transferred from the gap year program into either the permanent or Reserve forces. That equates to roughly three-quarters of all participants.
The Rudd Labor government’s decision to halve the ADF gap year program is not only short-sighted but also economically irresponsible. The ADF spends tens of millions of dollars every year on recruiting and marketing campaigns, yet the Rudd government, inexplicably, has chosen to cut back a proven and cost-effective recruitment and retention initiative. It seems only those in the Rudd Labor government know why such action was taken, and it seems those same people are the only ones that consider the current boom in defence recruitment and retention as everlasting. The hard truth is that defence will again face the prospect of personnel shortages and recruitment challenges in the near future, particularly as personnel are once again lured back to the lucrative mining sector—which is one of the reasons why successful programs such as the ADF gap year should be maintained, not cut back.
The Rudd Labor government’s short-sighted approach to policy making is going to cost the economy more money than it is trying to save. That is what this Labor budget is—it is a big taxing, big spending budget that will cost all Australians more than it purports to save. A government that failed to manage a home insulation scheme cannot be trusted to manage the nation’s fiscal policy, let alone its defence forces. A government that says climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time, only to scrap its ETS, cannot be trusted. Australia’s coalition governments fixed interest rates, they fixed unemployment and they paid off the multi-billion dollar debts that each and every Labor government left them with. It will take another coalition government to get the job done this time as well. (Time expired)
I rise today to talk about a budget which will further strengthen our economy and secure future growth as we emerge from the global financial crisis in a position stronger than we had anticipated. I am delighted to be part of a government that takes responsibility for the nation’s future, and this is a budget that will see us move towards a more stable and secure economy for Australia’s families and the generations to come. The actions we took as a government in the face of the economic crisis helped to lessen its effects and we are now working to return the budget to surplus much sooner than we thought was possible. It was HG Wells who said that human history is, in essence, a history of ideas. Ideas inform policy which in turn informs the lives of everyday Australians. If you care about people then you care about policy; if you care about policy then you care about ideas. It is the combination of great ideas and the pragmatic approach of the Rudd government that has carried us as a nation through the global financial crisis and will continue to carry us forward. It is such ideas that shape this budget.
This budget supports what I believe are some of the most important areas for our country. The health of our families and communities has been at the forefront of this government’s investment, and this year’s budget builds on that. For the first time, the federal government will take primary funding responsibility for our health system in order to ensure that our health system and hospitals meet our needs in the years to come. Over the next five years $2.2 billion dollars is being invested to create the National Health and Hospitals Network, which will be funded nationally and run locally.
I have heard first-hand about the problems with our health system and one issue that has often been raised with me by my constituents in Bass is the availability of GPs. The budget measures to improve after-hours GP access as well as training more GPs and nurses will build on previous investments and go a long way towards helping make our health system a top quality one for the future. The government is introducing a new four-hour emergency department target and guaranteeing elective surgery waiting times with a new national target that 95 per cent of Australians receive elective surgery within clinically recommended times by 2015, as well as delivering 1,300 new hospital beds. We are also building another 23 new GP superclinics and upgrading over 400 GP clinics and primary care services across the country to provide improved health services to the community.
While I strongly support the Rudd government’s tremendous investment in health, I do wish tonight to bring to the attention of the House the matter of the planned removal of access to Medicare rebates to mental health trained social workers and occupational therapists under the Better Access to Mental Health scheme as announced in the budget. There has been an outcry nationwide against this measure by those mental health workers, the doctors who refer to them and their clients, and I thank Minister Roxon for agreeing to delay the changes and to consult further. I would like to acknowledge in the chamber this evening the National CEO of the Australian Association of Social Workers, Kandie Allen-Kelly, together with Dr Maxine Manifold, a local GP in Launceston who felt so strongly about the removal of the Medicare rebate that she took charge and initiated a local petition. In just five days she managed, together with a team of passionate and committed health professionals, to obtain 1,860 signatures, which I will table in the chamber at a later date. I would also like to thank the many constituents who took the time to email or write to me in relation to this very important matter.
People in Bass are concerned, and concerned they should be. I note in the minister’s press release of 19 May the plan to move the services of these highly trained and experienced clinicians to the provision of packages of care for those in our community with severe mental illness. But clinicians in my electorate tell me that the use of packages will not substitute for the present system of Medicare rebates. The rebate system allows people to visit their clinician and seek assistance for what might be a transitory illness, like a reactive depression or suicidal thoughts after the loss of a relationship. This system has assisted many people in our community to restore quality of life and get back to work and family. Anxiety, depression, mania and neurosis can be debilitating illnesses, and we must encourage people to seek assistance by treating them as if they were the same as any other illness. Imagine if you were to visit your doctor for a flu shot, only to be told that before he or she could treat you that you would have to apply for a package of care. What if you went your clinician and said, ‘I have diabetes and depression.’ He or she would reply, ‘I can treat you for your diabetes, but for your depression you’ll have to apply for a package of care.’
The minister’s press release says that the packages will support people with severe mental illness, but this should not replace a system where people are assisted by clinicians so that they do not develop a severe mental illness. Packages of care should not replace the current system of Medicare rebates. The hardest thing for a person to do when in a state of psychological distress is to bravely come to the doctor and spill the beans, so to speak—that is, to tell their story. Imagine the anxiety they would suffer to have tell that story over and over to a psychologist, then to a social worker, then to an occupational therapist and perhaps to a mental health nurse, to each of the team members administering the package of care. Effective care is coordinated care, but this proposal will leave us fragmented care, not coordinated care. The current system where GPs can refer patients to mental health social workers and occupational therapists in the community just works so well and has been hugely beneficial to thousands of Australians. Because the system is built into Medicare, it is easy to access by those people who represent the most marginalised in our community. No doubt there is a place for packages of care for people with a severe mental illness, but it should not be at the cost of the present system of Medicare rebates for people who are experiencing an episode of mental illness from which they will recover if treated.
A doctor in my electorate presented the following scenario to me. A 35-year-old woman living with three young children in a caravan on a bush block with a physically and financially abusive partner is hardly likely to want to be referred for a package of care with its associated paperwork, telephone calls and so on, which might alert a potentially violent partner to her cry for help. Under the current arrangement, when she comes to the GP with panic attacks and needing an exit strategy from her situation, this woman can get a Medicare rebate of $70.45, paying only a small gap, or even be bulk-billed by a caring local mental health social worker who agrees to see her quickly and discreetly after a phone call from her doctor. Under the proposed changes, this woman will no longer be able to pay the full fee to see a mental health social worker and will likely go without appropriate help. By contrast, however, a woman of the same age who wishes to fly to Paris with her company director husband, but who is prevented from doing so because of a phobia of flying, will still be able to access a rebate of $117.65 for seeing a clinical psychologist for the treatment of her phobia. Where is the justice in this?
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge ‘Deb’ and ‘Geoff’, who had the strength and courage to attend my electorate office and to share their individual stories and experiences of being patients in the mental health system. It was a system, they tell me, that left them feeling extremely confused and vulnerable until the door was opened for them, and they came into contact with a mental health social worker. They both emphasised to me the importance of continuity of care. ‘Deb’ and ‘Geoff’ have exhausted their sick leave and advised me that, if the Medicare rebate were not available to them, they simply would not be able to afford any care or treatment at all. As a society, we cannot allow this to happen to people who are vulnerable and at risk. It simply is not good enough.
I have also spoken to David Hunnerup, a mental health social worker from the Blue Door counselling practice in Launceston. The Blue Door was a collaboration between two mental health social workers and one psychologist. Over a five-year period it was developed specifically to meet the needs of disadvantaged clients whose needs were not being met elsewhere. The business was built without government assistance and built, I might add, on a confidence that the government’s commitment to Medicare’s better access program would be stable. As David advised me, if this reversal goes ahead it will put practices like the Blue Door in jeopardy and could therefore put mental health social workers under considerable disadvantage, let alone the clients who walk through their door. So, again, I sincerely thank Minister Roxon for agreeing to delay these changes until April 2011 and to consult further. This is a good decision, and on behalf of the people I represent in Bass, I urge the minister not to remove Medicare rebates for social workers and occupational therapists who treat people with mental illness in our community under referral from their GPs. The current system works well and there are many doctors, therapists and most importantly ordinary Australians who are grateful for it.
As Australia is facing an ageing population, we have to make provisions for aged-care workers to have access to better training to improve their skills in the workforce. This investment benefits not only older Australians but also those who are looking for career opportunities in aged care as the funding will also go towards scholarships. The funding from this year’s budget will allow aged-care service providers to train and retain a level of expertise amongst workers. This will mean that Australians will receive the best aged care possible from trained and caring staff. From 1 January 2011, eligible parents—including full-time, part-time, seasonal, casual and self-employed workers—will have the financial assistance and security of the national minimum wage, currently $543.78 a week before tax.
Our first ever Paid Parental Leave scheme has been waited for with anticipation for some time by parents. The assistance with the balance of work and family responsibilities will take financial pressure off families and give them time to spend with their new child in those first impressionable weeks. Parents of children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2011 can claim leave of up to 18 weeks if their individual annual income is $150,000 or less. Our government is making its families and the future of Australia a priority whilst helping businesses maintain the skills of their employees for when they return to work. Parents will be able to stay connected to their place of work through Keeping in Touch provisions, which will help to retain jobs and skills.
This year’s budget provides relief for working Australians through a 50 per cent tax break for the first $1,000 of interest on savings and tax cuts for the third year in a row. From 1 July, individuals will be able to earn up to $16,000 without paying income tax due to increases in the low-income tax offset. This is just another way we are providing support for low-income earners trying to make ends meet. The compulsory employer contribution to employees’ superannuation will also be increased from nine per cent to 12 per cent by 2020, providing added financial security for people in retirement.
Further to this, from July 2012 it will be easier for individuals to lodge their tax returns with the new standard deduction option. When I talk to people in the Bass community about tax, what they want to see is a less complicated system in which everybody pays their fair share. This is a really important step towards a tick-and-flick system—a prefilled tax return—an idea that has been very popular with the residents of Bass. Soon you will be able to forget about the hassle of having shoeboxes full of receipts and the costs of getting your taxes done at the end of each year. These reforms will make a real difference for the people I represent. From 1 July 2012, the government will give people the option of choosing a standard deduction of $500 instead of claiming work related expenses. This standard deduction will be increased to $1,000 from 1 July 2013.
I am proud to be a member of a government that is determined to make lasting reforms in tax that make the system fairer and simpler while building a stronger economy for the Bass community. Small businesses will also benefit, being able to instantly deduct the cost of assets up to $5,000. I know this is welcome news for the 7,863 small businesses in my electorate of Bass, many of which will also benefit from a reduction in the company tax rate. It is great to see the important role of small business in our economy recognised, as these businesses kept many people in work during the global recession.
Measures in this year’s budget will invest in the skills we need for our future economy, taking action to increase training place apprenticeships: $243 million over the next four years is going towards the transformation of our vocational education and training system This is part of the $660 million Skills for Sustainable Growth package. The measures that make up this package will improve access to training opportunities, giving more Australians the opportunity to undertake training, including high-level qualifications to advance their careers. We are also working with the states and territories to improve the performance of our largest VET providers, providing performance based funding in order to better the outcomes of our students.
We will also be introducing the National Entitlement to a Quality Training Place, which will guarantee an entitlement to a place for all Australians under 25 in any training course above their current highest qualifications and for which they meet the prerequisites. In addition, the Commonwealth is investing $53.6 million over four years to expand VET FEE-HELP, providing greater access to these loans, meaning that more than 477,000 people will be able to access a loan to help support them with their studies. This new package builds on the government’s previous initiatives to support the VET sector and brings the overall spending on VET for the government’s first four years in office to $15.8 billion from 2008-12, in contrast to the $9.5 billion in the past four years of the previous government.
This government is committed to making sure that all Australians have access to quality education and training opportunities so that they are able to build their skills and improve their employment outcomes. Apprenticeship training is also important to building a stronger economy, and the budget has seen a further investment of almost $80 million to extend the Apprentice Kickstart initiative. This initiative, which more than triples the commencement bonus for employers of traditional trades apprentices in the first year from $1,500 to $4,850, has been a resounding success. Apprentice Kickstart boosted the numbers of traditional trade apprenticeships above pre-global recession levels in just one year. Last summer in Bass, we helped 124 apprentices get started in a new career. This new funding will be targeted to help small and medium sized businesses to put on more apprentices and will support around another 22,500 apprenticeship places across the country in traditional trades that are experiencing skills shortages.
The economic downturn was damaging to apprenticeships but, thanks to the Apprentice Kickstart initiative and the support of employers and young people, we have seen a boost in the number of apprenticeships. I have received many emails of gratitude from constituents in Bass for the government’s budget commitment to increasing Australia’s Official Development Assistance to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015-16. There is both wide support for the government’s position in Bass and confusion and disappointment with the opposition’s proposing a $300 million cut to foreign aid.
The Rudd government is committed to giving our youth opportunities to express their concerns for the poor and to act responsibly as a global citizen. I have recently been involved with young local activists in Bass who are raising awareness of the Millennium Development Goals. One such young lady is Laura Sykes, who is a student at Launceston College and has been heavily involved with the recent Make Poverty History road trip, organising concerts and petitioning the Launceston Council to become fair trade certified. Young Australians in Bass understand global poverty and have clear ideas about what should be done and what can be done. The Rudd government is harnessing this energy and enthusiasm and building on it for the future.
The people of Bass are pleased to hear that Australia is investing, over four years, $303.7 million in education programs and $173.4 million to improve health services for the poor in developing countries. The Bass electorate confirms its support for Australia being an active and responsible citizen in our global community. There is broad and enthusiastic support for the government to continue its commitment to reduce carbon pollution and tackle climate change. For this to occur, Australia must be wise and resolute in transitioning to a low-pollution economy prior to the commencement of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The government will invest $652.5 million dollars to establish a Renewable Energy Future Fund to support renewable energy projects such as solar, wind, geothermal and wave energy. The fund will also help households save on power bills through energy efficiency measures.
The Local Sporting Champions fund has doubled, with an increase in the 2010-11 budget to $3.17 million, which means that budding sports stars in Bass will have double the chance of receiving funding. Up to $25,000 is available for younger athletes wanting to compete in state and national events. In Bass this means that 26 individuals and four teams will now receive the grant. The program has been popular for young athletes in Bass since it was launched in 2008. We need to invest in our sporting champions; some of our kids in Bass could be our next Olympians, Paralympians, tennis stars, football or netball professionals.
It is the best ideas that are producing the best outcomes for Australia’s future. These ideas are informing policy which is building our future. This is an economically responsible budget, which targets investment where it is needed—in family budgets around the country, by reducing tax, boosting superannuation and simplifying tax returns. The Rudd government is optimistic about Australia’s future. Our nation has led the world in getting through the global recession and we are preparing Australia for the challenges of the future. The strong position of the nation’s economy means that the people of Bass will be better positioned for the opportunities of the future. I commend the bills to the House.
In speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills this evening I declare that this budget is based on a wing and a prayer. It is a budget designed to wreck Australia’s outstanding resources sector. The Rudd government is relying on a $9 billion tax on the resources sector to put the budget into the black, even if only by a whisker. It is a tax grab that risks sending half a million Australian jobs, foreign and local investment offshore. And it is a tax on the so-called working families.
Labor’s economic credentials are historically dubious. The facts speak for themselves. They are currently borrowing $700 million a week—or, in other words, $100 million a day—to cove their reckless spending. This is because of a $1 billion blow-out on fixing a quarter of a million dodgy roofs from the tragic pink batts fiasco and $1 billion to manage the illegal immigration influx. They are spending to fix policy failures and learners’ mistakes, all completely of their own doing.
Next financial year interest on net government debt will be $4.6 billion and by 2012-13 the government will be spending $6.5 billion a year on interest payments alone. In just three short years Labor have proven what this country has always known to be true about Labor governments: they are big taxing and big spending. They have spent and sent ordinary Australians into a $93 billion debt. It took a decade of tough decisions and sound economic management by the coalition government to pay off Labor’s $96 billion debt. Mr Rudd has put Australia back there again in record time. In other words, after 13 years of Labor there was a $96 billion debt and Mr Rudd has taken two years to send us into that same $90 billion figure.
This election is now a referendum on the mining industry.
What a load of rubbish!
Order!
Labor want to penalise the one sector that kept this country out of recession. They want to steal from the coffers of companies—
Steal from the coffers of companies? Get a brain!
Order! The member for Canning has the call and the minister will remain silent.
that are creating jobs, supporting local towns and bringing huge investment into Australia. The flow-on effects are endless. After keeping the country waiting with bated breath to see the Henry review, the government has all but done away with its 138 recommendations, accepting only 2½ of them, rejecting 27 and shelving the rest. There was no 40 per cent resources tax proposed in the Henry review. What Ken Henry proposed was to make the tax system simpler. Instead of wading through the current raft of almost 100 taxes to consolidate and eliminate them, the government has just added another massive one on a massive industry.
As a proud Western Australian I see firsthand every day the benefits the mining and resources sector has on the entire state. Every job in mining and resources supports at least four others in other industries like hospitality, aviation, accounting and many more. If we are honest, it is clear that the Prime Minister has given up on Western Australia. Why wouldn’t he? Electorally there is little for Labor to gain in WA and by introducing this massive tax the Prime Minister is sending a clear message that Western Australia is just not worth it. He is happy to take but not give back—take Western Australian money, strip jobs and take security away from Western Australian workers. There are thousands of fly-in fly-out workers in Canning, not to mention those working locally for Alcoa, Boddington Gold and Worsley Alumina. In March 2007, 29,000 people were registered on AWAs in Canning, the second-highest number in the country. Conservatively, you can estimate that the resource industry supports more than 10,000 Canning workers and their families.
More than 500 mining and petroleum projects in WA will be affected by this resources tax. Let us not forget that Labor have already made such a grab. In their first budget the Rudd government hit Western Australia with a massive $2.5 billion additional tax on our North West Shelf gas project as part of a $20 billion increase in federal taxes and charges. The Wall Street Journal summed up the lack of logic behind super tax when it said, ‘This economic thinking runs counter to everything that made Australia rich.’
This tax risks upwards of $100 billion in planned minerals projects. Minerals production is a competitive business, with Australia only contributing to 10 per cent of global exports. If it becomes too expensive to do business here, investors will take their money offshore. The impact is not short-term; it would damage the Australian economy for decades. Gina Rinehart has said ‘Australia does not have a monopoly on minerals and must compete for funds to develop its projects.’ It is a no-brainer. Australia has only about three per cent of the world’s natural gas reserves, but our advantage is that the industry is established, infrastructure is in place and the investment has been there to back it. We need to make the most of it before countries like Russia and those in the Middle East, which have around half of the world’s reserves, come on stream to be really competitive. Iron ore production accounts for 44 per cent of the world’s minerals and petroleum output and is increasing by up to 15 per cent a year. Western Australia alone accounts for almost 20 per cent of global output and 97 per cent of Australia’s, which comes from the Pilbara. It is a huge industry, supporting 25,000-plus jobs, that this tax could see become stagnant.
Over the last decade mining companies have paid $80 billion in royalties and company tax, making up a solid eight per cent of the economy. The industry pays its fair share of tax—18 per cent of the nation’s tax revenue. Mr Rudd wants to make the Australian resources industry the highest taxed in the world at approximately 58 per cent. Estimates today show that some companies could be paying anywhere from 50 to 75 per cent.
To put this in perspective, these rates apply in other countries with big mining operations. For example, this graph shows quite clearly that the US currently taxes at 40 per cent; Brazil taxes at the same rate as Australia does presently, at 38 per cent, and we know that we compete with Brazil to sell iron ore to Asia, particularly China; in South Africa it is 38 per cent; Peru, 32 per cent; China, 30 per cent; and Chile, 26 per cent. Of course the Canadians are absolutely rapt, because their tax on the mining sector is only 23 per cent. To make it clear, I have been fortunate enough to be in Chile, where BHP has the largest copper mine in the world, Escondida. Chile’s resource tax is 26 per cent, and BHP CEO Marius Kloppers said, about the risk:
If you pay twice the tax in one country that you pay in another for the same product, then relatively speaking that other country will become more attractive.
It is very simple. I doubt anyone would argue with that.
Together with my Western Australian colleagues I have met industry leaders, and key principles have been proposed as to how to make mineral resources tax reform fair. Let me make the point that we are willing to sit down and listen. There was certainly no industry consultation prior to the tax announcement, and now they still do not want to talk about it. The richest man in the country, Fortescue’s Andrew Forrest, cannot even get the Prime Minister or the Treasurer to return his phone calls, when previously they were all over him like a rash. Industry is willing to negotiate. It suggests a tax should apply to new investments only, with a focus on keeping the sector competitive on a global scale, not retrospective, as proposed now. The tax rate should vary according to the mineral, because the profit margins differ, and it should also apply to the mineral itself and not other activities that are already subject to company tax.
These are crucial issues. For example, we have seen the Labor minister out there peddling the spin that projects like Gorgon, which is home to 40 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, is at roughly the same tax rate as it would be with the super tax—the petroleum rent resources tax. As Paul Murray, a journalist in the West Australian, rightly pointed out in the newspaper, this is just a blatant lie. Gorgon partners will pay an extra five per cent in tax because the petroleum rent resources tax only kicks in when profits reach the government bond rate plus five per cent. When we are talking about a $40 billion investment, five per cent is a massive amount of money.
So what have been the effects to date? There is complete market uncertainty—the share market fell to a nine-month low last week. Fortescue Metals have shelved the $17.8 billion expansion of their Pilbara operation, potentially costing upwards of 30,000 jobs. Consumer confidence has fallen by seven per cent in the last month. The real estate agency Satterley has warned that the tax will add an extra $20,000 to the cost of building a new home, pushing first home buyers out of the market, because, as you know, anything quarried or mined will become dearer. It has risked the sale of Griffin Coal in Western Australia. It has risked the $20 billion expansion of Olympic Dam. Mineralogy’s Clive Palmer has slashed exploration in South Australia and put his Pilbara iron ore project on hold. It has risked Santos’s investment and 5,000 jobs at the Gladstone LNG project, and Xstrata Copper’s $30 billion exploration program in North Queensland has been suspended. But you will not hear any criticism or critical analysis in the West Australian newspaper from the left-wing economics commentator and journalist Shane Wright. At least I am standing up for Western Australia, Shane.
The ramifications do not stop there. Superannuants who were hit by the bank guarantee are now bleeding money, with most super funds investing in the resources sector. Almost 10 per cent of Australian superannuation is invested in minerals and mining stocks. Funds are taking a massive hit because of shares prices losing $6 billion following this announcement. The Prime Minister’s veiled attempt to link the great big new resource tax with Labor’s three per cent increase in superannuation from nine to 12 per cent—against the recommendations of the Henry review—is just spin, because we know that businesses pay superannuation, not governments. In fact, small businesses in particular will be paying the nine to 12 per cent increase and it will not click in for years, whereas this tax comes immediately and small business just cannot afford it. So to say that government is doing this to pay superannuation, particularly on the eastern seaboard, is just a blatant untruth. Essentially, the government has just passed on another cost to Australia businesses at a time when they are doing it tough with rising interest rates and low consumer confidence.
In another anti Western Australian move, Labor will short-change the state on GST revenue. In the GST carve-up, Western Australia will collect only 68c of every dollar spent on the GST compared to Victoria’s 93c and New South Wales’s 95c. Despite being home to 10.3 per cent of Australia’s population and producing more than 13 per cent of gross domestic product, WA will collect only 7.1 per cent of GST. The reduction will cost $443 million in revenue—in other words, $200 for every Western Australian man, woman and child. If WA received GST per capita, it would be $1.5 billion better off.
WA’s share of the GST revenue has continually declined in recent years, despite the state being credited with keeping Australia out of the worst of the global financial crisis. You might have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, that last week the Western Australian state budget had a surplus of $280 million. I suspect it is the only state government in Australia with a surplus. That has a lot to do with the resources sector and the fact that it is managed in a proper way in Western Australia. Yet this is what Labor would do to that industry in our state.
We hear that oft-quoted, xenophobic line that these foreign companies are taking all this money overseas. Xstrata explained recently that, as a totally international company, since they have been in Australia they have earned $44 billion yet they have spent $45 billion. In other words, everything stayed in Australia and more went on exploration. We hear about minerals belonging to all Australians. Sorry, but you pay royalties to a state government because they are state owned resources. So they belong to each particular state.
When the GST came into effect on 1 July 2000, Western Australia received 9.7 per cent. It only gets 7.1 per cent now. Throughout that time we heard state Labor crying foul at the Howard government about not getting its fair share of the GST. You wonder where that candidate who was running against me is now. That candidate was saying, ‘We’re not getting our fair share from Canberra.’ Now, under federal Labor, Western Australia is getting far less than it did before. The position is getting worse. As I said, all Western Australians know about the tax grab by Canberra.
The truth is that during the coalition’s time in government WA’s share of GST rose as high as 10.3 per cent in 2004-05. For the 2006-07 financial year, just before Mr Rudd was elected, Western Australia was receiving 10 per cent. So the bottom line is that since federal Labor was elected Western Australia’s share of the GST has fallen by almost three per cent to 7.1 per cent. One has to wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that we now have a Liberal state government in Western Australia, with Premier Barnett sitting at the COAG table.
We know that the government makes monetary policy on the run, which costs valuable projects and programs. My attention has been drawn to the funding arrangements for the 2009-10 round of the Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations. These grants help fund real, on-the-ground outcomes. But because the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is reviewing guidelines—or, more likely, busy rectifying the pink batt and solar panel fiascos—the minister is simply going to award funding under the program for 2009-10 based on the grant payments for the 2008-09 financial year. Is this really fair?
Canning residents are getting ripped off in more ways than one. The distribution of funds under the government’s area consultative committees replacement, Regional Development Australia, indicates more discrimination against WA. Western Australia has nine RDA committees, one of which is in Peel, in my electorate. Over the 2.3 years to 30 June 2012, those nine committees will share in $3.8 million, or an average of $278, 649 per committee each year. Peel will receive $208,000 each year until 2012, which not only is below the average but represents a fall of 20 per cent.
Thousands of Canning residents are still waiting for their promised high-speed fibre-to-the-node broadband. The NBN is just a pipedream. In this budget the government has committed $16 million—which it cut from the Australian Broadband Guarantee, by the way—to advertising a scheme that does not exist, while Canning families remain reliant on slow, dial-up connections that are no longer capable of meeting the household’s needs.
I speak often in this chamber about Canning’s priorities. To put these in perspective, the $1 billion wasted on the pink batts, split evenly across every electorate in the country, would offer many communities the chance to get some real outcomes on the map. For example, in Mandurah, under its city strategy for 2010-14, that money could have provided for the major upgrade of Pinjarra Road to dual carriageway, estimated to cost $9 million. It could have funded the Sutton Street upgrade, worth $2.5 million, and built the sporting oval at Ocean Road Primary School for $700,000. It could have put $13 million towards a new pool and leisure area at the Mandurah aquatic facility and constructed joint community facilities at the Mandurah Bowling Club for $8 million. The population of the city has doubled in the last 15 years and is expected to grow by three per cent each year over the next four years.
In Armadale, investment is sought for the world-class White Water Park at Champion Lakes, which is being championed by Colin Thorpe and his associates in Canoeing WA. Investment is also needed in the upgrading of Armadale Road to dual carriageway, extending the Tonkin Highway to the growing communities of Byford and Mundijong, and building more community facilities like playgrounds and halls in the growing suburbs of Harrisdale and Piara Waters. The Pinjarra Bypass remains a priority, as do upgrades to the Pinjarra Bowling Club and construction of a community hall in Preston Beach. The area always needs more environmental funding to manage waterways and to implement the Landcare projects around Waroona and the Peel Harvey Estuary. The Rudd government has stripped away the funding for the Peel Harvey Catchment Council, which is an absolute disgrace and puts in tatters its green credentials.
A coalition government that has a proven record in sound economic management is far better placed to deliver. Governments that rack up huge debts leave communities going without—or those communities end up paying those debts for generations. What Mr Rudd is doing to this country is racking up intergenerational debt. If you believe that he is going to pay it off within three years, you would have to say you believe in the tooth fairy. The previous Labor government, for the whole of their existence, could never bring in a balanced budget. They could never, ever pay off their government debt. As was stated previously, it took a coalition government’s prudent and wise management to pay off the debt. Then we put money into the Future Fund, to save it for future generations, and into an education endowment fund and had a surplus.
What has happened? The incoming Rudd Labor government have raided all those, bar the Future Fund. Mind you, they have said that that would be an ideal place from which to take $46 billion for the NBN rollout. That was going to be delivered within the term of this government. We have not seen it delivered at all. In fact, they still have not selected anyone to do the job. There is a bit of work being done in Deputy Speaker Sidebottom’s state. Tasmania seems to always have a special place in the rollout of these things. Remember Senator Harradine and the leverage that he seemed to have.
The Labor government’s misjudged priorities in economic management risk the prosperity of our nation and its people for generations. I will be very interested to hear the member for Hasluck standing up for WA when she delivers her speech on this issue shortly. This is not a bill that we can be proud of, because it puts us into debt. It is a referendum on our resources industry, particularly on its effect on Western Australia.
Thank you for your contribution and your very kind words about Tasmania.
I am pleased to be able to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and cognate bills tonight. I would like to commence by congratulating the Treasurer on this budget, which I believe will further strengthen and secure our economy. It is clear that, with responsible management, the government will halve peak debt and get the budget back in the black in three years, which is three years early. As I said, this is a responsible budget. It helps families and it helps to secure future growth. I think that it is appropriate to credit our ministers for the way in which they took decisive action to keep the economy strong and protect jobs during the global financial crisis. Now we see that same decisive action in place, bringing our economy back into surplus.
I wanted to talk tonight about some of the issues in these appropriation bills that are specific to Western Australia and to my own seat of Hasluck. In particular I note the substantial contribution in the budget towards national health and hospitals reform, something that I think is long overdue in this country. It is a very significant package of measures to ensure that there is national funding and local management of our national health and hospital system. To that extent, I urge the Western Australian government and the Premier in particular to continue to be involved in discussions with the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, and the Prime Minister to try and ensure that Western Australia’s health system also receives the benefit of the national health and hospitals reform.
I feel this very personally in my electorate because in the last budget the federal government made a substantial commitment, $180.1 million, towards the new Midland Health Campus in my electorate, a replacement hospital for the Swan Districts Hospital which is already operating beyond capacity. It was identified in the Reid review, a local review, that this hospital was urgently required. That review was undertaken in 2007, and initially commitments were made, including by the current Western Australian state Liberal government, that construction of the new Midland Health Campus would be completed by November 2013. I am sad to say that, as I speak, following the Western Australian budget last week, there is little money from the state government committed in the forward estimates towards the project, and we have been advised that the earliest the hospital might be completed is mid-2015 and more likely mid-2016. So we have a substantial area in my electorate in Perth which has already been found by appropriate experts to be desperately in need of new and upgraded health facilities; but, sadly, that project has now been further delayed by some three years. I take this opportunity to urge the Western Australian government to get real on the question of health and hospital funding and also to stop ignoring the health needs of my community, particularly in the Swan region.
While I am on health, can I congratulate the federal government on its decision to increase funding for GP superclinics and perhaps put the minister on notice of my intention to seek funding for the southern end of my electorate. The City of Gosnells is an area where there is a substantial amount of unmet need in terms of GP services, and I know that the establishment of a GP superclinic in that part of my electorate would be gratefully received. I can assure my constituents that I will be knocking on the minister’s door with that very proposal.
I also congratulate the government on the new national men’s health strategy. I was incredibly pleased to see this strategy released. Can I say how pleased I was with the additional funding that was announced as part of that policy for the funding of the Australian Men’s Shed Association. As I talk on this point, I am grateful to Eddy from the Kalamunda Men’s Shed, who has brought it to my attention. It is something that has been gratefully received in that area and I can only commend the minister for these wonderful initiatives. In the area of social networking and support for men, particularly in retirement, the Men’s Shed has been an outstanding success. I look forward to joining with the members of the Kalamunda Men’s Shed in July to celebrate their first year of operation.
I also acknowledge the Richmond Fellowship in my electorate of Hasluck, which received a boost of some $1.29 million to help local families with mental illnesses and particularly to continue their intensive one-on-one support services in the Midland-Guildford area of my electorate. This funding was part of the extensions to the Personal Helpers and Mentors Program. I know the Richmond Fellowship of WA provide a very good service and I am delighted that they have been the recipients of that additional funding.
In the area of education, I was pleased last week to meet with a number of my local P&C associations. I was keen to get their feedback on their Building the Education Revolution funding and on other education reforms, including the establishment of the My School website. I have to say that, generally speaking, the funding and the reforms have been greeted with much applause by parents and in many cases they are enjoying new facilities and buildings in their schools. I would note, given the comments of the member for Canning—about the small surplus that the Western Australian state government have managed to achieve in their budget—that as part of their funding announcements for education capital works they skilfully included some $425 million of Commonwealth funding that they currently hold for final BER projects. I would urge the state government to hurry up and ensure that those final rounds of project funds are released so that those schools that receive funding in the second and third rounds can proceed with their projects.
I also congratulate the government on the boost to skills training in my electorate and throughout the whole of Australia. It is particularly relevant in a state like mine where there has been significant skills shortage in the recent past. The impact of the almost $80 million that they have invested to extend the Apprentice Kickstart initiative will be to triple the commencement bonus for employers of traditional trade apprentices. It means that in my electorate we will see a substantial number of new apprentices. We are hoping to see some 306 local apprentices get a start this coming year. I look forward to that. I can say that, from the last round, we saw some 235 apprentices commence in Hasluck and I am pleased to see this additional funding going in that direction.
Today in question time some members may have heard me ask a question of the Minister for Housing regarding the rollout of housing programs in my state of Western Australia. I could not resist raising them again because the government’s programs have been an outstanding success in my state. Minister Plibersek should be congratulated for the management and rollout of those projects. In Western Australia alone some 28,800 first home buyers received the benefit of the first home owner boost. In addition, something like 170 new homes have been contributed to in my electorate, 20 homes built in the first two rounds of the National Rental Affordability Scheme in places like Gosnells and Midland and 53 homes built through the new stimulus package. Right now there are some 47 sites right across Western Australia with more than 1,100 new homes for Western Australians under way. In my seat alone, we have seen some 243 new rental homes. I was delighted when the minister met with me in Hasluck to visit the site of a project for 16 new affordable housing units for seniors in the city of Gosnells. We were hosted by Gold Style Homes Pty Ltd, a local building company that had been successful in picking up that particular contract. I look forward to the minister visiting again when those new units are available for seniors to move in to. The city of Gosnells has also received over $1 million from the Housing Affordability Fund and 100 homebuyers will receive a discount of around $11,000 each on their homes. That is, as the minister indicated, a massive investment in housing in Western Australia and I thank her very much for that.
I also acknowledge the increases that have been proposed in the budget to the Local Sporting Champions program. I am very pleased to see an almost doubling of the number of grants to individuals and teams available in my electorate. This has been a valuable initiative. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, you would be familiar with this: the number of requests for funding assistance far outweighs the funding that is available. We all try to do our best to support our local sporting champions. I was also very pleased with how the Australian Sporting Commission’s program has been going in my electorate—the Active After-school Communities program. I was very pleased to visit the Southern River Hockey Club during the last school holidays to participate in their local program, and to see literally a hundred kids of varying ages between five and 12 running around the hockey field was a great thing. While I am on my local sporting clubs, I could not possibly let the time go by without referring to the Gosnells footy club centenary. I hope to be a very active participant in their celebrations this year. I say to all involved with the club: congratulations on your hard work and I hope the centenary celebrations go well. Go Gozzy Hawks for this year’s football competition.
In the time I have left I would like to touch on infrastructure programs within my electorate. I am pleased to say that finally we have seen the funding approved for the upgrade of the Great Eastern Highway-Roe Highway interchange. This is an amazingly busy interchange of two very important highways—the Great Eastern Highway being the main arterial road to everything east and Roe Highway joins the Great Northern Highway being the major arterial road to the north. This is one of the busiest intersections in Western Australia with 168,000 vehicle movements. The upgrade of this intersection is well overdue. I am pleased to see that money has finally been set aside in both state and federal government budgets to ensure that this project proceeds. Having said that, I reassure those businesses in the Midvale industrial area that I have not forgotten or overlooked your concerns about access to the industrial area and I can assure you that we are certainly lobbying both state and local governments—the Shire of Mundaring—to see if we cannot overcome those issues.
On road funding, I note there has been an increase in the allocation to local councils for Roads to Recovery and for the Black Spot Program. I place on the record that I will be knocking on the door of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, to say that I hope some of these funds get spent on Kalamunda Road, which is in urgent need of an upgrade. It is often overlooked, despite its proximity to Perth airport and its proximity to the brickworks that were established on Perth airport land by the previous government. Traffic continues to be a major issue in that area and I hope that funding will be directed towards that particular problem.
I am delighted and can inform the House that construction has started on the Kalamunda Community Cultural Centre. It is a project that was funded under the Regional Community Local Infrastructure Program and work also continues on the Swan Regional Riverside Park, also a beneficiary of that particular program.
It is important to acknowledge that the budget also included the third round of tax cuts that were promised by the Rudd government on its election. I am pleased that will tackle, at least in part, some of the pressure households are feeling with cost of living adjustments. I was most concerned—and I have previously raised this in the parliament—that Western Australians were being slugged on household fees and charges following last year’s budget and I am sad to say that again this year the Liberal state government have chosen to slug households. Electricity went up by around 23 to 25 per cent last year and is going up by a further 17 per cent this year, which is some $194 for each household. Water is up by 17 per cent, an additional $122.50. Public transport has been put up. Car licence fees have been put up. The emergency services levy has been put up. The price of gas has been put up. A conservative figure—and I say ‘conservative’ because this is what the Liberal state government itself estimates—for the impact on most households is around $367.60 per year. I make the point that, in contrast, Colin Barnett seems to have been incredibly passionate in defending big miners in the state of Western Australia. As an article in the West comments: ‘If only he had shown the same passion for protecting Western Australian families.’ To be fair to the West, I think that is a quote of the opposition leader, Eric Ripper. But I am grateful to see those tax cuts included in this year’s budget and I am sure that will make a difference to some households.
While we are talking about tax cuts, it is appropriate to acknowledge the improvements for small business. The company tax cut is for both big and large business but, in addition to that, there is the tax break for small business where sole traders, partnerships and incorporated small businesses will be able to instantly deduct the cost of assets valued at up to $5,000 in the year of their purchase. I think this is a terrific initiative. It will mean less red tape as they will no longer need to apply different depreciation schedules to assets. Every one of the 7,245 small businesses in Hasluck will get a tax break under the Rudd government’s proposal.
Time will not permit me today to talk at length about the resource super profits tax, but I could not possibly let the comments of the member for Canning pass without making some comment in reply. The package as a whole that has been put forward by the Rudd government will be judged ultimately by Western Australians on its merits and not on the basis of claims that have been made by some in their fear campaigns. The package as a whole includes refundable tax credits for royalties paid, staged reductions in company tax and the resource exploration rebate, which will benefit small to medium explorers and mining companies. I acknowledge that companies take into account a range of matters in determining where they make their investments. Tax is one part of an investment decision. So is, for example, political stability and good economic circumstances—measures on which I believe Australia leads the world. And, notwithstanding these proposed tax changes, Western Australia remains a very attractive place for capital investment.
As people have said, profit based taxes are not new in the Australian context and we already have a similar tax that applies to the petroleum resources industry—a tax that I acknowledge has a different impact level, but one that at 40 per cent has not seen a downturn in that industry. On the contrary, some of the biggest projects in Australian history have commenced under that regime, which has been in place for 20 years. It is also fair to say that not all Western Australians had an equal share in the last mining boom. I am pleased to see the benefits of this new taxing regime will actually see significant investment in infrastructure in Western Australia—infrastructure necessary to support the resource industry. (Time expired)
I rise to speak this evening on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 in conjunction with the other appropriation bills before this place. In doing so I make the point that this budget highlights that you just cannot trust Labor with the nation’s finances. It quite clearly is the third consecutive budget where the Rudd government has failed to deliver a well thought through budget that will help set Australia up for the future. Instead, we see another big deficit to follow the previous one, which was a record deficit in our history. This year we have an even bigger budget based on tax increases and featuring the introduction of a great big new tax on mining, which the previous speaker, the member for Hasluck, unfortunately did not have enough time to continue making remarks on. I am sure she would have enjoyed spending another 20 minutes or so talking about the benefits to Western Australia of this great big new tax on mining, as so many other Western Australians on this side of the House have already highlighted!
Labor’s major political claim in this Rudd budget is that it will deliver a surplus in three years time. Labor has not delivered a surplus since it has been in government, but it expects us to believe that in three years time, with no additional spending programs and with no additional programs blowing out, it will deliver a $1 billion surplus. That is a rounding error, as far as the federal budget is concerned. Coincidentally, $1 billion is the figure for the blow-out in the computers in schools program and is equal to the blow-out in the insulation program, so those on the other side tend to like that $1 billion figure.
You cannot believe Labor or trust Labor when they say they will deliver a surplus in three years time because, if you look at what they have done since they have been in government, everything points in the opposite direction. The claim is based on very optimistic assumptions in the budget, including a compounding 20 per cent growth in the industry on which they have decided to whack a great big new tax of 40 per cent. That will, of course, reduce investment. But in Labor’s books, if you tax it more, they will come. On the one hand, if you tax the cigarette industry more, that will reduce the number of people taking up smoking; on the other hand, if you tax the mining industry more, people will be rushing to invest. That does not make sense, nor do Labor’s optimistic budget assumptions.
This government has spent Australia into massive debt. We will have net debt of nearly $100 billion by 2013, which is around the same level of debt we found in 1996 when we took government and around the same level of debt we will have to face if we are successfully elected to government, which I believe we will be in three or so months time. This financial year will deliver the biggest budget deficit in Australia’s history and the next will not be far short of it. This will reduce the ability of the government to fund worthy programs into the future. It will put additional pressure on interest rates, and we are already seeing that in the Australian economy today.
You just cannot trust the Rudd Labor government with the economy and you certainly cannot trust them to implement a program. Let us have a look at the litany of waste and mismanagement of this government. Today we saw in the galleries around us workers from the insulation industry who are now out of work. These small business people some months ago had an opportunity and a future. Their dreams were destroyed by those on the other side. I know that the member for Longman is distraught at the prospect that these insulation small businesses face. It is going to cost the Commonwealth $1 billion to clean up the mess it created when spending around $500 million in that program. That is quite an extraordinary feat, even for those on the other side.
We saw another $1 billion blow-out in the computers in schools program. Again there was a complete failure in implementing the government’s policy. We have seen a $39 billion blow-out in the initial promise on the NBN, a program I suspect will never see the light of day. It was a good political promise, and that was all it was ever intended to be in 2007. We have seen over $600 million in consultancy fees. Of course, we have the mother of all blow-outs—the Building the Education Revolution or, as the member for Sturt unkindly puts it, the memorial school hall program.
In the electorate of Mayo we have seen some very clear and good examples—sad examples, unfortunately—of BER mismanagement. We raised the first one in parliament with the Deputy Prime Minister last year. Of course she just brushes these off—there are no problems at all; there is no waste and mismanagement in the system; everything is going swimmingly. The first one was on Kangaroo Island. Some $100,000 was spent on architectural fees for a drawing that already existed.
I notice that the Deputy Prime Minister has been busily working with her colleagues in recent days. She was so keen to deny she had any interest in the leadership last week that she was in the media by 9.30 in the morning making sure there was lots of camera footage of her denying that she was interested in the leadership. In the same week she popped up on the Sunday program. When interviewed by Laurie Oakes she also denied she was interested in the leadership.
I raised with her last year the Eastern Fleurieu School, which has been treated terribly by both the federal Labor government and the state Labor government. The state government said it is a multicampus school. When the schools were first combined in the late 1990s the state government gave them an assurance they would be treated as single schools; however, when it came to this program they were treated as one school, so they missed out on about $2 million. That is a very good example of the inability of this government to implement a program properly and, therefore, fairly.
We saw issues with water tanks at the Yankalilla Area School, the Macclesfield school, the Basket Range Primary School, the Stirling East Primary School and the Eden Hills Primary School, which is just out of my electorate. This is the greatest example of state government cost-shifting we have seen—something the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister both said very clearly could not happen under this program and would not be accepted under this program. The Deputy Prime Minister said they would crack down on it and there would be severe penalties. She said she would not allow state governments to cost-shift. Yet she was strangely quiet when contacted about this issue.
It seems in this case it is okay for the state government to cost-shift. The Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission last year recommended that schools have appropriate levels of bushfire protection. Everyone supports that. My electorate of Mayo, which is in the Adelaide Hills and on the Fleurieu Peninsula, is a high-risk bushfire zone; therefore, most of the schools are caught up in that respect. The state government wants these schools to have bushfire water tanks. The problem here is that that is a state government requirement and they are forcing BER funding to be used for this and therefore reducing quite significantly—up to $100,000 in most cases—the amount they have for their school buildings.
The Deputy Prime Minister promised she would say to her state colleagues—Jay Weatherill is the new SA education minister: ‘This is not good enough. I said this could not happen. We told you when we first announced this program that you were not to cost-shift and were not to take what should be state government spending and put it on this federal program.’ Instead, she has let her Labor mates get away with ripping off these schools and taking away their entitlements.
We will hear much more about this because there are angry mums and we all know what dealing with angry mums is like. Five mums are the chairpersons of these schools and they are extremely angry. They will continue to give both this federal Labor government and their state Labor colleagues in South Australia a hard time about this. I am sure the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport, who is at the table, would understand the difficulty of dealing with angry mums when it comes to these sorts of issues. This issue is a very good example of how this program has been so badly implemented by this government.
This litany of waste and mismanagement will cost the Australian people for future generations. When the stimulus package was first put to this parliament we said it was too big and too fast. There ended up being a quarter of negative growth, which we hit with $100 billion of debt, which will dog generations to come. It was too much too soon and that is why we at the time opposed it—and we were right to do so. The Rudd Labor government have a record of waste and mismanagement and misunderstanding the economy. They ask us to believe them when they say that sometime in 2013 they are going to deliver a surplus budget. It is simply unbelievable. You just cannot trust the government to deliver on their promises. We will see that yet again with these rubbery budget figures.
In dealing with this government and its budget promises, a particular issue has been glossed over a little in the last few weeks with the avalanche of backdowns on policy issues. It was hard to keep up. You had the greatest moral challenge of our time junked, you had the insulation program junked, and who could forget the childcare centre promise—that key election promise from last year? I am sure the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth tossed and turned at night in working out the language she would have to use to junk that program—another key election promise that they just crab-crawled away from.
Another one that I think highlights very much the superficial, fraudulent nature of this government was the advertising promise that it made in no uncertain terms before the last election. Thankfully, I have some of the remarks that the Prime Minister made about government advertising prior to the last election. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may remember the key promise of the then Rudd opposition was to have the Auditor-General vet all government advertising so none of it could go to air without the Auditor-General giving his tick off. That was the promise. In fact, some of the rhetoric that the now Prime Minister used to describe government advertising was as ‘a long-term cancer on our democracy’. ‘I believe this is a sick cancer within our system; it is a cancer on democracy,’ he told The 7.30 Report on 9 October 2007. In 2008, when he was elected, he implemented a role for the Auditor-General in looking at government advertising. The Auditor-General did not have vetting power but he had the ability to report that an advertising campaign complied or did not comply with the guidelines that had been laid down. We expressed concern at the time about the position the Auditor-General was being placed in. On the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit we have had many discussions with the Auditor-General about how this role has been fulfilled. However, unbeknownst to most members of this place, the government implemented a reasonably secret and quiet report headed by Dr Allan Hawke, a former chief of staff to former Prime Minister Paul Keating.
So in late March, a month before this budget was due, what do you know—this report recommended that the Auditor-General’s role should be removed. The Labor Prime Minister, the opposition leader at the time, had sung from every rooftop he could possibly find that he would fix this problem. On 19 November 2007, in a doorstop interview with two Labor candidates—a gentleman named Rodney Cox, although I am not sure which seat he was running for, and Mike Symon, who is now the member for Deakin—he said:
Well, I am dead serious in returning decency to public administration. What’s the machinery that we have outlined for doing this?
This is government advertising. He said:
That is for the Auditor General to make a determination about the content of television advertising campaigns on behalf of the government.
His promise was about the content of advertising campaigns and that got junked in late March, a month before the budget, a budget which, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be very surprised to learn contains $126 million to be spent in 15 months on the government’s election priorities—climate change, health and tax reform, to name three of the five. In fact, it gets worse for the Prime Minister with his own words. On 10 October 2007, the Prime Minister said:
Why not have a system whereby three months prior to when an election is due—
about now—
for there to be a ban on publicly-funded advertising unless explicitly agreed between the leader of the government and the leader of the Opposition … That is an absolute undertaking from us. I believe this is a sick cancer within our system; it is a cancer on our democracy.
An absolute undertaking. Sure, it is not the greatest moral challenge of our time, I accept that, but it is an absolute undertaking. Again, you just cannot trust what this Prime Minister says. You cannot trust the Rudd Labor government to deliver, to implement, any of their promises because what they say before an election they will not be held to account for after an election, and this is the greatest of all examples. I think it is even bigger than the greatest moral challenge of our time because it gets to the absolute political opportunist, the hollow man himself, and the way that this Prime Minister governs our country. It is a wrong thing that he has done. He gave an absolute undertaking that he would implement this measure as part of the Auditor-General’s role.
The Auditor-General has not gone quietly, it must be said. He wrote a letter to the Special Minister of State on 29 March, two days after he had been told he had been cut from the government advertising process. He made some very interesting comments. In particular, in the second paragraph of this letter—this is in a report he released last Friday and which we discussed with him this morning in the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—he said that the decision to remove the Auditor-General from the process was a marked contrast to the arrangements for the implementation of government policy platform ‘following the 2007 election when our view was sought on the proposed approach and the draft guidelines to apply. At the time the government was keen for my office to be directly involved in the review of advertising campaigns consistent with the various statements by Mr Rudd and the shadow minister leading up to the election’.
In other words, when it suited the Labor Party to use the Auditor-General for political purposes they did. When they wanted to get him out of the road so they could run out the political government funded advertising campaigns, they did that too. That is what we saw on the weekend with the first of the public information campaigns on the health issue which are some of the most political ads you are ever likely to see. They are actually really bad ads but, putting that aside, they are the most political, blatant use of government money we have seen. So those on the other side are complete hypocrites. They cannot justify this. They will not even try to. I bet their response will be, ‘Look at what the former Howard government did.’ That will be their response instantly because they have no defence for the complete hypocrisy of their Prime Minister on this issue.
This budget fails to deliver. It is a true Labor budget—big spending and big taxing. We have seen reports today of the impact of their great big tax on mining on 18 workers in a regional centre of my electorate, not BHP or Rio Tinto workers, with a salt mine most likely shutting if this tax goes ahead. What we have said and what the Leader of the Opposition has said very clearly is that people will have a choice at the next election in this respect. They can either vote for a Liberal government that will stop this great big new tax on mining, or they can vote for a Rudd Labor government or a Gillard Labor government, whichever it is by election day, that will implement this great big new tax on mining.
I am sure the member for Longman will be happy to go out and sing to his electorate in Queensland about the benefits of a great big new tax on mining. I look forward to seeing his campaign literature with the great big new tax on mining all over it. I just have a sneaking suspicion that his internal polling will tell him not to say anything about it. We have a very clear position on this. We will not have a great big new tax on mining. We will cut the budget. We will bring it back into surplus. We will deliver what we did for 11½ years in government—strong economic management, contributing more jobs to the economy and giving people hope and a chance at a future, not cutting into their future dreams. (Time expired)
Twelve months ago, the shadow Treasurer stood in this chamber and scoffed. Labor could not achieve its budgeted outcomes he said. Well, events have proven him wrong, so very wrong, but there was no mea culpa forthcoming from the shadow Treasurer. Instead, the shadow Treasurer again stood in this chamber and sought to cast doubts on the capacity of this year’s budget to deliver on its forecasts, ably supported of course by a conga line of Hanrahans, each of them prepared to declare that we’ll all be rooned within the year.
The truth is as plain as it is painful for the opposition. Action by the Rudd Labor government, on the advice of Treasury, the IMF and the World Bank, averted the havoc that was wrought upon the rest of the world by the global financial crisis. Clearly this will never be acknowledged by those opposite, who hold the deep conviction that only they are entitled to govern Australia, only they are capable of steering our economy. Our success, they say, was all due to them. We inherited an economy that was in a position of strength—that is true. Did it help that there were cash reserves? Of course it did. Did it help that our banks are well regulated? Of course it did. All of which, however, would have counted for nothing without a stimulus.
I want to quote a Queensland statistician, Scott Steel, a writer for the online news organisation, Crikey, who ran the ruler over the effects of the various international stimulus spends:
According to IMF data and the consistency and significance of the stimulus/forecast error relationship, a stimulus package in Australia around the 2.2% of GDP would have given us zero growth—anything less than that would have delivered us negative growth.
When the Coalition says the stimulus package should have been smaller—they need to be asked how much smaller. Every drop in GDP causes an increase in size of unemployment. How many more people would they have been willing to throw on the scrap heap of unemployment in their pursuit of a smaller package?
Every time the Coalition complains about debt, they need to be asked how much smaller they believe the stimulus package should have been and how many more people would they have been willing to throw on the scrap heap of unemployment in their pursuit of a smaller debt load.
Debt was the cost of growth—growth was and always is the provider of jobs. Pretending that less debt could have provided the same jobs is fairy floss economics. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.
The size of stimulus packages mattered—the international evidence is in.
The Coalition needs to be questioned about its economic viewpoints—viewpoints which are far from mainstream economics, existing on the very fringes of economic debate and which are completely at odds, completely and utterly at odds, with the international empirical evidence.
You know what an argument without evidence is called?
‘Making it up’ was not Mr Steel’s answer, but it was something quite similar to that. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has publicly indicated via the ABC’s The 7.30 Report that that is exactly what he does—makes it up to suit the moment.
It is clear that Australia’s economy is still strong. On every measure we are in a superior position to similar economies worldwide. Despite the shadow Treasurer’s derision 12 months ago, we are in a position to achieve the unthinkable—returning to budget surplus in three years, a full three years ahead of expectation just 12 month ago, and halving the peak debt. That will be a great achievement. But the shadow Treasurer is nothing if not a trier. Last year as part of his scoffing he declared budget forecasts and projections to be optimistic. Last week, as if to explain away the remarkable 2009-10 outcome, he declared them to be pessimistic. Today he cast doubt on this year’s projections and forecasts as again being optimistic. As shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney is a one-trick pony.
I want to turn to some of the measures in the budget. The budget provides funding for the national broadcaster, the ABC, including additional money to purchase equipment to enable it to switch over to digital broadcasting. Coincidentally, today the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee questioned ABC representatives as part of the estimates processes. Again they were forced to listen to assertions from Senator Abetz that the ABC has a bias towards Labor.
The good senator might like to consider another isolated example when levelling bias charges at the ABC. Around about 1.30 pm on 11 February this year, the environment minister rose in this place to make a ministerial statement in relation to the Home Insulation Program. In a clearly worded statement the minister dealt with each occurrence that had been characterised as a warning, whether it was a report, a letter or other communication or incident. The minister spelt out what action had been taken in each instance and which department officials, which industry associations, which safety organisations or which unions had been involved. He advised the parliament of the decisions made and the actions taken. That evening, as I travelled back to my accommodation, the local ABC radio station led its 10 pm news bulletin with an item beginning with words, ‘Peter Garrett had 13 warnings on home insulation program but did nothing.’ If it was not those exact words, it was words very similar. That sounded to me then to be very much like the mantra that was being chanted by the opposition at the time. Eight and a half hours after the minister stood to refute those claims, our national broadcaster, broadcasting from the national capital, continued to repeat parrot-fashion the opposition’s line. That does not sound to me like the actions of an organisation biased towards the Labor government.
Order! It being 8.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Longman will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
The following ministerial responses to petitions have been received:
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 19 November 2009 regarding a petition submitted for the Committee’s consideration concerning the death in custody of Mr Ward.
The petition states that the treatment of Mr Ward violated Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Convention of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It further states that these violations need to be remedied and their recurrence prevented. The petition calls for a review of the legal framework for giving effect to Australia’s human rights treaty obligations and to international standards within the criminal justice system, with particular attention to the role of imprisonment in punishment, rehabilitation and public security, the conditions of imprisonment and the transport of prisoners, and the comparative capacity of private and state run custodial services to conform with minimum human rights standards and rehabilitate prisoners.
With respect to questions of violation of international treaties, I note that the coronial inquest into the death of Mr Ward found that Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR had been breached —in particular article 10(1) which requires that “[a]ll persons deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has made a request for information about the case. The Government’s response to this request has been referred to in a report to the UN by the Special Rapporteur dated 25 February 2010. In addition, both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture have taken a keen interest in Aboriginal deaths in custody.
Because of the importance the Government places on compliance with Australia’s international human rights obligations I have drawn the Government’s concerns to the attention of the Western Australian Government, and asked that it keep the Commonwealth updated about its attitude to the human rights implications raised by this case.
Australia is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which aims to prevent torture around the world. The Government has taken further steps to demonstrate its position against torture by enacting a law to create a Commonwealth offence of torture. This law, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act 2010, commenced on 14 April 2010.
The Government has also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OpCAT). The OpCAT is a further prevention and enforcement mechanism aimed at achieving the purposes of the Convention against Torture. Ratification of the OpCAT will mean allowing the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to conduct periodic inspections of all our prisons and other places of detention; and establishing a national preventive mechanism at the domestic level, responsible for conducting regular inspections to examine the treatment of persons in detention. These mechanisms will complement arrangements already in place in Australia that ensure detainees are treated with humanity, and are not subject to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment.
The petition also calls for the House to direct and resource the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct a public inquiry into systemic rights violations that underpin the extreme overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians at all levels of contact with the criminal justice system and to propose remedies for addressing them, including reviewing the outstanding recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I also draw your attention to the role of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner within the AHRC to carry out functions, including reporting annually on enjoyment and exercise of human rights by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and recommending action where necessary to ensure those rights are observed. The most recent Social Justice Commissioner report was tabled out of session in Parliament on 20 January 2009. The Government gives close consideration to the recommendations contained in these reports.
Following the conclusion of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Commonwealth Government and the States and Territories took immediate action in response to the individual recommendations of the Royal Commission. More recently Governments have embedded their broader responses to the Royal Commission into strategic planning and policy documents, such as Aboriginal Justice Agreements.
The Commonwealth Government has been monitoring the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system and is working closely with State and Territory Governments to remedy the situation. A key initiative is the National Indigenous Law and Justice Framework (the Framework) which is a national policy direction that articulates a good practice approach to improving Indigenous law and justice outcomes across all States and Territories. In addition, the Commonwealth House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs is currently undertaking an inquiry into the high level of involvement of Indigenous juveniles and young adults in the criminal justice system. When available, the Committee’s report will inform the Commonwealth Government’s continuing work in this area. A public inquiry of the kind suggested in the petition is unlikely to provide any evidence over and above that which was taken into account by Governments when developing the Framework and that which is being taken into account as part of the current Inquiry.
Although the States and Territories are largely responsible for criminal justice matters, the Commonwealth Government continues to provide leadership through initiatives such as the Framework and the Indigenous Community Safety Roundtable held on 6 November 2009. The Roundtable was attended by Commonwealth, State and Territory Attorneys-General, Indigenous Affairs Ministers, Police Ministers and Commissioners and Indigenous delegates. Ministers agreed that further proposals would be developed around an effective approach to law enforcement, alcohol related violence and crime, information sharing and integrated service delivery and victim support services. A working group of Commonwealth, State and Territory representatives has developed proposals which will be provided to Attorneys-General, Police Ministers and Indigenous Affairs Ministers for consideration and endorsement in the first half of 2010.
The petition asks the Commonwealth Government to lead the State and Territory Governments to enact reforms that create obligations on governments to respond to coronial recommendations. Through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, I have encouraged my State and Territory counterparts to take steps to monitor the progress of initiatives to promote responsiveness to coronial recommendations. The National Coroners Information Service is currently exploring options to record responses to coronial recommendations on the NCIS system. The outcomes of that work will be reported back to SCAG.
I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee when considering this petition.
The action officer for this matter in my Department is Franca Musolino who can be contacted on 61413477.
from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2009 concerning the submission of a petition relating to the proposal to relocate Grey-headed Flying-foxes from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.
The Australian Government’s responsibilities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) protects certain defined matters of national environmental significance. These matters include world and national heritage properties, wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species protected under international agreements, nuclear actions, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Commonwealth marine areas. In relation to environmental considerations, the Australian Government’s involvement in any development proposal is confined only to these specific matters.
The trees at the Royal Botanic Gardens, although of state heritage value, are not listed and protected under the national heritage provisions of the EPBC Act. The grey-headed
flying-fox is a species listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act, and therefore is a matter of national environmental significance.
As you may be aware, the proposal to relocate grey-headed flying-foxes from the Royal Botanic Gardens was referred to my department by the Botanic Gardens Trust on
11 December 2008. On 11 January 2009, the proposal was determined to be a controlled action under the EPBC Act. This decision means that the proposal is considered likely to have a significant impact on grey-headed flying-foxes and further assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is required before the proposal can proceed.
There have since been a number of delays as the Botanic Gardens Trust requested that the original decision be reconsidered. The proposed relocation was again determined to be a controlled action and will continue to be assessed by my department through a Public Environment Report. The subsequent decision can be found on my department’s web site under the EPBC public notices at: http://www.environment.gov.au
On 12 November 2009 the Botanic Gardens Trust made available for public comment the draft Public Environment Report for 30 business days which closed on 23 December 2009.
The Botanic Gardens Trust will now finalise the Public Environment Report to take account of any public comments received and provide my department with the finalised report. A decision on whether or not to approve the proposed action will be made within 40 business days of receipt of the finalised Public Environment Report.
Further to this process, the Botanic Gardens Trust decided to delay the commencement of the proposed relocation until later this year, subject to relevant approvals, to ensure the disturbance of the grey-headed flying-fox colony is avoided when there are dependant young or heavily pregnant females present.
While the historic tree collection in the Royal Botanic Gardens is not listed under the EPBC Act, I can assure you that my department recognises the important scientific, cultural and heritage values of the Royal Botanic Gardens. However, my department is required to balance these considerations with its responsibilities for the protection of threatened species listed under the EPBC Act.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
from the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2009, concerning your request for a response to the petition submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions, regarding migration to Australia.
I note that the petition requests a decrease in immigration, citing the drought, and the lack of housing, elective public health services, and jobs for school leavers and unskilled workers. I acknowledge the Committee’s concerns regarding these issues and can inform you that the Government has begun the task of constructing a long-term migration planning framework (LTPF) so that future levels of immigration remain in the best interests of Australia. The LTPF will guide future patterns of immigration in the context of our future labour market and public infrastructure needs and the capacity of our natural and built environments.
To ensure that the LTPF is based on the best available evidence, my Department has commissioned independent research on the long term implications of net overseas migration (NOM) levels to Australia. A team of cross-disciplinary experts from Flinders University are examining the relationships between immigration, population and the built and natural environment within the context of various possible future levels of NOM. Likewise, experts from the Australian National University are advising the Department on the impact of immigration on Australia’s labour force.
The development of the LTPF will make an important contribution to our understanding of the optimum levels of immigration and population out to 2050, taking into account all factors including the budget, the environment, our national infrastructure and our social welfare.
It should be noted that NOM includes long term temporary residents, and that these temporary entrants form the largest component of Australia’s population growth.
In the 1980s, only 10 per cent of NOM was comprised of temporary entrants and today this has risen to almost 70 per cent. The increase is largely due to increased numbers of overseas students and temporary business entrants. Temporary migrants, including international students and temporary business entrants, are performing a vital role in boosting our economy, and are a key reason that Australia has outperformed the developed world during the recent global economic downturn.
When considering the impact of migrants on public hospitals, including elective surgery waiting times, it is important to note that the vast majority of temporary migrants do not have access to Medicare, so do not add pressure on Australia’s public health care system. Rather, demand for health care services is growing due to Australia’s ageing population, which is creating additional demand for services. The 2010 Intergenerational Report (IGR3) released on 1 February 2010, projects that the proportion of Australia’s population aged 65 and over will double over the next 40 years, and will be supported by proportionally fewer working-age Australians.
The 2010 Intergenerational Report also shows that over the next 40 years, immigration can help ease the pressures resulting from a progressively ageing population. This is because immigrants tend to be younger on average than the resident population. The report also notes that with an ageing population, productivity is a key driver of future growth prospects, and immigration will assist in maintaining or improving our living standards through migrants’ contributions to the federal budget. In addition, many medical occupations are in critical shortage including anaesthetists, surgeons and emergency medicine specialists, and
immigration will continue to play an important role in meeting Australia’s skills needs through the General Skilled Migration program.
With respect to the concerns about job opportunities for school leavers and unskilled workers, it is important to note that not all temporary entrants have work rights. International students which make up the largest proportion of temporary entrants have work limitations and are eligible for up to 20 hours paid employment per week. The largest group of temporary migrants with full work rights are highly skilled workers entering under the subclass 457 visa program. These migrants are sponsored by Australian employers who have demonstrated that the skills required are unable to be filled locally. The Government maintains the commitment to prioritise opportunities for Australian workers, and reforms of the skilled migration program aim to ensure that young Australians coming through our schools, TAFE colleges and universities are given the opportunity to fill these vacancies first.
Recent reforms announced by the Government aim to re-position the temporary and permanent programs so they best serve the needs of industry and of regional Australia, maintain program integrity, and meet our economic and demographic goals.
The most important factor in achieving better employment opportunities for Australians is strong growth in the economy. In pursuit of this in the current global economic environment, the Government has undertaken a range of stimulus and nation building measures. The result is that the Australian economy, while not immune from the global downturn, is performing better than the majority of developed nations’ economies. At the same time migration is also maintaining the economy’s growth momentum and keeping a firm lid on unemployment. This is due to the Migration Program’s focus on attracting skilled migrants and the role that migrant spending has in creating jobs.
The Government’s first priority, of course, is to provide training and education so that Australians have the skills to address our main labour market requirements. To this end, the Government has implemented its Education Revolution which includes a range of commitments such as doubling the investment in Australian schools to $62 billion from 2009-12 and investing $2 billion to deliver 711 000 vocational education and training places. Our immigration programs are closely
linked to this process and seek to supplement the domestic labour force only where there remains unmet demand for skilled workers.
With regard to the Committee’s concern about the housing challenges many Australians face, you may like to note the Senate Committee report into housing affordability, which was delivered on 16 June 2008. The report makes
32 recommendations, none of which are about constraining immigration as a means of increasing housing affordability. To address Australia’s housing requirements, the Government is directly engaging with State, Territory and Local governments in the planning of our cities to roll out national infrastructure and to address issues such as housing approval processes and land supply arrangements. At the same time, the Government is providing $15.3 billion of assistance in housing programs. This includes $6.4 billion over three years for the Social Housing Initiative which will boost the supply of public and community housing for people who are homeless, at risk of homelessness or who are on low incomes and paying very high rental costs.
I trust the information provided is helpful.
from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2010, concerning two recently submitted petitions about ongoing funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program. I apologise for the delay in responding.
As advised in my recent correspondence sent to you in your capacity as Chair of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I regularly receive positive feedback from schools, parents and students about the value of the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP). I also advised that 98 per cent of school principals recently surveyed by the National School Chaplaincy Association about the effectiveness of chaplaincy in government schools, support having a school chaplain.
As you are aware, an additional $42.8 million was recently announced to extend the program for all participating schools until December 2011. The extension of the NSCP will ensure that those schools funded under the program will be able to continue to provide valuable support in the provision of student wellbeing services.
The consultation process with stakeholders, which I highlighted in my previous correspondence, is about to commence. These consultations will consider options for possible future pastoral care initiatives following the end of the program in December 2011. The process will involve a range of stakeholders including state education departments, major service providers, representatives of independent and faith-based school systems, peak representative bodies for parent and community organisations, principals and other relevant interest groups.
The Australian Government is determined to ensure schools are supported in providing for the wellbeing of their students and the NSCP has been effective in achieving this. This program demonstrates the Government’s commitment to working with school communities, parents and other stakeholders to support wellbeing and positive development for all Australian school children.
I trust this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your correspondence of 10 February 2009 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions concerning a petition about livestock exports.
The Australian Government supports a vibrant and growing livestock sector, and an important part of it is the livestock export industry. The industry’s earnings reached $996.5 million in 2009, underpinning employment of around 10 000 people in rural and regional Australia.
The government recognises that this sector comes with challenges and responsibilities different from those in some other export industries. Being part of the international live export trade means Australia can help improve the way it operates—benefiting not just our animals but those from other countries as well. The government and those involved in the live export trade are continuing to work on improvements throughout the supply chain.
Since the beginning of 2008 I have approved projects worth more than $2.4 million under the Live Animal Trade Program to further improve animal welfare in importing countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. The funding has supported upgrades in livestock facilities in the Middle East and Asia to meet international animal welfare guidelines.
I recently announced the three-year $3.2 million Live Trade Animal Welfare Partnership, which is to be funded in equal parts by the government and Australia’s livestock export industry. This new program is an unprecedented example of government and industry working together to support Australian agriculture and trade.
The government has consulted scientists and animal welfare organisations like the RSPCA in introducing the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock. These are regularly updated and are available at www.daff.gov.au/livestockexportstandards.
The government acknowledges that some people would prefer Australia to export meat rather than live animals. However, a 2008 report from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics concluded that restrictions on the export of live animals would not increase sales of chilled beef, veal or sheep meat. Instead, the countries involved would be likely to source live animals from elsewhere. The report is at www.abare.gov.au/ publications_html/livestoc-k/livestock_08/LiveExports.pdf.
Further information on the live animal trade that may be helpful is available on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website at www.daff.gov.au/livetrade.
Thank you for writing to me about this petition. I trust you will find this information of assistance.
from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 10 February 2010 about a petition recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions on the arrest of Falun Gong practitioner, Ms Sufang Zhang. I make the following response to the Committee under Standing Order 209(b)
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Embassy in Beijing made a number of representations to Chinese authorities to check on Ms Zhang’s health, welfare and securing release. I am pleased to be able to inform the Committee that Ms Kun (Suzy) Yang, Ms Zhang’s daughter, advised the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 7 July 2009, that Ms Zhang had been released on 4 July 2009.
The Australian Government has long held concerns about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China. While the Government takes no position on Falun Gong beliefs, it considers that China’s ban on Falun Gong and the treatment of its practitioners are in breach of international human rights standards.
The Government has raised the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China with senior Chinese officials in Canberra, Beijing and in the context of the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, the last round of which was held in Canberra on 9-10 February 2009.
The Government is aware of Falun Gong-related claims of organ harvesting. If true, these reports would be very disturbing. China has denied the allegations and the information we have seen so far is inconclusive.
The Government will continue to raise its concerns on the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China with Chinese authorities, including at the next round of the Human Rights Dialogue, which we expect to be held in China in 2010.
from Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 10 February 2010 to the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, concerning a petition on clean energy and an interconnected electricity grid fed by renewable sources. Your correspondence was referred to me as the Minister with portfolio responsibility for this issue.
The Government recognises that renewable energy generation can play an important role in meeting Australia’s energy needs. The Government has committed to a number of initiatives that are expected to significantly increase investment in renewable energy. In the May 2009 Budget, the Government announced a major new initiative, the $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative
(CEI). The CEI underpins the Government’s strong support of clean energy technology research and development in this country. The CEI includes the $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program to support the construction of up to four large-scale grid-connected solar power stations operating within the energy market. This will help position Australia as a world leader in solar technology.
The CEI will complement the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and the Government’s 20 per cent by 2020 Renewable Energy Target (RET) which will provide the renewable energy sector with a cross subsidy worth more than $20 billion. The CPRS and the RET will provide a very strong incentive for investment in renewable energy generation.
With regards to an internationally interconnected electricity grid, I note that the construction of transmission lines in Australia is a commercial decision for industry and the Australian Government does not wish to intervene in market-based decisions.
I also note that there are potentially large electrical losses involved in conducting electricity over long distances and this is a significant consideration in transmission planning. For instance, due to transmission losses and there being no economic rationale for a more extensive grid, there are currently many parts of Australia that are off-grid or on isolated or local grids.
Australia has one undersea transmission line in the National Electricity Market, Basslink. Operational since April 2006, the Basslink interconnector is more than 350 kilometres (km) long, with 290 km being subsea between Tasmania and Victoria. Despite its relatively short distance, Basslink cost $796 million to develop. The privately owned and operated Basslink was developed as a result of commercially sound decision making and a rigorous planning process.
The transmission investment proposed in the petition is unlikely to provide economic or environmental benefit to either Australia or Australia’s international neighbours at this stage. To ensure commercial viability and success, such a proposal should be industry led rather than mandated by Government.
Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter dated 10 February 2010 about a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding apostasy laws.
The Australian Government shares the view that Muslims, or indeed persons of any religion, should be able to choose freely to leave their faith and follow a new belief, without penalty.
As the petition notes, the right to freedom of religion, including the right to change religion, is set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
In support of this right, Australia has consistently co-sponsored a resolution on the `Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance’ in the United Nations General Assembly’s Third Committee. This resolution urges states to “ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief to all without distinction, inter alia, by the provision of effective remedies in cases where the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, or the right to practise freely one’s religion, including the right to change one’s religion or belief, is violated”.
The Australian Government makes regular human rights representations to a number of countries, including those that place restrictions on freedom of religion. We will continue to be alert to opportunities to raise the issue of religious freedom, including the issue of apostasy, in our representations.
Thank you for bringing your views to my attention.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 10 February 2010 about a petition recently considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding Japanese whaling.
The Australian Government is resolutely opposed to commercial whaling, including so-called ‘scientific’ whaling, and strongly supports the global moratorium on commercial whaling.
Over the last two years, the Government has focused on substantial diplomatic efforts and has brought forward proposals to reform the International Whaling Commission (IWC) into a modern, conservation focused organisation. Ahead of the next Annual Meeting of the IWC in June this year, the Government has developed a strong Australian proposal for the future of the IWC. This proposal was released by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, on 25 February 2010. Australia’s proposal seeks robust conservation measures and the complete phasing out of whaling in the Southern Ocean. Australia will continue to take a constructive approach to IWC discussions in the period ahead, but if we are unable to make progress diplomatically, we reserve the right to take legal action.
It is important to consider our differences with Japan on whaling in the context of the broader Australia-Japan relationship which is strong and close and which delivers enormous benefits to Australia. Australia and Japan enjoy a comprehensive economic, security and strategic partnership.
I note the request of the petition that economic sanctions be placed on Japan until such time as they permanently desist from any form of whaling in Antarctica. The Government considers that such a response would be disproportionate and harm Australia’s economic interests.
I trust this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 10 February 2010 concerning a petition in regard to climate change financing for developing countries.
Climate change is one of the greatest social, economic and environmental challenges of our time. Australia is committed to playing a full, fair and constructive part in building global solutions to climate change and, as a developed country, is committed to taking the lead on reducing emissions.
Australia will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020 if there is a global agreement sufficient to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm) or lower. Should global agreement fall short of the action required to achieve 450ppm, Australia will cut its emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020.
Australia is taking strong action on climate change domestically, including by introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to help meet our emission reduction goals. Transforming Australia’s economy into a low-carbon economy will demonstrate that deep cuts in emissions are compatible with continued strong economic growth and improved living standards, helping to build confidence among other countries to reduce their emissions.
Australia is making a significant contribution to mitigation and adaptation solutions globally, through our active participation in international negotiations and through a suite of bilateral, regional and multilateral partnerships.
My response to the questions raised in the petition are set out at Attachment A. Thank you for bringing the concerns of the petitioners to my attention.
Response to Petition on Climate Change
1. Go to Copenhagen with a firm commitment to reduce carbon emissions by at least 40% by 2020, as current science indicates. This supports Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) call to limit global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Australia seeks comprehensive global action capable of stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide-equivalent or lower. This concentration would reduce the risks associated with severe climate change and is consistent with the goal of limiting global temperature increase to no more than two degrees. If the world agrees to an ambitious global deal capable of delivering stabilisation at 450 ppm or lower, Australia will reduce its emissions by 25 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. On a range of indicators, Australia’s 25 per cent target is comparable or more ambitious than any announced national targets for 2020.
Should global agreement fall short of the action required to achieve 450ppm, Australia will cut its emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. The 5 per cent target represents Australia’s minimum unconditional commitment, irrespective of the actions of other nations. Should countries reach a global deal that includes commitments by all major economies to substantially restrain emissions, and by all advanced economies to take on comparable emission reductions, Australia will reduce emissions by up to 15 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.
On 27 January 2010, Australia inscribed its full target range in the Copenhagen Accord, reinforcing the message that we will play our full and fair part in global efforts. We will continue to work with other countries to maximise the ambition of global action. Australia’s submission is available at: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/applicationipdf/australiacphaccord app1.pdf.
The Copenhagen Accord is the first time that both developed and developing countries have agreed to keep global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius, and to take responsibility for action to realise this target.
2. We ask that the Australian government formally recognise that without measurable, reportable and verifiable financing from developed countries, developing nations will not accept commitment to slow their emissions growth, and without effort from developing nations, Annexe 1 nations will not commit to ambitious emission reduction targets.
Climate change is a global issue. The Australian Government believes it is in Australia’s interest to assist developing countries to take urgent adaptation actions and to build their capacity to reduce emissions.
The Copenhagen Accord, noted at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009, represents an important step forward on the provision of climate change finance to assist developing countries. To build the immediate capacity of developing countries to take action, developed countries agreed to provide new and additional resources approaching US$30 billion for the period 2010-2012 —the ‘fast-start period’.
For the first time, developed countries further committed to a longer-term financing goal of mobilising US$100 billion annually by 2020 from both public and private sources. As a first step, the Government welcomes the establishment of the United Nations Secretary-General’s
High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (announced by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 12 February) to study the contribution of potential sources of revenue toward realising the longer term goal.
The Government also considers the transparent reporting of funding contributions is vital to the credibility of financing commitments under the Accord. Under the Accord Parties have agreed to ensure the accounting of finance is robust and transparent.
3. Therefore Australia must honour the commitment made in Bali to contribute to financing mitigation and adaptation in developing nations, especially our Pacific and South East Asian neighbours. This commitment should be in the order of 0.5% GDP which is approximately $4 billion per annum.
Australia will play its fair part in climate change financing.
In Copenhagen, the Government committed US$120 million to fast-start financing for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), as part of a US$3.5 billion package of assistance for the period 2010 to 2013. Other donors include the United States, Norway, the United Kingdom, France and Japan. This contributed to the overall progress made on establishing a mechanism for REDD at CQP 15. Australia has advocated a strong outcome on REDD, and is taking early action in partnership with developing countries through our International Forest Carbon Initiative. Australia’s contribution is part of the International Forest Carbon Initiative, making that initiative a $273 million, six year program.
The Government’s $150 million International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (ICCAI) supports vulnerable developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region to meet their high priority climate adaptation needs. The initiative will be delivered over three years (2009-2011) and prioritises support to our neighbouring Pacific Island Countries and East Timor. It aims to: improve scientific information on, and understanding of, climate change impacts within partner countries; assist partner countries enhance strategic planning and vulnerability assessment capacity; and support implementation of priority national and community adaptation measures.
In addition, Australia’s Fifth National Communication to the UNFCCC (available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/aus nc5.pdf), reported that the Government’s total climate change financing support for developing countries reached $285 million in 2008-09.
Some developing countries have proposed that developed countries contribute between 0.5 to 1 per cent of their Gross National Product toward an international climate change fund. Australia does not support this proposal.
Targeted public financing will continue to be essential to reach areas where private financing and carbon markets cannot reach. However carbon markets will be crucial for the long term, to deliver predictable funds at scale for real emissions reductions and to unlock private investment in low-emissions activities.
from the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, Senator Wong
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 10 February 2010 concerning a petition of the Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Orange submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding climate change.
Australia is helping to shape a global climate change solution by working actively and constructively to forge a global climate outcome that is effective, fair and efficient.
Last December, in Copenhagen, the world came together under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to agree a path forward on climate change. The Copenhagen Accord is an important step along that path. Australia formally registered its support for the Accord at Copenhagen and is encouraging its fast and full implementation.
The Accord is the first time there has been agreement under the UNFCCC to hold any global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius. It is also the first time that developed and developing countries have committed to specify what they will do, side by side, to realise this objective. Australia will play its full and fair part in implementing the Accord, and is actively encouraging others —in particular all major economies —to do the same.
Countries were invited to submit information on their emission targets and actions to reduce emissions pursuant to the Accord by 31 January 2010. On 27 January 2010, Australia submitted our emission reduction target range to the Copenhagen Accord: 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020 unconditional, with up to 15 per cent and
25 per cent both conditional on the extent of action by others. If the world agrees to an ambitions global deal capable of delivering stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 parts per million or lower, Australia will reduce its emissions by 25 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. On a range of indicators, this target is comparable to or more ambitious than any announced national targets for 2020. This concentration would reduce the risks associated with severe climate change and is consistent with the goal of limiting global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.
Australia plays an active and constructive role in the UNFCCC negotiations. Throughout 2009, Australia continued to drive international debate on the post-2012 legal architecture and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD), including through our innovative “national schedules” proposal and comprehensive proposals on a forest carbon market mechanism. In Copenhagen, Australia joined with France, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States to announce USD 3.5 billion of fast-start financing for REDD, including a USD 120 million contribution from Australia. Australia also coordinates and represents a core group of developed countries in our role as chair of the “Umbrella Group”.
Tackling climate change requires sustained ambition over the long-term. Australia supports continued negotiations under the UNFCCC to deliver further international climate change actions and will continue to work towards a legally-binding outcome. Australia will work diligently with other countries towards a strong outcome in Mexico at the end of 2010.
Thank you for bringing this petition regarding climate change to my attention
from the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, Senator Wong
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2010, concerning a petition submitted on 8 February 2010 to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding a request to allow a Chinese orphan to migrate to Australia on compassionate grounds.
The petitioners, Mr Raymond and Mrs Suzanne Dousset, wish to allow an 18 year old orphan to remain permanently in Australia and have previously attempted to adopt her. Under Chinese law, a non-relative cannot adopt a child once that child turns 14 years of age and the Doussets have already been advised of this restriction by the Chinese authorities.
My Department is not directly involved in adoption arrangements; it provides advice on how adopted children can be granted a visa to enter Australia once they meet all the requirements for a visa. When Australians are seeking to adopt a child from overseas, the adoption must first meet the legal requirements of the child’s country of residence. Consequently, as the Chinese authorities will not permit the adoption of the orphan by the Doussets, she cannot be regarded as a member of their family and so she does not qualify for any family visa category. Unfortunately, there is no provision in migration legislation to consider waiving these restrictions, no matter how compassionate the circumstances.
Immigration requirements are set out in the Migration Regulations 1994
(the Regulations) and are determined by Australia’s status as a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention). Under the Convention, there are certain requirements that must be met to ensure Australia is upholding its obligations regarding intercountry adoptions. Along with other responsibilities, signatory countries must ensure that each other’s laws are respected and complied with in relation to adoptions.
In the absence of a visa option, as previously advised to the Doussets, in accordance with the Migration Act 1958, I can only personally intervene in limited circumstances. This is where a person has had a visa application refused, or a visa cancelled, and this decision has been considered by a review tribunal such as the Migration Review Tribunal. As the orphan has not been the subject of a review decision, I have no legal power to consider the case at this time and neither the Prime Minister nor any other government officials have the legal power to intervene in migration cases.
I note that the tourist visa issued to the orphan, which enabled her to travel to Australia and which ceased on 11 February 2010, was subject to condition 8503, a ‘no further stay condition’. While provision exists, under clause 2.05(4) of the Regulations, to waive the 8503 condition, the circumstances for this are limited to where, since the visa was granted, compelling and compassionate circumstances have developed over which the person had no control and that resulted in a major change to the person’s circumstances. As the Doussets have stated, the appeal they made to my Department to waive this condition was unsuccessful and any
subsequent request must refer to circumstances that are substantially different from those previously considered.
Unless waived, the 8503 condition precludes the orphan from applying for most types of substantive visas. However, she has made an application for a visa for which she is permitted to apply and she is currently lawfully in Australia while the Department is considering this application.
For further information, the Committee may wish to contact Mr Colin Rowell, Acting Director of the Department’s Family and RRV Section on (02) 6264 1265.
I trust the information provided is helpful and I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2010 concerning a petition regarding the draft Master Plan for Camden Airport.
My Department provides comments on draft Master Plans for Commonwealth airports to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. However, I do not have a statutory responsibility for the development of Master Plans under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Master Plans for Commonwealth airports are administered under the Airports Act 1996 by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP.
AI note that o have also written to Minister Albanese on this matter.
from the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter dated 11 February 2010 about a petition recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions, regarding Camden Airport.
This petition deals with issues that have been included in the Camden Airport Limited (CAL) preliminary draft Master Plan (pdMP), which was released for public comment on 16 September 2009. The pdMP sets out a plan for the development of the airport over the next 20 years. Linder the Airports Act 1996 (the Act) an airport Master Plan is required to include the airport’s plans to minimise the impacts of airport activity on the surrounding community.
The Government strongly supports greater detail and transparency in airport development and the Airport Master Plan process. As detailed in the Aviation White Paper released on 16 December 2009, future Airport Master Plans will be required to provide better transparency about future land use at airports, including for non-aeronautical purposes. The Government has already introduced regulations to ensure that certain categories of development on airports which are likely to be incompatible with airport operations, such as schools and residential developments, are subject to thorough community consultation and assessment.
Master Plans are strategic documents which require the approval of the Minister. The preliminary draft Master Plan is circulated publicly for 60 days to allow interested parties to comment. This consultation period allows the airport the chance to incorporate comments and feedback from the local community and other interested parties before the draft documents are submitted for consideration.
Under the Act, CAL is required to provide me with a copy of all public submissions and to demonstrate that it has given due regard to those comments in preparing the draft Master Plan.
The Principal Petitioner, Ms Phoebe Atkinson, in her letter to me accompanying the petition, indicated that a copy had been sent to the Camden Airport Master Plan team. Therefore the petition will become part of the public submissions for which the airport must demonstrate that due regard has been given.
The draft Master Plan for Camden Airport was submitted for my consideration on 5 March 2010. In making my decision I will take into account the comments of
interested parties that have been provided either to the Camden Airport via the Master Plan consultation process, or to me directly. Environmental and heritage issues will be considered, and I will be consulting with the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts as a matter of course.
Thank you for raising this matter.
from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2010 about a petition recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions on persecution of Falun Gong in China. In accordance with Standing Order 209(b), I make the following response to the Committee.
The Australian Government has long held concerns about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China. While the Government takes no position on Falun Gong beliefs, it considers that China’s ban on Falun Gong and the treatment of its practitioners are in breach of international human rights standards.
The Government has raised consistently these concerns with Chinese authorities. Senior officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have also raised Australia’s concerns about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners through diplomatic channels in Canberra and Beijing, and during the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, the most recent of which took place in Canberra on 9-10 February 2009. We expect the next round to take place in China in 2010.
The Government is aware of Falun Gong-related claims of organ harvesting. If true, these reports would be very disturbing. China has denied the allegations and the information we have seen so far is inconclusive.
The Government will continue to raise its concerns on the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China with Chinese authorities.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith
Dear Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2010 regarding a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions on the proposed closure of the National Archives of Australia offices in Darwin, Adelaide and Hobart.
On 23 February 2010, the Australian Government responded to community concerns about the proposed closures and announced that the National Archives will maintain a local presence in each state and territory. Instead of closing the National Archives’ smaller regional offices, the Government is pursuing a plan to join forces and co-locate with local institutions. The stand-alone National Archives offices in Darwin, Adelaide and Hobart will remain open until a permanent solution involving co-location with a local organisation, or an alternative arrangement that meets the needs of local users, has been found.
This solution aims to put the National Archives of Australia on a sustainable footing for the long-term and enable it to continue to provide high quality services in each state and territory for all Australians.
You may be aware that I tabled a ministerial statement, Ensuring Access to Australia’s National Archives, on 23 February 2010. The statement (attached) provides further information on the Government’s position.
Statement by the Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary, Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Ensuring access to Australia’s National Archives 23 February 2010
The Rudd Labor Government is committed to assisting individuals in their search for information about themselves, their families and their country. The vast holdings of the National Archives of Australia provide a rich resource for academics, researchers and other interested groups, whether they are searching for information on the dramatic events that shaped our nation’s history, or the decisions that touched individual lives. Each family’s history forms part of the fabric of our national story. That’s why the National Archives is today hosting Shake Your Family Tree Day to encourage more Australians to see what information they can unearth about their own family.
Today I can announce that the Government has responded to community concerns about the closure of the National Archives of Australia’s Darwin, Adelaide and Hobart offices, and will guarantee that a physical National Archives presence will be maintained in every state and territory. The stand-alone National Archives offices in Darwin, Adelaide and Hobart will remain open in each instance until a permanent solution involving co-location with a local organisation has been found.
This solution aims to remove the operational inefficiencies inherent in running stand-alone offices of the National Archives in each jurisdiction. It will also reflect the changing reality, which is that people overwhelmingly access records online today, while ensuring a National Archives presence in every jurisdiction and maintaining local access to the services provided by the National Archives.
The November 2009 decision to close these National Archives offices was a fiscally responsible decision. The offices in Hobart, Adelaide and Darwin are the National Archives’ smallest offices, with the lowest visitor numbers. Each of these offices costs over $800,000 per year to operate, with the Darwin office costing around $1 million. Yet visitor numbers to these offices are low: in 2008– 09 they totalled just 337 in Darwin, 720 in Adelaide and 635 in Hobart, compared with 22,290 nationally. This equates to an average cost to the Australian taxpayer of over one to three thousand dollars per visit a cost which is simply unsustainable in today’s fiscal environment.
I understand the importance of maintaining a National Archives presence at a state and territory level—after all, that’s where Australia’s history emerged. The Rudd Government has listened to the concerns of the local community, academics, researchers and other interested groups over the proposed closure of National Archives offices. I would like to acknowledge the work done by my colleagues including the Member for Solomon, Damian Hale, the Minister for Indigenous Health, Warren Snowden, Senator Trish Crossin, the Member for Lyons, Dick Adams, the Member for Hindmarsh, Steve Georganas, the Member for Franklin, Julie Collins, the Member for Port Adelaide, Mark Butler, and the Minister for Sport and Youth, Kate Ellis, in representing constituents’ concerns over the closures. I also acknowledge the work of all of the individuals and members of historians’ and archivists’ societies who have highlighted the significance of the local offices of the National Archives, and I thank them for their contribution. I also recognise the petition on the office closures tabled in the House of Representatives earlier this month by Julia Irwin, the Member for Fowler.
National Archives repositories around the country hold many records containing important information about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their history. I would like to
particularly emphasise the fact that the Government will not change existing access arrangements for records relating to the separation policies imposed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; these access arrangements were strengthened in response to the landmark 1997 Bringing Them Home report on the separation of Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander children from their families.
The reality is that fewer people are visiting the National Archives in person to access their records. Instead, the country has moved to an online environment: in 2008-09 more than 1.9 million records were accessed online compared to 57,000 records accessed in reading rooms nationally. Demand for online access to records is expected to continue to increase apace, and the National Archives is developing plans to provide digital access to ever more of its records, including those currently held by the National Archives in Darwin, Adelaide and Hobart.
In today’s society, we need to explore other ways of ensuring access to archives other than a fully functioning National Archives office at a cost to the taxpayer of up to $3,000 per visit. In what is a very successful partnership, the National Archives already co-locates with the state institution in Victoria. The National Archives will be required to work with local cultural heritage institutions and other organisations in pursuit of further co-located reading rooms and record storage facilities. In this way, the Government can ensure that the National Archives maintains face-to-face services in all jurisdictions, while shaping its operations in a way which will meet the needs of future generations.
The Rudd Government is committed to ensuring continued public access to records documenting Australia’s history. This is part of our broader aim of restoring trust and integrity in the use of government information through improved transparency and accountability. The Rudd Government is committed to promoting a pro-disclosure culture across government, and ensuring that Australians can realise their right to access government information.
from the Special Minister of State, Senator Ludwig
Dear Mrs Irwin
I refer to your letter dated 18 March 2009 seeking a written response to a petition submitted to your Committee regarding a Section 72(ii) process under the Constitution.
Section 72(ii) of the Constitution provides that the Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, asking for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The proceedings are exceptionally serious. No Commonwealth judicial officer has ever been dismissed under this provision.
The basis on which this petition has been put forward is not clear. Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations made, considerably more information would need to be provided before the applicability of the provision could be considered.
I trust this information is of assistance to the Committee.
from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland
Dear Mrs Irwin
I refer to your letter dated 18 March 2009 seeking a written response to petitions submitted to your Committee regarding complaints of judicial conduct and difficulties faced by self-represented litigants.
In relation to the petition concerning judicial conduct, I note that a working group established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is considering a range of options for implementing a national mechanism for handling complaints against judicial officers, including the adoption of a consistent set of rules, procedures and standards and an appropriate complaints handling body. The working group’s recommendations will assist with the Government’s consideration of these issues.
In relation to the petitioner’s allegation that there is a lack of accountability for judicial officers, I note that important mechanisms for ensuring judicial accountability include the appeals process, open courts, procedural fairness, the provision by courts of reasons for decisions, the existence of publicly available complaints mechanisms within the courts and public and media scrutiny.
In relation to the petition concerning self-represented litigants and McKenzie friends, I note that courts have an inherent power to permit McKenzie friends to appear. A McKenzie friend is a person who assists a litigant during proceedings but is not legally qualified. Leave to permit appearance by McKenzie friends is at the discretion of the individual Judge or Federal Magistrate, and will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The reason for this is that courts should be assisted either by parties who are familiar with their own case or qualified legal practitioners who can make informed submissions to assist the court. In addition, legal practitioners have ethical duties both to their clients and to the court, while unqualified persons do not have these duties.
Parties who may have difficulty affording legal representation may seek assistance from a Legal Aid Commission office in their State or Territory, which will, I understand, grant a first interview regardless of means. Parties may also seek assistance from local Community Legal Services.
I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee.
from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland
Tonight, I am pleased to take the opportunity to report to the House about recent activities of the Standing Committee on Petitions as it followed up matters relating to petitions. The standing orders of the House enable our committee to receive and process petitions in readiness for presentation to the House. We can also consider matters relating to petitions and to the petitions system as a whole. Since its establishment in 2008, the committee has been following up petitions in a variety of ways, not seeking to resolve issues itself but to air them.
The first and usual response, once a petition is presented in the House, is for the committee to refer petitions to the minister in the relevant portfolio area for comment. Occasionally, the response is a success story in which the minister agrees to take the action that is sought. Much more often, though, its purpose is to explain a situation or matter that has been raised or complained about in the petition. Responses from ministers are published on the committee’s webpage once the committee has had an opportunity to consider them. So the issues and the explanations by government are available not only to the committee and petitioners but to anyone who is interested in them.
Several times each year the committee invites representatives of different Commonwealth Public Service departments to come to Parliament House to discuss matters raised in petitions that have been presented in the House and then referred by the committee to a minister for response. These hearings with public servants are useful ways for the committee to monitor what the government is doing in respect of issues raised by citizens in their petitions. The committee appreciates the way that ministers and their departmental staff have responded to the committee’s requests for further information about the matters that concerned citizens have raised.
As I have often said, the committee’s power to seek a ministerial response, and the general cooperation of ministers in replying in a timely way, is one of the great successes of the new arrangements for petitions. Together with the responses, transcripts of hearings with public servants are published on the committee’s webpage, making that interaction available to the public too.
This brings me to recent hearings or roundtable meetings the committee held with petitioners in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. The committee has taken the opportunity recently to follow up some of the matters raised by petitioners and to talk to them about their concerns and their views on ministers’ responses. As a committee we see great variety in the subject matter of petitions. Unlike other parliamentary committees that usually look at one or two issues at a time, at any one time we are aware of a range of matters that Australians feel they must bring forward for debate and also for action. The matters occasionally are very particular but more often they are regional and sometimes they are national. At our recent hearings interstate we spoke to petitioners about many different concerns. Depending on the location and makeup of our electorates some issues were familiar to us. Some were new, and I acknowledge the value that is gained when petitioners have the energy and good faith to raise concerns that are new or are not understood widely because the people who experience them may not have been in a position to advocate for themselves. The committee held a roundtable meeting in Sydney in April. It was an interesting day and the transcript is on the committee’s webpage.
There are two witnesses and issues I wish to mention tonight. The first of these is Sister Susan Connelly, who organised a petition that seeks to have the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste awarded an honorary Companion of the Order of Australia. The petition states such an award would be an official form of recognition and gratitude for the role of thousands of East Timorese civilians who assisted Australian soldiers in World War II with courage and compassion and who were killed as a result of that assistance once the Australian soldiers had withdrawn. I will not go into the issues of why this is such an unusual request, but I will put on record that Sister Susan Connelly is a powerful advocate for the Australian veterans, whose numbers are dwindling now, and for the East Timorese people. She was eloquent in discussing the gratitude and affection of the Australian soldiers for the East Timorese people who protected them and their wish to have this gift acknowledged in a very public way. Sister Connelly said:
I know of no other country in the world that has lost 40,000 civilians as a direct result of protecting Australian soldiers. … It is unique, and because it is unique I believe Australia needs to give a unique response.
In coming weeks I will outline some of the other issues that we delved into at these hearings. In the meantime I would like to mention again the committee’s appreciation to those petitioners who came to speak to us. Some of them travelled for many hours or at quite some inconvenience. It was very clear to us that whatever the subject we were discussing—whether local, national or international, current or historic, popular or particular—the process itself was important. As the House’s representatives we were following up on matters that members of the public felt sufficiently concerned about to bring directly to the attention of the House, and it was our pleasure to do so.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee’s report entitled Inquiry into raising the productivity growth rate in the Australian economy, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Order that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Over the past decade Australia’s productivity growth has slowed considerably Average annual labour productivity growth fell from 2.1 per cent in the 1990s to around 1.4 per cent in the 2000s. And even though Australia’s average annual productivity growth has performed relatively well in OECD comparisons since 1985 approximating the OECD average—and ranking 12th, one below the US—the productivity growth rate has, however, been in decline since the 2003-04 productivity cycle with growth rates averaging negative 0.2 per cent per year. Put simply this is not good enough for an ageing population like ours in Australia.
An increased productivity growth rate would mean a larger economy, higher living standards and a reduction of the fiscal pressure created from ageing. If we were to boost productivity growth from an average of 1.6 per cent to two per cent per year and sustain this over 40 years real GDP per person would be around 15 per cent higher. That is equivalent to raising living standards by $16,000 a year in today’s dollars by 2050 for every man, woman and child in Australia. This is an exciting prospect, especially when put in the perspective of how healthy productivity growth helped us previously. Productivity growth was responsible for 80 per cent of the increase in our incomes over the last 40 years.
In tabling the report today of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, I look at some of the reasons why boosting productivity is the key to economic recovery and growth. As the Intergenerational report told us earlier this year, Australia faces a complex mix of long-term challenges of an ageing and growing population, escalating pressures on the health system and an environment vulnerable to climate change. These challenges will place substantial pressures on Australia’s economy, living standards and government finances over the next 40 years. These are challenges affecting not just us but developed countries around the world.
Productivity enhancing reforms particularly through nation-building infrastructure and improving the skills base will grow the economy, improve living standards and partly offset the fiscal pressures of ageing. By growing the economy, we increase our capacity to meet the fiscal costs of ageing without increasing the overall tax burden on working Australians. The best way to grow the economy is to maintain our focus on productivity and on investing in skills and infrastructure such as nation building, the education revolution and regulatory and tax reform to underpin productivity growth in the decades to come. Building productivity, of course, is not just a challenge for government. Ultimately, it is Australian workers and businesses that will deliver the higher productivity by skilling themselves up, tooling up and working smarter.
This report provides a high-level overview of the recent status of productivity growth in Australia and probable mechanisms that could be used to improve the current flagging growth rate. During the course of the inquiry the committee received evidence on a range of issues including measurement of productivity, productivity growth trends in Australia, challenges associated with raising the rate of productivity growth and how governments can promote productivity growth in the economy.
The committee has recommended: the government introduce a national aggregate productivity growth target for the medium term to 2030; a national productivity forum including governments, business, unions and non-government organisations be convened; the Council of Australian Governments adopt a specific national productivity agenda; the Productivity Commission undertake modelling on the effect of human capital investment on Australian productivity growth; the Australian Bureau of Statistics investigate alternate ways of measuring multifactor productivity in the services sector; cost-benefit analysis be mandatory for all policies aimed at increasing aggregate productivity growth and any national productivity agenda should include public sector service provision.
In conclusion, it is fair to say that Australia is without doubt off the pace when it comes to growth and productivity. We have been that way for some time now. Allowing such a slowdown in productivity growth, and even negative productivity growth, for much longer will cause our nation’s standard of living to decline. We need to increase productivity growth to the levels that will bring Australia back to sustained economic growth. We need all levels of government and the community to work to achieve this.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of the organisations and individuals that participated in this inquiry, particularly those who made written submissions or gave evidence to the public hearing. I would also like to thank the secretary and the staff. Without their help this report would not have been able to be made. (Time expired)
I rise in part to support the member for Dobell, the chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, who did a good job in managing this inquiry, as did Stephen Boyd and his assistants in the committee secretariat—Sharon Bryant, Chris Kane and Renee Burton—who helped enormously with what some might describe as a rather dry subject but a very important one nonetheless. It was a good inquiry and we had high-quality submissions. We took evidence from interesting and intelligent sources and quite a good report has been prepared by the committee. The report is entitled Inquiry into raising the productivity growth rate in the Australian economy.
Those on the coalition side of this committee largely agreed with the report’s recommendations. There were a couple of areas of dispute, but we were able to manage those reasonably amicably towards the end. We were concerned that the government was trying to create more talkfests. We wanted to see some more push for action out of the report, which contains some high-quality recommendations. We were concerned particularly with recommendation 3—that the government, as it has been known to do in its term, not create another talkfest and review in lieu of taking real action. But, in the end, for the purposes of getting the report done and tabled, we succumbed to the pressure of the chair.
When the report was released some weeks ago, we made a point of highlighting recommendation 6, which talks about an evidence based approach to policy, which we absolutely agree with. We are surprised that the government have not taken their own advice. There was no productivity report associated with the Building the Education Revolution—the memorial school halls program, as some people call it—the laptops in schools program, which has unfortunately had a billion dollar blow-out, or indeed the cash splash. There has been no productivity benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network and they are planning to spend $43 billion there. We are disappointed that recommendation 6 has not been taken up by the government. Hopefully it will be taken up in the future. I am sure a future Abbott-led coalition government will be keen to ensure that we have an evidence based policy regime rather than the cash splash, big spending approach of this government.
The shadow Treasurer made a very good and detailed speech about the economic challenges facing Australia and identified productivity as the No. 1 issue from the coalition’s perceptive. He highlighted several areas where we need to particularly focus, and I think they are worthwhile noting in conjunction with this report. He made the point that we should ensure that community infrastructure, both privately and publicly owned, is adequate and efficient—roads, rail, ports, utilities, telecommunications, the legal system and so on. Government investment in infrastructure should be subject to cost benefit analysis—the same point as the report makes.
The second way governments can improve productivity is to lower the cost of capital and maximise the availability of capital for private business. Governments should not be competing with the private sector for scarce capital, especially once businesses have returned to the market. This is the issue of crowding out—government borrowing too much money. The third step is to minimise drag from the government—government regulations and taxation. We know about government regulations in this area. Competitive markets is the fourth area. The fifth area is concerned with skilling the workforce. The sixth area concerns encouraging innovation, which of course is very important and is dealt with in the report.
I think the report adds very much to the economic debate in this country. It contains a great deal of very important and relevant information from a range of sources that appeared before the committee to give evidence. Submissions to the committee contain good suggestions and are well worthwhile. I commend the report to the House and recommend members read it from cover to cover. I am sure they will be a lot wiser for it.
Does the member for Dobell wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee’s report entitled Human rights in the Asia-Pacific: challenges and opportunities.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I am very proud to be before the House this evening to present this report. As I have only a short time to speak, I begin by thanking all those who were involved in the preparation of this report and in the inquiry which was undertaken. In particular I knowledge the deputy chair, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, who is in the House this evening, and all those on the committee who participated in the inquiries. I acknowledge the full committee who have also endorsed this report, in particular the chair, Senator Michael Forshaw, who participated in the inquiry on many occasions and was a good contributor. I particularly acknowledge Ms Samantha Mannette, the inquiry secretary, Paul Zinkel, who was the research officer and is now the new committee secretary, Mrs Donna Quintus-Bosz and the administrative officers Mrs Sonya Gaspar and Ms Gillian Drew. I wish to particularly acknowledge the secretariat because, being a subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, they do not have the full support of the committee secretariat. Obviously they have fewer staff and Samantha and her team did a tremendous job in putting together the inquiries, ensuring that submissions were included and, indeed, in putting this report together. I acknowledge the very hard work on their behalf.
This inquiry and report provides a very detailed analysis of the challenges we face in our region when it comes to greater promotion and protection of individual human rights. Indeed, the Asia-Pacific is the only region on the globe which does not have some form of regional human rights mechanism or body. The report identifies quite clearly a very detailed analysis of why that is the case and outlines in a very informative way the challenges we are faced with in this region. For a start you can appreciate that the Asia-Pacific itself is a very diverse area and the committee really focused on two separate subregions—the Asian subregion and the Pacific Islander nations—which have different challenges and face different issues when it comes to human rights mechanisms and improving the protection of the human rights of their citizens.
We received evidence from many organisations and individuals, quite a diverse range who presented some very interesting information. As a result, I think the recommendations reflect the complex nature of our region and the many challenges and opportunities which exist. The recommendations provide some very practical and achievable steps which can be undertaken by this government to support the improving of human rights protection in our area, whether acknowledging the role of individual bilateral dialogues that Australia holds with Asian countries, promoting them as a very effective tool of discussion and debate within our region, suggesting that the committee can play a more formal and significant role in those dialogues, or asking that the committee be briefed on an annual basis by departmental officials about the outcome of those dialogues and how we can use those discussions to advance human rights in the region.
There is also a recommendation calling for a special envoy to promote discussion among the Pacific Island nations because small nations which do not have a lot of resources and are dealing with the many social and environmental challenges can certainly do with assistance from a neighbour such as us who can help them to develop a mechanism within their own country and a regional approach to human rights that would mean greater protection for all of us and would therefore create a more secure and a safer nation. It is also important that we have recommendations that look at the projects AusAID funds, asking that department to have more of a focus on human rights outcomes when making decisions on projects that it is funding. We do not want them to exclude many good community projects because of a country’s human rights record but rather we want the projects to focus on a human rights outcome. (Time expired)
I commend the member for Bonner on presentation of the report entitled Human rights in the Asia-Pacific: challenges and opportunities and endorse particularly her thanks to the committee secretariat, Samantha and Paul, mentioned in particular and her thanks to our colleagues. On 3 September 2008 the Minister for Foreign Affairs asked the committee to inquire into and to report on international and regional mechanisms currently in place to prevent and redress human rights violations with a view to providing options on possible models that may be suitable for the Asia-Pacific region, with a focus on the United Nations human rights system and regional mechanisms and the role of the parliament.
It is very important to understand that, in making this reference, while there may have been expectations that there would be clear and definitive outcomes recommended, the nature of this particular region presents challenges as well as opportunities. Unlike other regions in the world, the report notes that the Asia-Pacific region does not have strong and broad-based human rights mechanisms for preventing and redressing human rights violations and that the Asia-Pacific is diverse and complex, with a mosaic of human rights challenges. While there have been recent improvements, the committee notes the realisation of economic and social rights in some nations in the region, the evidence nevertheless is that there are many human rights issues in this region which need to be tackled.
The committee itself examined the stumbling blocks to that, including geography, resources, lack of a cohesive regional identity, limited engagement with human rights concepts, and the perceived tensions of culture. The lack of shared identity particularly, when considering the Asia Pacific as a single regional entity, is a considerable obstacle for nations and organisations in the region to overcome when seeking to work cooperatively on any issue, be it national security, trade, climate change or even human rights. All of us have a desire, a preference, for focusing on these issues and addressing them, but we certainly came to a view that these subregions in the Asia Pacific were very challenging. There was a common theme which emerged in the course of our inquiry that suggested that human rights issues were better addressed regionally rather than across the totality of the region. This presented the committee with a particular challenge.
The committee also, in looking at the recommendations from the minister that we needed to consider, recognised that bilateral dialogues were important within the region, fostering and strengthening relationships with countries in the region, and that understanding, mutual respect and trust must be a feature of those relationships. The committee recognised that these dialogues are a formal government-to-government mechanism. It did, however, note concerns in the evidence that unaccountable dialogue could lead to a degree of complacency, and for that reason the committee recommended that the government delegations who deal bilaterally with human rights in China and Vietnam include parliamentary representation, particularly through the Human Rights Subcommittee.
The committee also acknowledged that the ratifications of treaties are voluntary and we were mindful that nations already parties to treaties also face challenges. They do not have resources and we believe that there needs to be a targeted approach to dealing with those questions. We suggested a way forward in relation to that.
But I think the most important issue that the committee addressed is the way forward. The committee endorsed the Australian government’s role in enhancing engagement but appreciated that Australia had to be sensitive to the way in which this issue is addressed, and on the basis of the evidence that we received we thought there was no blueprint that we could specifically recommend. That is the reason we came to a view that the model for the Asia-Pacific community that the government had outlined is one that might be suitable here. Richard Woolcott has been a special envoy to engage capitals in wide discussion, and we were mindful that Australia, not being prescriptive in relation to these matters, could move the matter forward if we were able to appoint a special envoy for the Asia-Pacific region. (Time expired)
Does the member for Bonner wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong in November 2009 and seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
During the first two weeks of November 2009, I was pleased to be the deputy leader of an Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong. We travelled as guests of the National People’s Congress to mainland China, where we visited the cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu, and also Lhasa in the Tibet Autonomous Region. This was the first official visit to Tibet by an Australian parliamentary delegation since the Human Rights Delegation visit in July 1991. We also travelled to Hong Kong.
At the outset I would like to acknowledge and thank my fellow delegates for their contribution to the trip. The delegation was led by the President of the Senate, Senator John Hogg, and also included my colleagues the member for Chisholm, the member for Isaacs, the member for Braddon, the member for Moore and Senator Scott Ludlam. The delegation was accompanied by Ms Meredith Home, adviser to the President of the Senate, and Dr Jacqueline Dewar, the delegation secretary from the Department of the Senate.
I would like to record the delegation’s appreciation of the hospitality and courtesy extended to us by the People’s Republic of China during our visit. In particular, I note thanks to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing; the Standing Committee of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Congress; the Standing Committee of the Sichuan Provincial People’s Congress; and the Standing Committee of Tibet Autonomous Region’s People’s Congress.
I also note the valuable contributions made by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff, both in Australia and in China and Hong Kong, and the support provided by the Parliamentary Relations Office and the Parliamentary Library.
Australia’s relationship with China is a very important one, and accordingly we welcomed the opportunity to participate in this delegation. The objectives of the delegation were to renew links with the National People’s Congress; to gain an appreciation of contemporary political, economic and social issues in China; to gain an insight into China’s progress in addressing energy and environmental issues; to obtain an understanding of China’s perspective on regional and international issues; to explore prospects for further enhancing bilateral economic relations; to gain an appreciation of the effectiveness of Australia’s development assistance program and visit an AusAID assisted project; and to discuss cooperation within the multilateral system.
Delegation members met with a range of very senior members of the National People’s Congress in all the cities that we visited, which greatly assisted us in fulfilling our first objective. Our visit to mainland China provided us with a very worthwhile opportunity to renew and strengthen person-to-person contacts and parliament-to-parliament links. The busy program that was put in place for us also allowed us to pursue some of our other objectives, although there were some key issues—including the state of the Chinese energy and transport sectors, responses to the global financial crisis, trends in sustainable development and human rights—about which the delegation would have appreciated the opportunity to learn more.
In Hong Kong we met with a wide cross-section of Hong Kong’s policymakers, legislators, business leaders and community representatives. In particular, we were pleased to engage in discussions about the range of commercial opportunities for Australian business in Hong Kong.
In a two-week visit there were many highlights. One of the most memorable was the visit to the Expo 2010 site in Shanghai, where we saw the spectacular Australian pavilion, with a very distinctive Australian rust look, designed by a Melbourne architect. We also visited the site of the earthquake in Sichuan province. We were able to attend, in Hong Kong, a lecture by Stephen Roach on the impact of the financial crisis in Asia.
I would like to thank Ambassador Geoff Raby in Beijing, Consul-General Tom Connor in Shanghai and Consul-General Les Luck in Hong Kong, all of whom opened up their homes to us and enabled us to meet Australian expatriates who were working in China and Hong Kong. I would also like to thank Graeme Meehan and Christopher Lim, who travelled with the delegation and who, with their impressive command of Mandarin and their enormous knowledge of China, really helped to make sure that the delegation got the most out of the visit. Overall, the delegation provided a valuable insight into the state of the relationship between Australia and China and, hopefully, has helped to lay the groundwork for some more substantive future visits.
I move:
That the House:
It gives me great pleasure to move the motion tonight to thank and congratulate the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and Ageing and the executive for reaching a historic COAG agreement to deliver better health care and better hospitals for Australian working families. The Rudd government’s National Health and Hospitals Network reform plan gives a commitment to permanently fund 60 per cent of public health costs, 60 per cent of capital projects and 60 per cent of the teaching and research in our public hospitals. The Australian government will also deliver $7.3 billion in additional funding over the next five years to provide 1,300 new subacute hospital beds and an additional 2,500 aged-care beds. The government is also committed to elective surgery being delivered on time for 95 per cent of Australians; a historic agreement to reshape mental health services and help 20,000 extra young people get access to mental health services; more coordinated care in general practice for patients with diabetes; a Commonwealth takeover of primary care; and a Commonwealth takeover of aged care.
The government will invest $1.2 billion in training and supporting more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals as part of Building a Health and Hospitals Network for Australia’s Future. This includes an additional $520 million investment in Australia’s nurses. In total, the government’s investments will train almost 5,500 GPs and 680 specialist doctors and expand and improve support for more than 4,600 full-time equivalent nurses working in general practice, as well as other nurses working and training in aged care and rural areas. It will support 800 allied health professionals working and training in rural areas over the next four years, which is significant to the people in my electorate of Solomon.
Hardworking doctors and nurses in our emergency departments do a great job, but they need more support to deliver working families the timely services they need. The most recent figures show that, currently, almost one in three patients—almost 600,000 people each year—wait longer than eight hours in an emergency department before they are admitted to hospital. Almost one in three patients wait longer than is clinically recommended. The new national four-hour target for emergency department access in public hospitals will be established under the new National Health and Hospitals Network. The government will provide $150 million from 1 July this year in upfront payments to help states and territories with the costs of moving towards the four-hour target. This investment will help provide the additional capacity, equipment and planning that is needed to deliver improvements in emergency departments and lift hospitals to the new high standards required under the National Health and Hospitals Network. A further $350 million will be available in reward funding for meeting or beating the target.
This investment will mean that families can be confident that when they or a loved one need urgent care in an emergency department they will no longer have to spend all night sitting in waiting rooms or waiting for a bed. The new National Health and Hospitals Network will also mean that doctors and nurses will have more say in the way their local hospital is run, through local hospital networks and new primary healthcare organisations. This fundamental reform and the government’s investments will ensure that our health workforce meets the needs of Australians today and the growing demand for health services into the future.
Without central reform, spiralling health costs could have consumed entire revenues raised by states and territories. The agreement delivers that reform, putting health funding onto a sustainable footing and delivering better health and better hospitals for working families across Australia. For more than a decade, Australia suffered as public hospital emergency departments struggled to cope with two million extra presentations and reduced funding from the former government. We know that the states and territories did suffer under the previous government, when Mr Abbott was the Minister for Health and Ageing and ripped a billion dollars out of the hospital system.
In my electorate of Solomon, the efforts of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing have been significant. On Friday I did some filming of some government funded sites, such as the GP superclinic in Palmerston, which is nearing completion, and the new medical school, which will be under threat if the former government is returned to office. The oncology unit is now operational—
Campaign ads, were they?
I will take that interjection from the member for Gippsland. It will not be called the Tony Abbott Cancer Centre. In fact, it is the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, after Dr Alan Walker. That is operational now, with a $28.6 million investment from the Rudd Labor government to make it happen on the ground. I am very thankful to the Prime Minister for his initiative and his vision in going into the hospital system and making sure that we have reforms and changes for the future. I also acknowledge, as I said, the health minister’s tireless work in this area. I thank the House. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I am pleased to join the debate on the motion before the House. I do admire the member for Solomon’s enthusiasm. There has been an orgy of self-congratulation regarding health reform among some Labor MPs, and it is probably time for a cold shower. There is a lot of work still to be done on health reform and actually delivering the services that Australians expect, particularly those families that live in rural, regional and remote locations.
The motion before the House congratulates the Rudd government on reaching its historic COAG agreement on health and hospital reform. It overlooks the simple fact that the Western Australian government has not even signed up to this historic COAG agreement as put by the mover of the motion. That does not, however, stop the spin from going into overdrive when it comes to the Rudd Labor government. It does not stop the taxpayer funded advertising propaganda campaign. We have already seen the rollout of $10 million worth of advertising. It has already hit the airwaves. But what happened to the promises about the Auditor-General having oversight of government advertising? I sincerely hope, for the benefit of the member for Solomon, that the government has not paid too much for the ads, because they are an appalling representation of government policy. It is like ‘Noodle Nation’ revisited, so I hope you have not paid too much for it on behalf of the Australian taxpayers. This issue of Auditor-General oversight has gone the way of being another Labor government broken promise.
We suggest to the minister and to the Prime Minister that they should stop paying for spin doctors and use the money to pay for real doctors. That $10 million could have employed 30 doctors in the course of one financial year. That is the problem with this government, and the member for Solomon himself knows it. There are so many broken promises that no-one is listening to the spin anymore. You can just keep on spinning, keep on spinning, but no-one is actually listening anymore. The good doctor Rudd is actually poison on the ground in the electorate of Gippsland, as in so many other parts of regional Australia. We have had the home insulation disasters, the rorting of the school halls program, the failure to deliver on the promised childcare services and the backflip on the emissions trading scheme.
This motion asks the House to congratulate the Rudd government on reaching its historic COAG agreement on health and hospital reform, and I would be happy to congratulate the government if it actually managed to deliver any program on time and on budget. Just deliver one program on time and on budget and I would be happy to join in congratulations with the member for Solomon. I do not want to sound churlish. Quite recently, the Gippsland Cancer Care Centre was promised $22 million. It is a positive announcement and I freely acknowledge the positive announcement. But, given the Rudd Labor government’s record of broken promises and failure to deliver on the projects that are promised, Gippslanders have every reason to be sceptical and wary, and the overall sentiment remains that the people of Gippsland will believe it when they actually see it.
Even the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services had to sneak into Gippsland to make the announcement, with not even the courtesy of a phone call. That is the way they do business in this government. I must admit I expected a little bit more from the member for Maribyrnong. Perhaps I was misguided. I do not expect much from some of his colleagues but I thought the member for Maribyrnong had a bit more class than that.
The motion before the House also refers to the government’s investment in training more doctors and health professionals, cutting waiting lists, improving services in emergency departments and providing these cancer care services. The four-hour target the member for Solomon refers to regarding emergency department waiting times is just another target, another promise from the Rudd Labor government. He talks about it as if it has already happened, as if he is meeting this target of a four-hour waiting time. I suggest to the member for Solomon that the reward money he talked about is very safe in the Treasury’s coffers. I do not think the four-hour target will be met. I do not trust this government and its capacity to deliver health services to my constituents, particularly in rural and regional communities. I would have thought that, with this government’s track record of continually overpromising and underdelivering, it would be better off keeping the corks in the champagne bottles until it actually get some runs on the board.
The Rural Doctors Association of Australia naturally takes a very close interest in this debate and these matters relating to health and hospital reform. Dr Nola Maxfield, the president of the association, put out a statement on 11 May in relation to the budget and health reform package under the headline ‘With a severe lack of rural workforce measures, this budget really needs a doctor’. Dr Maxfield said:
“When it comes to real measures to improve access to health care in the bush and entice more doctors and other health professionals to rural and remote Australia, this budget is in serious need of a doctor … literally”
She went on to say:
“Instead of trying to paper over poor access to after-hours medical care with the Medicare Local national health telephone service, why not put in place real measures to get more Doctor Locals into the bush? After all, if there is no doctor in a rural town anyway, where is Medicare Local going to direct those after-hours patients needing serious care … Sydney, Melbourne or Perth?
There is still a great deal of uncertainty in my electorate about how the health and hospital reform proposed by this government will actually affect those living in regional areas. I have met with the providers in my electorate in recent weeks and they are passionate about ensuring that local decision-making capacity remains in the future.
In future, before we debate motions congratulating the government, I call on the government to actually get some results in terms of improved health services throughout regional Australia. (Time expired)
What an extraordinary contribution from the member for Gippsland. He tried as much as he could to speak about anything other than health—‘Let’s not mention health, let’s not even talk about it’—because we know that on your side the record on health is absolutely abysmal, ripping a billion dollars out of the health system, putting a cap on GP places so there are not enough doctors, doing nothing about the shortage of nurses, doing nothing about allied health professionals—and the shortages that were there for years. What we saw under the previous government was a decline in the contribution the federal government made to the health budget. We saw it drop below 40 per cent. That is what you did when you were in government. You should hang your heads in shame in relation to what you did when you had the treasury bench and were looking after health.
You ask for some concrete things that this government has done in health. Well, talk to the tens of thousands of people who got treatment more quickly because of the money we put into elective surgery. Talk to those tens of thousands of Australians who came off those waiting lists because of the money in last year’s budget—real action on health affecting people’s lives, making sure that they are seen as quickly as possible. That is real change. That is actually doing something positive for health, rather than ripping money out of it. This government has increased by 50 per cent the amount of money that went into the COAG agreement. That is real money going to fix the system, making sure that people get better services in our public hospitals.
We have promised over $7.3 billion in relation to helping health. That means 1,300 extra beds. What is the member for Gippsland’s position in relation to that? He is not even going to talk about health; he does not even care about what happens in health. He is just a bit worried about which photo he can get into next. It does not matter what he believes as long as he can get into a photo. That is the motto of the member for Gippsland. If there is a camera out there anywhere, he will be rushing out to jump into the frame. You can bet your bottom dollar that if there is an opportunity for a photo in relation to our health reform the member for Gippsland will be the first one lining up to get there and, surrounded by doctors, saying what a wonderful thing this is. But when he comes to Canberra it is very different. He talks one game back in his electorate, happy to take the glory for the reforms that this government is making. He comes to Canberra and talks a totally different game. He tries to walk both sides of the fence by having a different argument here in Canberra from the one he takes back to his electorate.
This government is about real reform. Look at some of the real reform that is being proposed in my electorate, for example. We have the view that our hospital networks should be run locally. The biggest concern on the Central Coast is that our area health services either are run out of North Sydney, as they are at the moment, or could be run out of the Hunter. We have over 300,000 people on the Central Coast and we want to have our health system run locally. That is what this reform does. It proposes that we run our health system locally rather than the way it has been done in the past. That means that we are able to get local clinicians, local doctors and local nurses involved in the decisions that affect people on the Central Coast. If that was the only reform that was being done, then that would be a fantastic reform and a major reform for the Central Coast, but we have already started to make other reforms on the Central Coast as well. We have a temporary super GP clinic here. We know from those opposite they do not believe in super GP clinics.
Mr Chester interjecting
We have more than two because I have a temporary one which is seeing over 2,000 patients a month.
Mr Chester interjecting
Order! The member for Gippsland was heard in silence. I expect the same for other members.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those opposite get agitated when they hear about health. They do not like to hear about what we are doing in health. They do not like to hear about how super GP clinics are taking pressure off public hospitals. Wyong Hospital, which is in my electorate, has the fifth busiest emergency department in the state. We are building a super GP clinic which will employ over 106 staff and will be less than a kilometre away. It will have extended hours and bulk-billing and will take the pressure off a public hospital, which is one of the things the member of the Gippsland said we should be doing. Yet, on his side, what did we hear in the budget reply? ‘We are doing away with super GP clinics. We do not want to have any more.’ Quite clearly, the opposition have no idea when it comes to health reform and no idea about putting in additional services. The opposition are about ripping the guts out of the health system. We know they did it before; we know they will do it again. They cannot be trusted in health. (Time expired)
I understand completely why the member for Dobell would want to get New South Wales Labor out of the health system. I understand why he, as a New South Wales member, would want New South Wales Labor as far away as possible at the next federal election in a few months time because anything the New South Wales Labor Party has touched in recent times does not turn out to be all that good. So I can understand his desperate desire to talk about getting rid of the New South Wales government’s role in the health system.
But, unfortunately, the so-called plan of the Prime Minister does not do that; it does not do much at all. It is a health policy for an election, not for the future, which is just so typical of this Prime Minister. Unfortunately, as much as it pains me to do it, I have to disagree with the three points in the motion of the member for Solomon on health and hospitals. There are only three points in it. I disagree with each of them and it is very rare for me to disagree with the member for Solomon. I cannot congratulate this government for yet another spin job. I cannot acknowledge an investment which does not exist. I cannot accept the third point, which just continues to outline a complete fib that those on the other side have been told to push around by the hollow men up there in the Prime Minister’s office about the so-called record of the Leader of the Opposition, who was a very good minister when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing.
When it comes to this Prime Minister, this is his record on health. He promised to fix hospitals by mid-2009 and he has failed. He promised to take them over and he has not. He promised to deliver 36 GP superclinics—not super GP clinics but GP superclinics—but only three are open. We have just heard about the temporary one in the electorate of Dobell, which is alongside the temporary deficit. He promised to recruit 7,500 hospital nurses, but only 1,000 were recruited in 2008 and just 617 recruited in the last two years. He promised to recruit 1,000 nurses for aged care but only 139 were recruited. He has now dumped the Bringing Nurses Back into the Workforce scheme. He promised to deliver 12 defence health clinics but not one has opened. Finally, he promised to cut elective surgery waiting lists, but they are longer than they have ever been.
You cannot trust Rudd Labor when it comes to health, like you cannot trust them on the economy and you cannot trust them to implement any sort of program. When they cannot implement a pink batts program, how can you trust them with the $100 billion health system?
Mr Craig Thomson interjecting
Don’t worry, Member for Dobell, I will be on health; there is no doubt about that. It is the easiest story to pick apart that you could imagine. So desperate was the Prime Minister to try and have something to take to the election that he had to junk his commitment to give the Auditor-General a role in government advertising at the end of March so that he could have an advertising program on—guess which subject—health. It is an advertising program that no longer has to go through the Auditor-General. It is an advertising program he promised he would never do when he was in opposition.
The Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, said, ‘Why don’t we have a system whereby a ban is placed on publicly funded government advertising unless agreed between the leader of the government and the Leader of the Opposition for three months prior to an election?’ It is now three months before an election and what did we see on the weekend? The most political government advertising we have seen in this place in a generation. It is the most outrageous abuse of government money, and it was all done after they cut the Auditor-General out of the process. The government stood on their high horse before the last election and now just before this election they dump the promise. It is just so typical of this government. You cannot trust what they say before an election because it will all change after the election. Whether it is the greatest moral challenge of our time or an absolute commitment on government advertising, you cannot trust them. You cannot trust them when it comes to health.
You would not put these blokes in charge of the $100 billion health system after you have seen what they did with the memorial school halls program and the pink batts insulation program. They cannot implement a program. You would not trust them with the $100 billion health system because they do not have the ability to implement a program. What they do have is an ability to run an election campaign, and that is all this is about. The health policy is a cover for an election campaign policy. It is one of those things that will be dumped after the election, like ‘the greatest moral challenge of all time’ was dumped after the last election, like the government advertising fraudulent claim was dumped just before this budget so that they could run ad after ad after ad leading to this election.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
On July 16, 1910, John Robertson Duigan flew an aircraft—it was a seven-metre hop—at his family’s property, Spring Plains, at Mia-Mia, near Kyneton in Victoria. That Australian flight occurred in my electorate of Bendigo and is acknowledged as the first-ever powered, controlled flight of an all-Australian designed and built aeroplane and it occurred less than seven years after the Wright brothers’ Flyer lifted off at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in the USA. In the five countries where powered flights were achieved, considerable technical resources were available, which made Duigan’s effort in Australia all the more remarkable because he accomplished the flight with little outside help, other than several texts, the magazine Aero and the engineering skills of his younger brother, Reginald Charles Duigan.
The reason I raise this tonight is because, on 8 May 2010, two Bendigo pilots, Ken Evers and Tim Pryce, in the spirit of John Duigan, took off from Bendigo aerodrome in an attempt to be the first Australian pilots ever to fly around the world in an Australian commercially manufactured aircraft—and I am delighted to say that that adventure is progressing well. After successfully crossing the Pacific Ocean via Norfolk Island, Samoa, Christmas Island and Hawaii, they landed safely at Mojave in California earlier this week. They then progressed to McNeal in Arizona and then to New Orleans, and landed safely in Jamaica around 10 am this morning, Australian time.
What makes this trip remarkable is that they are flying a single-engine eight-seat Australian designed and Gippsland Aeronautics manufactured Airvan. This aircraft has been described as a ‘flying ute’, or the four-wheel drive of Australian aviation. The company has manufactured and sold around 260 of these aircraft around the world and it is a great testament to Australian manufacturing and, in particular, Australian aircraft manufacturing.
I would like to place on the public record our thanks to the major sponsors of this event—first and foremost, Gippsland Aeronautics and their parent company, India’s Mahindra Corporation. I express our appreciation to this company for having the confidence to invest in Australian aircraft manufacturing, which is most welcome, and to all the other sponsors who have shown confidence in and support for this event. For the technically minded, the Airvan is manufactured by Gippsland Aeronautics in Morwell, Victoria. It is powered by a Lycoming TIO-540-AH1A turbo charged, fuel injected engine. The GA8-TC Airvan has a cruise speed of 140 knots at 10,000 feet with 75 per cent power.
As well as showing the great Australian spirit of adventure—remember, no other Australian has ever attempted a mission like this, and our pioneering long-distance aviators like Sir Charles Kingsford Smith helped establish Australian aviation so it could become what it is today—the two aviators from Bendigo will carry that tradition into the future by becoming the first Australians to circumnavigate the globe in an Australian designed and manufactured aircraft.
While the spirit of adventure is well established in both pilots, there is also a deep commitment pulsing in both of them to benefit their fellow human beings. This world record achievement is also about raising awareness of one of the world’s most devastating disease—malaria. This is a disease which takes almost three million lives each year, most in Third World nations and mostly infants and children. Tim and Ken are hoping to raise $1 million towards this very worthy cause. I know all of Bendigo is extremely proud of them and all Australians should be equally proud of their quest to create history and to raise awareness of and work towards their goal of eradicating this tragic disease, which is one of the Millennium Development Goals. I know all members of this House will join with me in wishing Ken and Tim all the best in this magnificent cause.
Mr Speaker, may I say it is a pleasure to present in your august presence this evening. On Thursday evening last week, 20 May, I held a community meeting in Somerville with my state colleague, the member for Hastings, Neale Burgess. Somerville is a wonderful town which has a remarkable history. It was one of Victoria’s fruit growing capitals. It has become more of a residential area, but it remains a centre for light industrial manufacturing as well as a centre for chicken processing, although it is in the rebuilding phase for the Inghams chicken plant, which was recently subject to a major, destructive fire. Fortunately, through a combination of work by people such as Neale Burgess and many others, funds have been found and the Inghams plant will be rebuilt.
Somerville is also a town with a tremendous social fabric and sense of history, but it is a town with two great challenges. The first of those challenges relates to its design. The town is cut in half by a railway line, which runs through the town and has a series of level crossings in an urban area. Some of those level crossings, such as those on Bungower Road, do not have adequate protection systems despite hard work to achieve that. The need is there for boom gates and for lights. Just as important as those significant safety issues, there is the quality of life issue. All of these items were up for discussion at the meeting. The second great challenge facing the town is that of purpose and activities and ways forward for the youth of Somerville. I think this problem stems in large part from the fact that, until recently, Somerville did not have a secondary college on site. There was a campaign led by many, in which I am pleased to have played a small part, and we have been successful in achieving that college. What was agreed upon on the night, in order to deal with these issues, are a series of steps forward for this magnificent town that is in the middle of the Mornington Peninsula and in many ways is at the centre of the northern peninsula.
First, above all else, it is time for a structured plan, a vision for what Somerville can be over the next 20 years. It will lay out the pathway to ensure that the railway in the middle of town is, firstly, made safe and, secondly, covered by an overpass right in the heart of town where it divides the village into two at Eramosa Road East and Eramosa Road West. Ultimately, we can unite the two halves of Somerville. Ultimately, we can create a green centre and an area for public activity. We could potentially move the memorial to an open area in the middle of town to give proper and due recognition to those who served Australia in different conflicts.
That is the big vision. There is a need to begin the process of having a single long-term structured plan and vision for Somerville between now and 2020. There needs to be a plan to unite the two halves of the town. This town has a wonderful history and it deserves a majestic future, which it can have. It will make this good town with structural impediments a great town.
The second part of the vision is to deal with some of these significant problems. Firstly, we need to ensure, on the hard edge side, that there is a war on graffiti in Somerville. We have seen in the nearby city of Casey a very proactive approach to graffiti. My colleague Neale Burgess has a website that identifies graffiti and seeks immediate action. We want to strike an agreement with the Mornington Peninsula Shire to ensure there is zero tolerance of graffiti in Somerville and a cooperative approach between residents, shopkeepers and the shire to ensure that graffiti is eradicated. Secondly, above all else we want to see a 24-hour police station in Somerville. That is something on which I will never take a backwards step. It is necessary, so long as they are in addition to the police in Hastings, not in place of the police in Hastings. That goal is combined with getting years 11 and 12 at Somerville Secondary College. Our goal has always been to have a years seven to 12 secondary school. We now have a years seven to 10 stand-alone school. We are within an ace of having a years seven to 12 school for Somerville. (Time expired)
On Thursday night two weeks ago, while we in the House here were on our way home from hearing the budget in reply speech, a car bomb exploded in an office building in Lidcombe in Sydney, in the neighbouring electorate to mine. At about 10.30 pm a stolen car was rammed through the front security fence and into the foyer of an office building. The foyer was soaked in petrol before being set alight. The car had been stolen two days before. Firemen fought the blaze, unaware that the car was still full of unexploded petrol drums.
Nobody was hurt in the attack. Around $500,000 of property damage was done. The foyer looks like a bombsite, but then it is. Clearly the perpetrators anticipated far greater damage than that. Had the petrol exploded, the damage to the building would have been even more substantial and firemen may have lost their lives.
The building was the state headquarters of the CFMEU, the union that represents workers in the construction, forestry, mining and energy industries. Two community groups that had been meeting in the building had left just an hour earlier. It could have been much worse, but let us not lose sight of how bad this was.
A person or people unknown decided to bomb a building. It is hard to imagine any explanation other than they were deliberately targeting the CFMEU. Was it an attempt at intimidation? Was it a warning? Will there be more attacks? These are all questions we cannot answer at this point, but we do know that such an action must be condemned by all of us. Such actions are unheard of in this country, and that is the way it must stay. I stand in this place on the first parliamentary day since that event to condemn the car bombing of a union office.
I suspect there are many people wondering how they missed this event. It received very little coverage. I received a text about it late Thursday night. I heard a brief reference to a bombing on the news as I was driving back to Parramatta very early on Friday morning and then I went through the channels looking for more information. It did not make the front pages of the papers and was not covered well in the regular news bulletins throughout the day. I cannot help but wonder if it would have been more newsworthy if—heaven forbid—a sports club, a synagogue, a church, an employer organisation or even a bank had been car-bombed.
I remember thinking at the time that the coverage was light on for such a significant event in the history of this country. I am hoping that there was some quirk that day that distracted the media from covering this profoundly disturbing event. I am hoping that the coverage was not so low because it was a union office. I do acknowledge that it was the day after the budget reply speech, but I cannot help think that a car bomb in another location might have taken even the budget reply off the front page.
I also note that comment by politicians of all persuasions and at all levels, including me, was unusually quiet. If there was comment, and there may have been, I did not see it reported. We do not have many car bombings to compare this to, and that is part of my point. Bad behaviour by unionists, even swearing, does receive attention.
The union claims that staff have been receiving threats and there have been attempts at intimidation. That is not entirely new. It is not acceptable, but it is not new. The bombing of a union office is a particularly appalling turn of events. If it flickers across the mind of anyone out there who is listening that the union probably did something to deserve it—and I have read some blogs to that effect in the last couple of days—I suggest that they think again.
This is not the way industrial relations is played in this country. There are heated disputes and there may be strikes, but they are resolved by negotiation, not by intimidation and fear. Union offices do not get bombed. People do not get threatened with violence. Car bombs do not explode over disputes over workers’ rights. Unionists and their families do not live in fear.
We can probably assume that the matters behind this attack are more about criminal exploitation of workers than any reasonable definition of industrial relations. We as a nation, particularly the labour movement, have worked too long and too hard to see criminal exploitation of workers creep back into our community. A car bomb in a union building should be a warning to us all that something really needs our attention here.
I feel I need to acknowledge that for members of the union the lack of attention to the bombing of their headquarters is seen as a stark contrast to the very harsh spotlight on the behaviour of union members by the building commission, which was formed by the previous government and retained in a slightly modified form by the government of which I am a part. I know for them there is a stark contrast with the looming case of Ark Tribe, who faces a three-day trial on charges of refusing to be interviewed by the ABCC about who organised a meeting by workers over safety issues. Whether the government and unions agree on this or not, the union is right to expect aggressive pursuit of the perpetrators of the bombing of their headquarters and they are right to expect outrage from us all. (Time expired)
Last week I invited the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, to the electorate of Paterson to see firsthand the impact of the Rudd Labor government’s 40 per cent resource super tax and the effects it would have on locally owned Bloomfield Colliery, owned and operated by William Cant and John Richardson. It was Tony Abbott’s second trip to the Hunter since becoming opposition leader. The first time was to discuss the great big new tax , the emissions trading scheme. We now find ourselves again fighting off the next great big new tax.
The resource super tax will slug the mining industry, put the future jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians at risk and will savage the retirement savings of millions of Australians. It hits both workers whose superannuation funds have been invested in resource stocks and self-funded retirees alike. It will force resource companies to reassess any future investment in Australia, including expansion of their existing mines. This will make investments in other countries a more attractive option, sending Australian jobs offshore.
Bloomfield Colliery employs approximately 500 people in the Hunter Valley. Mining is a critically important industry to the fortunes of the Hunter Valley and not more so than around Maitland area. It is not just the mum and dad businesses like Bloomfield. There are all the mining support industries based in the area, like those in Tomago, Thornton, Rutherford and Beresfield. Indeed, the whole Maitland region will be affected.
This is where our people live. This is where our people work. I cannot understand why the member for Newcastle, the member for Charlton and the member for Hunter are rejoicing in this great big new tax to be imposed on the mining industry, especially when it will directly affect their constituents—the people that they seek to represent in this parliament. I call on those Labor members to come out against the Prime Minister’s great big new taxes and finally stand up and support the mining industry and its workers in our area.
We have already seen what this reckless tax grab has resulted in across the country. The Macarthur coal deal on Gloucester and Duralie Mines has fallen over, BHP Billiton are casting doubt over the $20 billion expansion of Olympic Dam, Santos are deferring a decision on a $15 billion LNG export terminal in Gladstone, Fortescue Metals Group are putting $17.5 billion worth of projects in the Pilbara on hold, Xstrata are suspending a $30 million regional exploration program and Origin Energy are predicting increases in domestic energy and fuel prices.
This 50 per cent increase in mining taxes will make the Australian resource industry the highest taxed in the world and taxed at more than double the rate of our biggest competitor, Canada. While the Rudd Labor government has tried to brush aside the legitimate concerns of the mining industry by referring to the development of offshore oil and gas projects under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, the comparison does not stand up to scrutiny. The PRRT is very different to the resource super tax, just as the oil and gas industry bears no resemblance to hard rock gold mines. The resource super tax is a retrospective attack on investments that were made in good faith and cuts in at a lower rate than the PRRT, making more projects unprofitable and eroding business confidence.
The resource sector is one of the most productive parts of the Australian economy and employs half a million Australians both directly and taking into account the jobs it generates in other industries and within small businesses. The mining industry helped steer Australia through the global financial crisis. It was the most important sector in rebuilding after the recession of the 1990s and it should have been underpinning the Australian economy for decades to come.
The future of the mining industry is too important to the Australian economy to become the next victim of the high spending, high taxing Rudd government. I would have thought that the member for Newcastle, the member for Charlton and the member for Hunter would have supported their communities as those communities will be directly affected by this super tax. It will be those jobs that will be destroyed.
When you combine the effect of the ETS with this great big new tax, you have a mega tax on the mining industry which will affect the communities. Sponsorships that mining companies provide like that of the Newcastle Knights who are sponsored by Coal and Allied and the generous community financial support will all be affected by this Rudd Labor tax. Obviously those communities are not supported like those who live in the Paterson electorate who I am elected to represent. That is why I invited Tony Abbott up to the area last week to provide that support to the miners, to those in the community dependent on this economic flow through our region. I will continue to stand up against this new tax grab as the future of the mining industry is too important to the Australian economy.
I have spoken consistently about the challenges facing Cairns and the Far North Queensland economy during the past 18 months as a result of the global financial crisis that led to the global recession. Our region has been hard hit with the economic reliance on tourism and construction. Unemployment peaked at almost 14 per cent last year, up from around five per cent prior to the GFC. Sadly, in the current debate around a mining super profit tax, when I look back on that period of time and the economy that I was left with as the new member for Leichhardt, there is a recognition that our economy was left very vulnerable because of a failure in many ways of us to benefit from the mining boom under the former Howard government.
There was no major investment in infrastructure, whether in roads, education or health in Far North Queensland under the former member as part of the Howard government. The former member now campaigning for re-election has been so embarrassed by the lack of investment in Leichhardt in his more than a decade in office that he has been left trying to claim credit for infrastructure projects being built in my first term. Why? Because our region did not benefit from the mining boom under the former government. That is why the mining super profits tax is important.
It is critical that all Australians benefit from the proceeds of what are all of our natural resources. The 14,000-odd small businesses in my electorate who have been doing it tough deserve to benefit from the planned tax cuts and the red tape reductions. We want to see more infrastructure investment and increases in superannuation retirement benefits in our region. Since being elected I have been working in partnership with the local community business leaders and the Prime Minister and ministers to turn around our struggling economy. We have seen significant investments in projects like the new dental school at James Cook University currently under construction, a new $40 million bridge over the Mulgrave River and planning well under way for a $150 million upgrade of the southern access road into Cairns. In Cape York we have new houses under construction, in Cooktown a new multi-purpose centre, in Weipa a new childcare centre and I have secured funding for the upgrade of the Horne Island airstrip in the Torres Strait.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the government have responded to the specific needs and challenges facing communities in Far North Queensland, unlike the previous government. We have been working hard to strengthen and diversify our local economy, including tapping into the developing opportunities in the mining sector in places like Papua New Guinea. Last week we started to see some light at the end of the tunnel with unemployment dropping to 10.4 per cent, which is down from the 12.4 per cent of the previous couple of months. The end of the wet season is seeing tourism picking up and more of the Rudd government’s economic stimulus construction projects are beginning.
These economic stimulus projects have been critical to supporting jobs in the construction industry in my electorate. Builders like Laurie Lidner, whom I met at a recent Building the Education Revolution opening, said that he had not heard from a developer for more than 12 months and his business would be in real trouble if he had not had this economic stimulus work. Similarly, Wayne Cavallaro, who is building social housing at the moment, talked about how subcontractors were dependent on that work to feed their children and to help pay off their houses. These critical projects are supporting jobs in local communities like mine. The tax task force that has been working in my electorate to support small businesses struggling with cash flow has been critically important—all direct responses from the Rudd government. Support for tourism has also been important. Recently, the return of flights from Japan and new flights from New Zealand have been supported with additional marketing funding from the Rudd government.
We know that there is much more work to be done. I continue to work in partnership with business and community leaders, like those in Advance Cairns, the local council and the government, to deliver ongoing support to our local community. Last week the Deputy Prime Minister announced that another jobs expo will be held in Cairns on 25 June this year, building on the successful expo last year where more than 300 people found a job. The local council has been working up a plan for a new cultural precinct on the waterfront in Cairns, and I am working hard to secure funding for a new regional performing arts centre as part of that project.
I want to see us go back to a fair system for funding air service charges at Cairns airport. The user pays system that was developed and implemented under the former Howard government has made our airport less competitive with other major gateways, and I want to see us go back to a network charging policy. That will encourage more airlines into Cairns and make our airport more competitive. We cannot risk the Tony Abbot led opposition. (Time expired)
On 29 April, I joined with others in the shire community to celebrate the 240th anniversary of Cook’s landing at Kurnell. In less than 10 years, we will celebrate the 250th anniversary of Captain Cook’s landing at Kurnell and this will be a significant milestone in our nation’s history. Indeed, Kurnell is the birthplace of modern Australia. The aim is to make 29 April 2020 the most significant national celebration since our bicentenary. We have 10 years of opportunity before us and there is much to be gained by getting started as early as we can. You could be forgiven for thinking that Cook’s landing place at Kurnell in my electorate of Cook would be a national sanctuary, but anyone who has visited the site and the Kurnell Peninsula more generally knows differently. In 2005, Cook’s landing site was placed on the National Heritage List thanks primarily to the work of my predecessor, the Hon. Bruce Baird. We must now ensure the site is upgraded to match its national significance by this important national milestone of the 250th anniversary.
At present, international visitors and many in this place fly over Kurnell but few visit. School children come here to our national parliament to see how a democracy works, but few ever make it to Kurnell to see where our modern national story began. Cook’s landing place today is a collection of tired monuments and stale exhibits that frankly do not do the site justice. The site in its present form represents a monument to national apathy, or worse still insecurity about our national heritage, rather than the birthplace of modern Australia. Recent catch-up works brought some much needed improvement, but this should be the beginning of efforts to properly recognise Kurnell, not a mission accomplished moment in which to pose for photos, as it was at the time. The people of the Sutherland Shire are proud to live in an area that is so significant to our national history and our national story. It is time more was done to share this pride with all Australians. With my daughter turning three, it was with great pride that I was able to show her the place where Captain Cook landed. She looked at it and repeated it back to me. Every time we drive along Botany Bay now she points out to it.
What is needed is a major transformation. Only then can this site realise its potential to benefit all Australians. But to get there we need to confront the reasons for its neglect and ensure they are addressed in how we manage the site in the future. To that end, I have formed a bipartisan committee of federal and state politicians, councillors, and Indigenous, business and community representatives. I sincerely thank my fellow shire resident and a member of the other place, Senator Michael Forshaw, for joining me in the bipartisan charge and helping to convene the task force. The task force will draw on representatives from our federal and state parliaments and local councillors with a direct interest in Kurnell, together with local Indigenous, business and community representatives in the area. I have written to these leaders and, in the process of doing so, have encouraged them to come together and join in this movement. In particular, the Sutherland Shire Council Mayor, Lorraine Kelly, has recently indicated her willingness to join on behalf of the council, as has the state member for Cronulla, Malcolm Kerr and the shire councillor, Kevin Schreiber, who has had a long-standing passion for this issue and has already taken up the charge.
The task force will seek to approach respected local, state and national individuals to serve as Cook 2020 ambassadors to help educate and spread the message of the significance of Cook’s discovery and his role in our national story. My predecessor in this place, the Hon. Bruce Baird, has agreed to perform such a role in the pursuit of the task force’s objective. The first item of business for the task force will be to agree on a submission to federal, state and local governments to support works and initiatives as part of a comprehensive 2020 celebration program. This submission may contain a new vision for Kurnell based on the membership’s views, which could include: a new monument, together with upgraded walkways and signage; rebuilding the wharf at Kurnell to provide ferry and launch access; a high-tech museum of Pacific discovery, alongside a permanent Cook exhibition and Indigenous interpretive centre that will bring our national stories to life, particularly for young Australians; and an on-site venue with major catering facilities to ensure that it can cater for the needs of international tourists and others who come from around the country. There are other measures, such as the establishment of a national heritage community trust board, which would put the site under the management of local community and Indigenous groups, rather than a bureaucracy in the form of the National Parks service, to ensure that the site will always be protected for its heritage significance rather than for any other competing demands.
I believe Cook’s landing site at Kurnell plays a very special role for Australia as a place where we can come together again. It is a place of new beginnings. It is a place where we can celebrate our new beginnings while honouring and paying tribute to our Indigenous past. It is a place where the stories of Cook should be told alongside the stories of heroes like Pemulway, the great Aboriginal warrior who grew up on the other side of Botany Bay and fought for his people during the early settlement years. I look forward to reporting on further progress of the Cook 2020 Taskforce and enlisting the support of other members for the cause.
Order! It being 10.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to move:
That this House:
to move:
That this House:
to move:
That this House:
to move:
That this House:
(b) may disadvantage people who may be charged an EFTPOS transaction fee for using the savings and cheque options on their debit card; and
to move:
That this House:
For some years I have been strongly advocating, on behalf of the residents of Gilmore, for more funds to be provided to upgrade the Princes Highway, recognising that it is the only highway running north to south in my electorate; a highway on which all traffic to the Victorian border relies totally as the railway line stops at Bomaderry. It has been a frustrating experience. The reason I have taken such a strident position is the appalling record of deaths and the irritating lack of responsibility and compassion on the part of the New South Wales Labor government and now the federal Labor government. The New South Wales government, who has statutory responsibility for the highway, has not provided any additional funding despite two coroner’s reports since 2006 on the record of road fatalities along that stretch. Although one report described the highway as unforgiving, the New South Wales government contemptuously and irresponsibly continued to attempt to flick pass responsibility to the Commonwealth, even though the federal shadow minister at the time reinforced that the road was the responsibility of New South Wales.
To this day no additional funding has been provided by the New South Wales Labor government. In fact, in the last budget the New South Wales government cut the annual allocation even further. This year, following another series of horrific accidents in which five people were killed, we again asked the New South Wales government to respond and again, as per the usual modus operandi, they refused.
So I wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a $20 million grant to help make the highway safer around the site where a petrol tanker collided with a sedan, incinerating both the driver and three members of a family in the other car. The mother has survived with horrific burns and the legacy of a lost family. That was not enough to touch the heart of this Prime Minister. Within weeks another fatal accident compelled me to write again, pleading for federal money. By this time I had given up on the New South Wales Labor government as a hopeless cause. I reminded the Prime Minister that there was a precedent and that he should at least match the coalition’s special grant of $20 million given during their term of government and the over $48 million for other sectors. The response was yet another dismissal, but this time by the Leader of the House. By this time the local newspaper had decided to enter the debate, but there was a twist. It is to their discredit that instead of trying to work together they opted to say that because I had not bothered to apply for black spot funding personally they would take up the crusade.
After I saw the article I rang the editor and challenged him. His response, although through a subordinate, was that they had spoken to the office of the Leader of the House. This is what they reported was told to them:
Federal transport and infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese said he wrote back to Mrs Gash saying that she should apply under the black spot funding program, but no application was ever made.
When I challenged them, to their credit, they called back the minister’s office and were told:
Mr Albanese’s office considered claims its response urged Mrs Gash to apply for funds under the black spot program were incorrect, as the letter did not spell out the invitation.
This type of deliberate misrepresentation is not only deceptive but also a misuse of the office of parliament for political advantage and nothing else. Whoever sought to deceive by misinforming the media has to be sacked. I do not play with people’s lives for the sake of political expediency. It is unforgivable that the office of a minister of the Crown is allowed to get away with consciously telling a deliberate falsehood.
Today I talk about the Petrie Schools Summit 2010, the third annual school summit held by myself in the electorate of Petrie, that brings together students from primary and secondary schools, public and private schools across my electorate. This year the schools summit was held on 30 April 2010 at the St John Fisher College at Bracken Ridge. I thank principal Ms Maree Messer for hosting the event this year and students Jorden McMah and Jaqueline Meredith for assisting me in running the ceremonies during the day.
This year we had 115 people participate. We had 37 primary school students, 26 secondary school students, 27 principals and teachers and 25 chairpersons. I would like to acknowledge all the schools—the 26 schools—that participated this year: Aspley East State School, Aspley State School, Bounty Boulevard State School, Bracken Ridge State High School, Bracken Ridge State School, Clontarf Beach State High School, Clontarf Beach State School, Craigslea State High School, Craigslea State School, Deception Bay North State School, Deception Bay State High, Deception Bay State School, Grace Lutheran College and Grace Lutheran Primary School, Hercules Road State School, Humpybong State School, Moreton Downs State School, Mueller College, North Lakes State College, Prince of Peace Lutheran Primary School, Redcliffe State High School, Somerset Hills State School, Stafford Heights State School, St John Fisher College, St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School and St Paul’s School.
There were also amazing chairpersons: Rod Chiapello, the owner of McDonald’s Bracken Ridge; Vicky Darling, state member for Sandgate; Trent Dixon from the Redcliffe Leagues Club; Councillor Julie Greer from Moreton Bay Regional Council; Ray and Angie Gannon from Dug the Dugong; Councillor James Houghton from Moreton Bay Regional Council; Ken Leonard from Lions Redcliffe Kippa-Ring; Dr Guy Barry from the Queensland Brain Institute; Lynda Roberts from Redcliffe City News; Alan Sparks from East Coast Apprenticeships; Koliana Winchester from the local 99.7 FM radio station; Lillian van Litsenburg, state member for Redcliffe; Marcus Riley, from BallyCara retirement village; Graham Wray from Bracken Ridge Baptist Church; Jan MacIntyre, community volunteer; Kym Dwyer from CRYPAR Queensland Police Service; Maree Adshead, MobileIP; Irena Morgan from MW Training; Naomi Rayward from Moreton Bay Regional Council; Tom Streater from Aspley Hornets; Dr Boris Chern from Redcliffe Hospital; Senator Mark Furner; Dalma Bates, community volunteer; and Usha Sherwell from Deception Bay BoysTown.
These are wonderful community people who have got involved and spent an entire day chairing my working groups. This year these kids and teachers dealt with bullying, they dealt with preparing students for the future, they dealt with respect in our community and youth volunteers, they talked about work and school balance, they talked about sustainable schools, they talked about the national curriculum and technology in our schools. This is a fantastic event. I thank all of the schools and my community representatives who came along and worked together. (Time expired)
The small business community has learnt in the past few weeks about the failure of the Rudd government to honour its one in, one out regulatory commitment. This was the big commitment that was made that for any new or amended regulatory imposition that the Rudd government would introduce, there would be one repealed. I pulled some material off ComLaw, the Commonwealth government’s register of legislative and regulatory action, and I found there were 9,997 new or amended regulations in the first two years of the Rudd Labor government, but only 52 had been repealed. So there is a little bit of ground to be made up in the few short months before the next election.
It is one thing to make those commitments, those bold, headline-hunting commitments, and then fail to deliver on them. It is another thing to go a step further and simply impose needless new regulations on top of this growing burden in the form of the Paid Parental Leave scheme that the Rudd Labor government seeks to introduce. The small business community is rightly concerned about the regulatory impact, the administrative impact and the financial burden they will carry under the scheme proposed by the Rudd Labor government. The employer will become the paymaster for the scheme even though the government is claiming it is funding the scheme. So rather than have these payments paid through the Family Assistance Office, small businesses right across Australia will have to alter their software, their payroll systems, to accommodate a needless imposition on them in relation to the implementation of the Rudd government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme.
There is going to be additional red tape involved. I mentioned the software and systems changes, the time that will be imposed upon employers to carry out this payroll, pay clerk function that the government is mandating that they need to carry out. And there is also the worry about heavy civil penalties and criminal offences for employers and individuals as a result of not complying with requirements that may be embedded in the bill. There is also a significant fear that those payments will somehow be taken as part of that workplace’s payroll and activate additional financial liabilities in relation to payroll tax, workers compensation and other payments based on the turnover or pay rate and wages expenditure of those workplaces.
The childcare community said, ‘Please relieve us of this burden,’ and begged the government to take a second look at its administrative proposals. The retail sector has also been saying, ‘Why are we are having to carry, as small business operators, the administrative cost and burden on behalf of the government?’ They have also said that it would be ‘crippling for SME retailers’. They have gone on to highlight a commitment made by Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin and Tanya Plibersek, while in their opposition roles, when they said a Rudd government would:
… examine further reforms to support parents with newborn children—
but would not—
support a system that imposes financial burdens or administrative complexity on small businesses or in any way acts as a discouragement to the employment of women.
The Rudd government has to honour its commitment and rethink this horrendous system— (Time expired)
Next month a very special part of Bankstown turns 90: the Torch. When the first issue of the Torch rolled off the hand-operated press 90 years ago, Bankstown was a bush town, silent movies ran at the Empire Theatre, horses were a common form of transport and the going rate for an acre of land was £50. The Torch was started by Les Engisch, a dedicated community man with a flare for sniffing out a yarn. He started what would become a family business, passed down through four generations. Today Les’s grandson John is at the helm. He learnt the trade from his father and in turn has passed it on to his sons, Trent and Christian. Trent is now the general manager and Christian is the web press manager.
The big news in the first edition of the Torch was the installation of a drinking fountain at the corner of Liverpool Road and Hector Street. The local residents were so pleased they sent a letter to Bankstown Council thanking them for their prized new facility. The councillors were so excited by the rare praise, they had the letter framed. Since then the Torch has covered every major event in Bankstown: its proclamation as a city by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1980; the dismissal of three Bankstown councils; the burning down of the council itself; and the elevation of one of its local sons to the office of Prime Minister of Australia. Bankstown is nothing if not an interesting place.
On 11 April 1955 the Torch itself made headlines when an explosion blew the roof off the building and it was gutted by fire. It was an interesting time for newspapers in Bankstown. The following month the editor and a journalist from the competition, the Bankstown Observer, were imprisoned by the Australian parliament for contempt—the only time this has ever happened. The Observer is now long gone, but the Torch has never gone out.
The Torch does not just write about Bankstown; it is part of it. Les was on the board of Bankstown Hospital for 21 years. His son Phil was also on the board and a great friend of Bankstown Rotary and local sporting teams. His son John has raised more than $1½ million for charity as chairman of the Queen of Bankstown Quest. And now his sons Trent and Christian continue that tradition. They run the Bankstown Relay for Life, and in the past few years they have raised more than $486,000 for cancer research. This would not have happened without the Torch and the Engisch family—they run it, they make it happen. They are as much a part of the history of Bankstown as the Waugh brothers, Bryan Brown or Paul Keating. They have been around a lot longer too—and they still have a lot more stories to tell. I congratulate the team at the Torch on everything that they have achieved in 90 years and I wish them all the best for the next 90.
I rise today to record my congratulations to the Hills Relay for Life, which was held at the Castle Hill Showground on 15 to 16 May. This was the ninth year of the Hills Relay for Life event, held at the Castle Hill Showground, and this year I can report that over $200,000 was raised in support of the Cancer Council, with local business groups, community groups and people of all ages showing their support for those with cancer and their families, friends and carers. This has become an iconic event in the Hills community. I want to firstly thank and congratulate Bev Jordan for an amazing effort as chairwoman of the 2010 Relay for Life. Each year since I have been elected I have had a team in the Relay for Life, and this team has also helped raise money for the community. This year’s event, however, was one of the biggest and best relays we have run in the Hills district.
I also want to congratulate committee members James Butler, Cathy Aird, Bryan Mullan, Samantha Connor, Lynn Pike, Richard Tarlinton, Michael and Natalie Ball, Councillors Tony and Andrew Hay, Chris Cleary, Katie and Ruth Didsbury, Helen Gooden, Robin George, Aimee Holdsworth, Denise Daynes, Andrew Bronier, Erica Wadlow, Taylor page, Alison Harper, Jillian Carpenter, Councillor Michelle Bryne, Dave Power, Nicole Stap, Christine Zec and Sue O’Neill. There are so many names there because it is such a well-patronised and supported event by all elements of our community.
I want to particularly mention Jason Francis, who is a 14-year-old boy from Castle Hill High School. He walked 200 kilometres from Bathurst to Castle Hill. He raised over $22,000 in sponsorship for his 200-kilometre walk, which was a fantastic achievement. I want to congratulate Team Bunny, who won the Team Spirit Award. They were a fantastic team, serving soup throughout the night as it got down to very cold temperatures, as it does every year. This year we had over 100 teams participating in the Hills Relay for Life. Some of the teams were Castle Hill High School, Castle Hill Public School, Northholm Grammar, St George Bank Castle Hill—who, incidentally, won the Relay for Life Community Spirit Award for Business—St George Bank, Hornsby 1st Castle Hill Scout Group, 1st Kellyville Scout Group, Hills Shire Times, Hills News, Castle Hill RSL, Samuel Gilbert Public School and St John’s Ambulance.
Moving around the Relay for Life on that weekend and talking to the carers, the survivors, the friends and the families was a moving experience. I want to mention one particular incident, in meeting a woman at a stall whom I bought some raffle tickets from. She was a very cheerful woman. I asked where the money was going, and she said, ‘Me and my friend have had brain tumours for the last five years.’ I said, ‘Five years?’ This woman was diagnosed five years ago with a brain tumour and has had 68 courses of chemotherapy, and the joy and sense of life that I got from this woman was absolutely amazing. It was a very inspiring story, and I want to record my congratulations to her for her fight and struggle against cancer, which is ongoing.
This is a wonderful event. We will find a cure for cancer through the initiative of the community and the generosity of so many community members, businesses and charities. I want to congratulate all of the Hills community, carers, survivors’ families and friends.
Last Wednesday the federal coalition announced plans to scrap the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, a program that offers real hope to the young people of my electorate and their families. This is a program that addresses the genuine skills shortage that exists in this country. It is a program that offers a collaborative solution to building those skills so that school leavers can confidently head out into the job market with training that employers want and our nation needs if we are to progress and prosper. Last November, the Rudd government announced that $11 million had been allocated to establish a trade training centre at Corio Bay Senior College to service Geelong’s northern suburbs of Corio and Norlane. This is a genuinely exciting investment in local skills development that will provide the very best vocational training facilities for students in Geelong’s northern suburbs.
Nine schools—Corio Bay Senior College, Norlane High School, Flinders Peak Secondary College, Western Heights Secondary College, North Geelong Secondary College, Lara Secondary College, Nelson Park School, Kardinia International College and Geelong Grammar School—have taken up the option to pool their resources and jointly seek funding for the centre that will revolutionise the registered training facility already running at Corio Bay Senior College. The list includes both state and private schools, and that is certainly one of the strengths of this program.
The trade training centre will be purpose built, with the latest equipment. It will give its students an exciting opportunity to equip themselves for the workplaces of the future. Training will be provided from years nine to 12 in automotive, engineering, aviation, general construction, electrotechnology, hairdressing and hospitality. When the centre opens in 2012, 300 students a week will be learning job skills hands-on in the classroom, with all the supervision and support that classroom teaching provides. There will also be opportunities for students from other Geelong schools to access these programs. Local industry is already on board, working collaboratively on this project so that the training is the best and most relevant it can be. Long term, it is hoped these industry partners will be able to use the facility to train their apprentices.
This is truly an exciting project and it is part of the Rudd government’s commitment to skills training and investment in our children’s futures. But now the people of Geelong’s north will have a clear decision to make at the next election, because, with last week’s announcement, the trade training centre at Corio Bay is fairly in the sights of the Liberal Party’s government. The Liberal Party has no interest whatsoever in the skills of our kids from the north. In three years, this government has provided triple the number of trade training centres provided by the previous government in more than 10 years. Trade training centres in schools are on the coalition’s hit list, and this is bad news for Geelong’s northern suburbs and for Australia as a whole. The opposition, clearly, does not believe that preparing the children of Norlane and Corio for the workplaces of tomorrow is worth the investment.
I rise to congratulate the Victorian state opposition on the policy position it adopted earlier this month in proposing $4 million over four years—if it is successful in government—to reintroduce a fox and wild dog bounty in Victoria. The impact of foxes and wild dogs on the Australian economy cannot be overestimated. In fact, I have read reports indicating that foxes alone cost $228 million per year in combined environmental and agricultural impacts and in control costs. I have seen estimates of the impact of wild dogs at $66 million a year in costs to agriculture in Australia. I note the presence in the chamber of the member for Eden-Monaro, and I know he is well aware in his own electorate of the impact that wild dogs have on our agricultural pursuits.
The economic costs can be measured. The environmental impacts of their feasting on our native fauna are very difficult to measure—particularly when undertaken by foxes on smaller native species and by wild dogs. But the social impacts are ones that concern me greatly in East Gippsland—the impact on mental health and the stress on families from our landholders going out into the paddocks in the morning and not knowing what is going to confront them. It is really beyond the capacity of our farmers to deal with this kind of stress on an almost daily basis when wild dogs are about.
In Australia we have the Australian Pest Animals Strategy, which notes in its executive summary:
6. Pest animal management requires coordination among all levels of government in partnership with industry, land and water managers and the community, regardless of land tenure.
And also:
11. The benefits of management should exceed the costs of implementing control.
12. As part of an integrated pest animal management program, commercial harvesting may offset management costs.
I would argue, to some extent at least, that commercial harvesting in terms of putting a value on the scalps of wild dogs and foxes is one way of putting some pressure on the population. It would in fact be a form of commercial harvesting of these species. I urge the federal government to at least consider the Victorian opposition’s views in this matter, take a closer look at what happens if the Victorian opposition gets to implement its policy over a four-year period and look at the merits of perhaps a national bounty on top of the existing baiting, fencing and other control measures which are in place in many states across the nation. I believe this is a practical measure which would give community groups, land owners and registered shooting organisations a responsible role in practical land management.
East Gippsland, as I said, like the seat of Eden-Monaro, is one of the worst affected areas in our nation in terms of the impact of these species. Bonang grazier and Monaro farmer Robert Belcher says wild dogs are decimating his income as they kill the sheep on his farm adjacent to the national park boundaries. Mr Belcher late last year said:
“We have wild dogs totally out of control in national parks and I thought national parks were all about protecting Australia’s native wildlife and every time I open up a wild dog that we have caught he is chock-a-block full of either sheep and echidnas, and echidnas are native wildlife.”
It just raises the point that there is a lot more at stake than the impact on our agricultural producers. (Time expired)
This afternoon I join with the member for Corio to speak about the incredibly alarming announcement by the opposition that were Mr Abbott to become Prime Minister the coalition would abolish trade training from Australian schools. The opposition’s announcement would severely affect my electorate, which boasts one of the largest training centres in Australia. At full capacity, the school is expected to enrol 500 students. I ask the opposition to explain to the students who have recently attended an information evening at the centre, and those seeking to start their training next year, why they do not support trades training. I would like the opposition to explain what consideration they have given to the future education and careers of the students. What will happen to the other 68 centres that will be operating in 2011 and the 230 approved projects affecting 732 schools around Australia?
Last Friday I met with Mr Patrick O’Reilly, Principal of the Southern Cross Catholic Vocational College, located in my electorate in Burwood. Mr O’Reilly explained to me that the centre is already very popular with students from the inner west and those further afield, and their latest information evening received a very strong response. They are eagerly awaiting the completion of new facilities for additional courses to commence. This was all made possible by an $11 million grant from the Rudd government under the Trades Training Centres in Schools Program, while the Catholic Education Office has invested a further $12 million to establish the college. The college currently hosts 135 students, who are undertaking training in courses such as children’s services, furniture making, health services, information technology, construction, and business services, to name a few. The facilities match industry standards and student courses lead to nationally recognised vocational qualifications.
It is obvious that Australians are seeking the opportunity to learn a trade while remaining at school to maintain the multiple benefits of higher education and trades training, but the opposition appears to have wilfully ignored or are completely oblivious to the fact. In three years our government has provided triple the number of trades training centres compared with the Howard government’s record over 11½ long years. On average, the Howard government built only three technical colleges per state and territory. The opposition is out of touch with the needs of the economy and the benefits that will flow to students and their families. In stark contrast, our government recognises the skills shortages Australia faces and is encouraging students to learn trades. We have invested record amounts in skills training, including the Apprentice Kickstart program, which saw 24,000 new apprentices get a start in their chosen field, and the recent budget announcement of an additional 70,000 training places over the next four years.
The opposition is a threat to skills training in our country, displayed in their appalling record and confirmed by their most recent announcement to cease trades training in schools. The opposition is a threat to the future of hundreds of students in my electorate enrolling at the Southern Cross Catholic Vocational College and thousands more across our country. I assure my constituents that our government will continue to invest in and support skills training in our country.
I wish to address this government’s appalling track record regarding compassion for vulnerable Australians and regarding financial management. The latest entry in this catastrophic record of lack of interest and incompetence is the shambles over the Medicare rebate for mental health services. As my colleague the shadow minister for health observed, the Minister for Health and Ageing had to do a partial backflip on this issue less than a week after the budget was brought down. The budget changes cut off Medicare rebates for care provided to the mentally ill by social workers and therapists. I know from letters, emails and personal contacts that these therapists are usually people with many years of invaluable experience in the area and they provide much needed assistance to Australians suffering from personal and debilitating conditions. This help can enable these Australians to lead happy and productive lives instead of being trapped in the invisible prison of mental illness.
I cannot imagine what prompted such a callous and uncaring move by the government. It was a real Barry Hall moment. But the government has form in this area. The government also had to make a similar backdown on the issue of cataract surgery—but not without a lot of kicking and screaming. The government stooped to the disgraceful level of ignoring two disallowance motions and blocking two attempts by the coalition and other senators to reinstate the original debates. Finally, the Rudd government and the minister for health had to make yet another humiliating backdown, which has become the hallmark of this bungle-ridden administration.
My office has been inundated with and is still getting emails in support of the bowel cancer screening program. As far as I am aware, the government refuses to make a long-term commitment to this excellent program, which can save many lives. I suspect that the main objection the government has is its typically small-minded hatred of great initiatives introduced by the previous coalition government. There are also so many excellent programs for which the government refuses to guarantee funding past the election. And we are supposed to take this government on trust? How can we, given its record of cuts, backflips and disingenuous promises that go no further than the next election?
The only thing that the Rudd government is interested in is winning the next election. It does not care how many of Australia’s most vulnerable it must trample to achieve this, which is why these continuous attacks on Medicare rebates are all the more contemptible.
I rise to speak on the matter of the planned removal of access to Medicare rebates by mental health trained social workers and occupational therapists under the Better Access to Mental Health scheme as announced in the budget. I note that in the minister’s press release of 19 May they plan to move the services of these highly trained and experienced clinicians to the provision of packages of care for those in our community with severe mental illness. There has been an outcry nationwide against this measure by those mental health workers, the doctors who refer to them and their clients. We thank Minister Roxon for agreeing to delay the changes and to consult further.
The minister’s press release says that the packages will support people with severe mental illness, but this should not replace a system where a person experiencing an episode of mental illness is assisted by a clinician to prevent further deterioration. Imagine if you were to visit your doctor because of flu only to be told that before he or she could treat you you would have to apply for a package of care? We must encourage people to seek assistance by treating mental illness as if it were the same as any other illness.
In Bass, approximately 10 private healthcare providers use the Medicare rebate system for substantial proportions of their private business. This decision will destroy many local businesses overnight. These 10 local providers have a patient base of between 20 and 40 patients active at any one time within their system. Removal of their services from the established referral provider base will place a considerable additional load on a system ill-equipped to meet existing let alone future needs. This will result in an additional 200 to 400 patients every 12 weeks seeking alternative service avenues.
Traditionally, many patients using these services are from lower socioeconomic groups or are younger people. Those with the means to pay will go to private psychologists. It is the young and the disadvantaged who are most likely to miss out. The current system, where GPs can refer patients to mental health social workers and occupational therapists in the community works so well and has been hugely beneficial to thousands of Australians. I welcome the announcement by Minister Roxon to defer this change until April 2011. I urge Minister Roxon to talk with clinicians in Bass and hear their concerns. We must work together to get this right for the most vulnerable people in our community. I will speak further about the concerns of clinicians in Bass and the planned removal of access to Medicare rebates tonight in my response to the budget.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 22 June 2009, on motion by Mr Burke:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke MP, has asked me to make a statement on his behalf outlining the reason why debate on this bill was deferred. Following the introduction into the House of Representatives of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 on 22 June 2009 by the Hon. Tony Burke MP, European Commission regulation No. 607/2009 came into effect on 1 August 2009. The regulation outlined detailed rules regarding protected designations of origin and geographical indications—that is, regional names, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products.
The Australian government and the Australian wine industry were both concerned that this regulation had the potential to diminish the benefits under the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine—the agreement for Australian winemakers—which this bill implements. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry wrote to the EC Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development last year, expressing concern that the EC regulation imposed more restrictive conditions on Australian wines than existed at the date of the signing of the agreement. Minister Burke indicated that Australia wanted to resolve these concerns before proceeding to ratify the agreement. The main Australian concerns related to the access that Australian wine producers would have to grape variety names in the description and presentation of their wines. Australia’s interpretation of the EC regulation was that a number of common grape variety names, including sangiovese and nebbiolo would not be able to be used in the EC market by Australian producers. Such restrictions on use would have been detrimental to the Australian wine industry, especially given the increasing importance and popularity of these new and niche varieties in Australia’s domestic and overseas markets.
Australia and EC officials have discussed the Australian concerns and agreed that derogation from the regulation allowing certain EU wines with a geographical indication, or ‘GI’, to have alcohol content as low as 4.5 per cent continue to be extended to Australian wines with a GI. This means Australian producers of low-alcohol wine will continue to be able to market their product as ‘wine’ in the EC market, providing that the wine has an alcohol volume of at least 4.5 per cent. The least trade restrictive provisions in the regulation and agreement will apply to Australian wine, particularly with regard to wines without a GI claiming vintage and variety. This means Australian producers who choose to label their wine without a GI will be able to present the vintage year and variety name on the wine label when selling the product in the EC market. The agreement provides that the two per cent limit on partial de-alcoholisation of wine does not apply to Australian wine. This means Australian producers who choose to remove more than two per cent of a wine’s alcohol content will be able to sell the wine in the EC market, providing they do not reduce the total alcohol content to less than 4.5 per cent.
Finally, it was agreed that the EC amend the regulation which restricted the use of the name of a number of grape varieties in the EC currently used by Australia—including common Italian vine variety names such as sangiovese, on the basis that they contain or evoke GIs—to confirm access in the EC to the relevant grape varieties for Australian winemakers. This means that Australian producers of wines who use these common Italian variety names will be able to sell these wines in the EC market. Agreement to the outcomes was finalised on 23 March 2010. The wine industry has indicated that their concerns have been addressed and industry supports the passage of this legislation and ratification of the agreement.
I rise to speak on the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 not only as the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food security but also as the member for Calare, an electorate which, if I say so myself, produces some excellent wines. I recommend to the Deputy Speaker that any time she is in the area she should try them. This is a bill which rectifies changes made through the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine. It will ensure that Australian wines from the Hunter, the Barossa, the Yarra, Margaret River and my region sit on tables side by side with some of Europe’s most distinguished and long-serving wine regions.
The bill also means that the regions of France, Portugal, Spain and Germany, in particular, will continue to provide direct competition with Australia’s vineyards and our hugely important export market. With this competition comes increased pressure on Australian winemakers and Australian wineries to be able not only to match the style and quality of wine from Europe but to differentiate and create their own unique style that sets our Australian wine apart. Creating such a style and reputation has been testing in recent years. As has been mentioned both here and in the House, regional Australia is hopefully coming towards the end of the worst drought on record. The wine industry has had to deal with drought, which perhaps has been good for quality but terrible for quantity. At the same time, there has been a world glut of wine and winemakers have had to deal with that to a large extent right around Australia. It is essential that, with the signing of this agreement, we as a parliament provide the assistance needed to encourage the highest standards amongst Australian wine producers and in Australian wine.
Our wine has a reputation world wide. The Christmas before last, on holiday in New York, I found Australian wine very well accepted everywhere you went, whether it was in the deep south of America or in New York itself. Wherever it is, we must all work hand in hand to protect our brand, protect our reputation and expand on the foot in the door that Australian producers currently have. The export area is where it has got toughest. The domestic market is always the best market, but obviously far and away the bulk of Australian wine is exported. It has got very tough, particularly with competition from South America.
I mentioned earlier the need for our wines to develop their own reputation. There is no more perfect example of a geographical area having dominance over a market than the Champagne region of France. It is synonymous with what we in Australia now call sparkling wine—we have it in the title. Everyone knows Champagne for its bubbly, and the French economy and the French producers reap the benefits. I do not doubt for a second that our own sparkling is just as good as the French champagne, if not better. They do have one obvious advantage, and that is the dominant reputation that we need to encourage our own producers to develop in the future. This bill provides protection for the 112 registered Australian geographical indications. It is an opportunity for us to build our own geographical indicators and build on the value and respect of their brand.
The second part of the bill concerns the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation’s Label Integrity Program. The program is a key step forward in protecting the reputation of our own product. I am sure all would agree the information provided on a label has to sell the product to those browsing the aisles, but it also has to be honest and accurate.
Basically, this bill is about protecting a huge export market. It is all very much about the EU product and our own. Some two years ago we exported almost 400 million litres, for a return to Australia of $1.3 billion. On the other hand, we imported from the EU only 18 million litres, at a value of about $220 million. So it is quite obvious that change had to happen. We had to recognise the Europeans’ own name brands and we have to ensure that the reputation of our wine is encased around its own geographical indicators. The industry is very much behind this amendment to the act. As I said, it is about protecting and enhancing the $1 billion value of 400 million litres of wine two years ago. The main benefits include the Europeans recognising an additional 16 Australian winemaking techniques, simpler arrangements for approving winemaking techniques that may be developed in the future and simplified labelling requirements. The EU protects two and a half thousand registered indicators and 12 sensitive European geographical indicators. Those two and a half thousand European GIs include all those that have come into being in the last 16 years. We support the bill and the industry supports the bill; so it will be in everybody’s interest for it to be passed.
I rise to support the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 also. It is nice to have a bit of bipartisanship in the chamber. I spent my youth in Kapunda, which is a small town on the edge of the Barossa Valley. I still have school friends who work in the wineries as winemakers and in the packaging industry, so I am well aware of the importance it has to regional economies and to employment. Over the last decade or so we have seen the industry transform itself into an absolute champion exporter of Australian produce. We have to appreciate the effort and skill that goes into the production of some of those prestigious wines. With that experience in the back of my mind, I am happy to commend this bill to the House and to support it.
Any of the wine consumers present or listening to this speech will acknowledge that the Clare Valley, the Barossa Valley and the Adelaide Plains, all within my Wakefield electorate, are regions with well-deserved reputations for producing some of Australia’s finest wines. The Clare Valley is home to 50 wineries, produces only two per cent of Australia’s grape crush and yet wins 20 per cent of the wine awards available to Australian wineries every year. The Barossa Valley, which is home to 150 wineries, is listed as one of the world’s top 10 wine destinations. It is a wonderful place to go, not just for wines but for great food, scenery, fellowship and company. It is one of those terrific places to live or to visit. The Adelaide Plains are not quite as famous, but I have been out there many times and visited some of the wineries. A different type of wine is produced there, but there have been terrific achievements nonetheless.
It is the longevity of these achievements and many others that the bill before the House seeks to maintain. One of the objectives of the bill is to preserve the reputations of geographical indicators, such as those I mentioned as well as many others throughout Australia, from becoming targets of misuse, either domestically or from foreign export markets. The bill achieves this by allowing the Australian-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine to come into full effect. Furthermore, the EC agreement certifies Australia’s reputation as a producer of wines of quality and integrity and expands access to our largest export market. The second objective of the bill is to strengthen the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation’s Label Integrity Program, the LIP. This program seeks to protect all stakeholders within the Australian wine industry by ensuring that the Australian wine labels are truthful and accurate with regard to their origin and their characteristics.
The bill introduces accountability within the Australian wine industry, which is fundamental to ensuring the longevity of its world-class reputation. Accountability will ultimately also help us move up the value chain, which is one of the most important things for us to do.
This bill is receiving widespread support from the Australian wine industry, and it has the support of stakeholders and the opposition. As I said, it is wonderful to speak on a bill which has bipartisan support. It is something of a rarity these days, and we hope that there is no change of mind between now and its passage to the other place. Bipartisanship is important to the Australian wine industry at this time.
This bill also allows Australian winemakers to enjoy better access to European markets, and that access is a terribly important thing. The bill includes European recognition of an additional 16 Australian winemaking techniques, simplifies labelling requirements for Australian wine sold in European markets and provides protection within Europe for Australia’s 112 registered geographical indicators, including—most importantly to me—the Barossa Valley, the Adelaide Plains and the Clare Valley.
You’re not claiming the Barossa Valley, are you?
I am indeed claiming the Barossa Valley—the best bits of it, anyway! I acknowledge the member for Barker’s strong support. He perhaps has proprietary over the Barossa Valley, but I will claim it for myself in this instance.
This bill clearly demonstrates the Labor government’s concern for and cooperation with this important rural industry. It also highlights the government’s ability to effectively utilise policymaking in a manner that not only supports and encourages economic growth through favourable terms of trade but at the same time protects the interests of Australian businesses—in particular, in this case, Australian small businesses. Through the process of listening to industry stakeholders, taking into account their concerns and having the European Community’s concerns registered through bilateral negotiations, the government has successfully preserved Australian wine and winemaking techniques within the agreement with our largest export partner.
This achievement has been suitably recognised by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, the Winemakers Federation and a legislation review committee, all of whom have formally expressed to the minister their support for the bill. The minister is to be commended for his work not just in this area but in a lot of other areas. He has a very good reputation for being a hard worker and someone who is prepared to listen to the primary industries of this country.
I remind the House that Australia is the fourth-largest wine exporter in the world, and we want that to continue. By giving effect to this agreement—the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine—this bill clearly seeks to promote and protect in the best sense of the word Australia’s hugely successful wine industry. We boast some of the oldest grapevines in the world. In the Barossa Valley, there are the shiraz vines that were brought all the way from Europe and are the only survivors of a disease that wiped out many of the established European vineyards. Our viticulturalists have developed new vine-management techniques which are now in application throughout the world. All these achievements—and the many others—of the wine industry underpin the necessity of this bill.
In closing I say that this is not the easiest time for the Australian wine industry. There are really difficult economic conditions in many of our export markets. The United Kingdom and the United States have suffered very severe downturns, and this has obviously impacted on our export growth. Slow economic growth across European markets coupled with the appreciation of the Australian dollar provide challenges to any exporter, particularly the wine industry. On top of that, the wine industry has an oversupply of grapes and emerging competition from countries like Chile, Argentina and South Africa.
This bill helps to meet those challenges in part. We know that there is some pretty difficult restructuring to go on and we know that we must move up the value chain if we are to be successful in the future. This bill is particularly important and perhaps marks a bit of a start on that journey. I am glad it protects some of Australia’s most distinguished wine regions, particularly those in my electorate—or adjacent to my electorate, as no doubt the member for Barker will correct me. It is with a great sense of pride in these industries that I commend this bill to the House.
The grape industry is an area of great interest to me and has been of great interest to me all my life. I can remember picking our own grapes. We had 220 acres of grapes at Happy Valley, where I grew up. I remember picking them for thruppence a bucket, when the buckets were four to the hundredweight and of course 20 hundredweight to the tonne. An average picker could pick 80 buckets in a day and the top guns could pick 100 buckets a day. That is how far back my own history with the grape industry goes.
One of the great pleasures of being the member for Barker has been representing Australia’s grape-growing industry—at one stage, about 43 per cent of it. It is a very important part of my electorate. And, yes, there is a small part of the Barossa in the member for Wakefield’s seat. It is that little bit outside the Barossa council region, just over the Para River, and they do grow some good grapes there. But the majority of the Barossa is in my electorate.
I also represent the Riverland, which is a huge producer in itself. At one stage, 25 per cent of Australia’s grapes came from the Riverland area in South Australia. That has changed a bit. I do not have the latest figures but, with the drought and the lack of irrigation due to the reduced allocations, I am sure that percentage has reduced a bit. There is no doubt that the Riverland in South Australia still represents, by itself, a very large part of Australia’s grape production.
I also have the pleasure of representing other great grape-growing and winemaking areas. The Coonawarra is one of my favourites. Of course, in this job, you cannot pick a favourite because other regions will say, ‘Well, what about us?’ The Coonawarra are very well recognised worldwide for their cabernets and their shiraz, and their chardonnays are coming into high esteem all around the world. I have other great areas in my electorate such as Padthaway, the Mount Benson area down by Robe, and an up-and-coming area called the Wrattonbully. Wrattonbully is producing some sensational wines. Anyone who is interested in wine should be looking favourably on anything—in the reds especially but also in the whites—coming out of the Wrattonbully area. The area is about halfway between Padthaway and the Coonawarra, so you can get a feel of its climatic conditions. It has some very good soils. I am known by some of my colleagues as the ‘member for wine’ because of these great wine areas, and I am often asked my opinion on certain wines. Can I say I am quite happy to give it at any time! It is certainly one of the great pleasures of life to represent the seat.
We should also recognize our forebears, who went to the trouble of planting vines. A lot of that in the Barossa, for example, is due to the area’s German and Lutheran heritage. I think 90 per cent of Lutherans in Australia are in South Australia, and about 90 per cent of them are in my seat of Barker, which means I am not only the member for wine but also the member for Lutherans, in many ways. That is not a coincidence because the two go hand in hand. For probably 160 years they have been very important to our history in the grape industry in South Australia, and they have been a very strong part of making Australia the success it is in producing wine.
The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 amends the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. On our side we have quite a bit of goodwill towards this legislation. It does the right things and I suspect we would have done exactly the same if we were in government. It has wholehearted support across the chamber. As I said, it is of great interest to me and my electorate. Certainly all of the wonderful regions are world-renowned: the Barossa, Coonawarra, Padthaway and all the other areas are recognised worldwide. Unfortunately, as the member for Wakefield said, the wine industry is currently experiencing tough conditions, with the drought causing ongoing issues with low water allocations, and that means lower production levels.
Growers are facing much uncertainty about their future. That is a shame because it is a great industry. There are a lot of hard workers in it and they provide a lot of our wealth. They have increased exports enormously. Twenty years ago we were exporting about one per cent of our production; we are now exporting something like 63 per cent of our production. Unfortunately, the level of the Australian dollar has made that a bit tougher and, of course, we have competition from other good winemaking countries such as South Africa, which has a very low rand so it is quite competitive. I recognise that countries like Chile and Brazil make some pretty reasonable wines and they are always going to be competitive on price and quality, although I will always say that our wines are better and are certainly value for money.
Dr Jensen interjecting
There is nothing wrong with the Margaret River wines. I just think they are overpriced compared to some of the others—certainly the wines that come from my electorate. Many jobs and livelihoods are being compromised. Growers are having to sell up and move on or are struggling to hang on by the skin of their teeth, knowing that each season may have to be their last. That is a real shame. Oversupply is a huge problem, but I can tell you from my personal history that the wine industry, the grape industry, had a downturn in every decade bar the 1990s. What has always happened is that grape prices go up, people start planting and it takes four or five years before you get some decent production out of a block, and by that time all the extra vines have oversupplied the industry. But in the 1990s the wine industry went for export. That has been very successful for close to 20 years. We now have the downturn that was missed in the nineties because of the push for exports.
There is no doubt that we have too many vines on the land. It is not for the government to say who pulls vines out. In fact, I do not support a vine-pull system funded by the government. We had that in the eighties when we had a downturn. We stopped it because we were pulling out some of the great old shiraz vines on the basis of it. We were getting some money for it, so we did it. We got some pain out of that decision.
But we do have a problem: MIS—managed investment schemes—legislation is still allowing for the planting of vines. There are quite large plantings still happening in the Barossa, for example. It is not for me, you or anyone else to say that they are wrong in doing that, because they might be right. When those vines start producing in four years time there might be a change in that oversupply, but I am not sure that it is a wise decision. I certainly would not be investing in the planting of grapes right now. By and large, as I said, the wine industry has survived with the high levels of wine being exported. It prides itself on the excellent quality of wine. We have maintained high levels of trade and that is paramount in keeping the industry alive in Australia.
I think it is very interesting, when you look at how we have progressed in Australia. It certainly could not have been achieved without mechanical harvesting, because we just would not have had the pickers out there to pick the huge increase in the planting of grapes. We have certainly perfected the science of winemaking. In fact, people from even countries like France are coming to Australia now to try and get some of the expertise from Australia.
The purpose of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 has three parts. The first is to allow the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine 2008 to come into play; it is very important that we do so. The second is to strengthen the AWBC’s Label Integrity Program. I think consumer information is always important, so we should do that. We have to ensure truth in labelling and enhance consumer confidence in label claims. The third is to correct a number of weaknesses in the compliance provisions of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. There is no blame going on here. Things move on, and we have to make these amendments to improve the act.
The first purpose of the bill is to bring into force the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine 2008, and it is about ensuring winemakers have continued access to Australia’s largest export market, Europe. I do not know how long it will stay as the largest export market; it is certainly way ahead of the others. But I think we have huge potential in Asia—in Japan—as well as in the United States and Canada to actually improve our exports in that area. Presently I am working with our officials in Guangzhou, the old Canton province in China, to help promote Australian wines at their expo. I think it is in October this year. It is important that I get as many of the wine producers in my electorate to the expo to jump on the growing demand for quality wine in China, because China’s state brand, to put it bluntly, is not great wine—it never has been and never professes to be great wine. It brings to mind raspberry cordial as an equivalent in quality.
The give you an idea of the proportions of the European market, during the 2007-08 period Australia exported 397 million litres of wine to the European community, and that was worth $1.3 billion. That is a pretty large amount for any industry. The European community accounted for just over half of our wine exports during that time. It is important that we keep this level up and even, if we possibly can, increase our percentage there whilst at the same time trying to increase our share of other markets around the world. If we go by quality and price, I think we can compete very well. During that period, Australia imported 18 million litres from Europe. That is 18 million litres versus 397 million exported, so we actually have a very positive balance of trade there, but it was valued at $212 million. So obviously, if you look at those figures, we have been importing quite expensive wine, probably on a connoisseur level compared to some of the wine that we sell. I think that is one of the problems for Australian wine: we need to see if we can get the price point at which we are exporting higher.
This agreement on trade has many benefits to Australian producers, one of which is the European recognition of an additional 16 Australian winemaking techniques. I raise one of these techniques in particular, and that is the use of oak chips in the fermentation process, which can deliver in a matter of weeks an intensity of oak character that would take one to two years to achieve in oak barrels. If anyone understands anything about wine they will know what I am talking about when I talk about the oak characteristic. A former colleague of mine, a former member for Wentworth, explained to me that when he was in the United States he was getting a lot of information that Europe was actually trying to stop Australia using that technique as a form of non-tariff trade barrier. I am very pleased that we have been able to get over that sort of proposed non-tariff barrier, that we have outstared them and that we will still be able to use that technique.
If anyone looks at the wine industry, they will see that more and more of our wine is produced not for the connoisseur but for someone who is going to buy it and consume it within 48 hours. It is often said that 90 per cent of wine in Australia is consumed within 48 hours of purchase. This is a matter of convenience, and a lot of people do not have the facilities to store wine properly and are not interested in storing a whole lot of wine for the future. I have been buying wine for many years, and I do store wine quite often for 10 years or more. It is an important part of the mystique of the wine industry, and it is something we have to continue to encourage.
Other techniques which I know will be recognised include spinning cone technology and reverse osmosis. Both techniques are used in the de-alcoholising process, to lower the alcohol content of wine. I was recently in the Riverland and spent some time at a property where they are using world class technology to irrigate their vines and measure soil quality. That is an important part of producing good wine—you have to make sure you get the quantity and the quality right. If you overproduce it is going to be hard to produce the quality, but having the right soil and the right climate plays a large part in producing high quality wine.
Unfortunately, those same growers who are using this world class technology are really struggling. Although the technology has improved their practices immensely, the drought is taking its toll on production levels and unfortunately their future is at stake. We need to ensure that we continue to encourage these people to take up the best possible techniques. We need to be protecting growers and providing programs that help them to continue exporting and keep productivity at sufficient levels to meet new demand. Certainly we can do that through our export grants and other measures.
The government’s Henry tax review proposed a disastrous switch to a volumetric tax system. We know that Ken Henry has always wanted a volumetric tax, and on the face of it you would say that was the fairest thing. But it would be an absolute disaster for the wine industry if we changed to a volumetric tax system. It would have pushed many growers to their limit, and many of them would have been pushed out of the industry altogether. They simply would not have survived under that sort of change. Thankfully the government shelved the recommendation, and I was certainly ready to make a whole lot of speeches had they accepted it. We do need to protect the value of the produce we are exporting, maintaining a high standard that reflects Australian wine of the utmost quality.
The second and third parts of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 strengthen the AWBC’s label integrity program and correct some of the weaknesses in the compliance process. It was introduced to ensure an industry wide system of record keeping to substantiate label claims in respect of vintage, variety and region of origin—very important things when it comes to producing wine. The AWBC 2007-08 annual report states that the corporation’s auditors monitor the industry for compliance with the label integrity program provisions of the AWBC Act and checks that the origin of the wine can be traced from the grapevine through the dispatch of an export consignment or to a domestic retailer’s shelf. A total of 133 LIP audits were conducted throughout Australia in 2007-08, with 76 wineries visited in South Australia, 19 in Victoria, 19 in New South Wales and seven in Tasmania. That is only a reflection of the fact that South Australia produces over half of Australia’s wine.
The annual report also states that wine compliance continues to be very high, and that is very pleasing to hear. Nevertheless, the export licences of two wine producers were suspended during the year due to non-compliance with LIP provisions. So we are acting to continue to uphold this high compliance. This bill seeks to require all those involved in the production, distribution and sale of wine and grapes used to make wine to record the specified information to ensure a traceable trail throughout the wine production process. I certainly support measures that streamline and improve production, and encourage the wine industry to keep doing what it does best: making wine that can be enjoyed the whole world over, and especially in Australia.
I rise tonight to speak in support of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009. This is a bill of significant interest certainly to my electorate of Forde, which contains nearly a dozen Gold Coast hinterland wineries that produce a variety of table wines, including fortifieds and spirits. I commend the previous speaker, the member for Barker, for his presentation. He is a South Australian, and we always hear South Australians are well versed on the wine industry, and certainly it is a big part of their culture. With many experts, when they talk about wine, there is always a lot of levity. Even in this chamber tonight there has been levity when talking about wine, because it certainly does represent for Australians part of our recreation and our entertainment. But certainly the quality of the wine this country produces is very important.
As I said, I commend the member for Barker, and also the member for Tangney, who is also here, for talking about South Australian wines versus Western Australian wines. But the member for Bowman, who sits across the chamber, and I, being from Queensland, are rightfully proud of what the Queensland industry has been able to achieve, certainly in the past 20 to 30 years. I often watch wine shows when they are on TV, but I often wonder about the South Australians and the Western Australians. They drink their wine and then they spit it out. We do not do that in Queensland, we drink the whole lot. A little bit of humour, but the reality is that the wine industry and its growth has been very important for all of us. There is a famous actor who once said that a day without wine is like a day without sunshine. The reality is that it is a supplement or a complement to our gastronomical delights and our eating.
The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, or the AWBC, dates back to 1981 when it replaced the Australian Wine Board, itself a label introduced back in 1936. The AWBC continues to play an important role today in Australian wine industry promotion, coordination and research. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry outlined the three objectives: allowing the recent Australia European Community, or EC, agreement on trade to come into force; improve the label integrity program; and update compliance provisions from the act. I will review each of these objectives separately.
The first wine agreement between Australia and the European Community came into life under the Keating government in 1994. Since this time it has become apparent that revisions were needed to resolve issues faced by both sides of the agreement. Signed on 1 December 2008 in Brussels by our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, and the European commissioner for agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel, the new agreement has been carefully negotiated over an incredible 14 years. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry notes the following benefits of the new agreement for Australia:
or GIs, and that wholesalers will have five years to sell stock labelled with an EC GI, and retailers will be able to sell all of their stock. There will also be a defined use of a number of quality terms in the presentation and description of wine.
The Winemakers Federation of Australia has also supported the new agreement, particularly noting the recognition of winemaking techniques and the simplified procedures for approving new winemaking techniques. The first schedule of this bill contains provisions to bring this agreement into force. Among many significant changes, the bill protects the unique identity of Australian geographical indications, or GIs, which indicate particular winemaking locations; provides rules for translation of foreign country GIs and traditional expressions; resolves a series of issues relating to false, misleading and deceptive GI practices; modifies the Trade Marks Act 1995 to ensure consistency with the AWBC Act; clarifies situations where common English words may be used to describe GIs; and places responsibility for determining GIs with a new, independent geographical indications committee, or GIC.
This agreement will bring about even closer ties with countries that are already among our biggest export markets. By value, during the 2008-09 financial year, 43.2 per cent of Australia’s wine exports went to Europe. That represented up to 14 countries in the European community who are very much in love with Australian wines. Australian wine has a good reputation for clear, consistent labelling. Schedule 2 of this bill has the objective of further strengthening our processes in this area so that people can be certain that our wine labels are truthful and accurate. At the moment the Label Integrity Program applies to wine manufacturers but not to other parties in the wine supply chain. Record-keeping requirements are to be extended beyond wine manufacturers to those involved in the distribution and sale of wine and grapes. In most cases, existing documentation will suffice in complying with these legislative changes. Retailers and other endpoint sellers only have to keep records of total quantity and vintage, not individual sales. Once in place, the AWBC will make it possible to verify wine label claims via the records kept by all participants in the wine supply chain. The trail will be auditable from the point where the grapes are harvested to the point of the sale of the wine. Furthermore, a new offence is proposed for a person to make a claim about a vintage variety of GI of a wine product when this claim is not supported by their records.
The third and final section of the bill strengthens the powers of the AWBC to deal with people taking actions that may be contrary to the AWBC Act. As noted by the Minister for Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry in his second reading speech, the bill proposes that the AWBC be able to apply for an injunction to stop or direct a person who is acting in a way that is contrary to the Label Integrity Program, the provisions relating to the protection of geographical indications and other terms, the export control offence provision or the regulations made for the purposes of these provisions. The bill also modernises the applications of penalties by referring to penalty units rather than fixed dollar amounts. These changes will ensure that not only do we have a modern internationally recognised system in place but also that we can enforce it when needed.
The Queensland government has had an encouraging and increasing interest in winemaking and recognises the importance of the growing of the wine grape within Queensland. In 2004 Margaret Keech, one of my local state members, was appointed Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development and Minister for Women. As minister, Margaret Keech oversaw the formation of the Queensland Wine Industry Development Strategy and many other actions to support that industry. Within my electorate, I am fortunate to have areas of the Gold Coast hinterland, which is a relatively recent but now established wine region within southern Queensland. This region is the glorious Tamborine Mountain. Over the last 20 years Tamborine Mountain has become an increasingly popular tourist attraction, with the wineries being one of the main attractions. It is no surprise, seeing the rapid local expansion, to see that the 2025 Australian target of 4.5 billion in annual wine sector sales was actually surpassed in 2005. This target was set in 1996 and was achieved in under one-third the expected time frame.
The wine industry’s connection with our entertainment and leisure industries within Australia not only makes it very much a local product but also an export market that we so enjoy. I see the South Australian member over there, the member for Mayo—who is certainly well aware of the wine industry in his own region and would certainly understand the development of wine in Queensland—talking about, with some hilarity, how we grow wine and consume wine in Queensland. This is an industry that grew in a region that had no history—when you look at South Australia and its long, long history, we have done exceptionally well. Many years ago, when travelling to places within South-East Queensland, in Stanthorpe, and just as there is hilarity across the chamber right now, if you talked about a Stanthorpe wine people would laugh. People would say Queensland wines do not really stack up to much. The reality is, if you go back 30 years in that region, they decided that it was an area that grew grapes, but of the table grape variety. They really did not have the knowledge or ability to grow grapes or to make wine. About 25 years ago, a local winemaker in Stanthorpe, who had come from the Hunter region, decided to set up Old Caves Winery. That was very much the starting point for the industry, in a mainstream way, to convince the local growers to grow not only table grape but also grape for wine production. And the rest is history.
In fact, if you look at the region now, in South-East Queensland, including in my electorate, there are a dozen wineries that have developed over the last 20 years. We have the Aussie Vineyards, the Tatra Winery with its cafe-restaurant and the Cedar Creek Estate Vineyard and Winery—owned by a fellow called John Penglis, who is not only a good friend but also a great vintner and businessman, and someone who has been able to establish a core to the industry in South-East Queensland. While we do enjoy a lot of cellar-door product, the wine making is still developing within our region. We also have the Mount Tamborine Winery and Homestead, Heritage Wines, Tamborine Mountain Distillery—which is essentially putting together fortified wines—and the Witches Falls Winery. We have some wonderful brands that have been developed and that have won many awards. There are the Albert River Wines, the Thumm Estate and Sarabah Estate Vineyard and Winery. All these are new businesses to the region and are responsible for some of the agricultural growth within our region.
One of those wineries is owned by the O’Reilly family, who many people know about from the history of the Stinson crash and from their involvement in a very traditional area of our region. The member for Dobell beside me knows well that I have talked on many occasions about Duck Creek Road, and Duck Creek Road leads its way up to the O’Reillys and the O’Reilly homestead. The O’Reillys also established a winery some years ago and, back in about 2005, they won a San Francisco International Wine Competition award for one of the best shirazes. That is out of an area that over the last 30 years has developed into something now unique for our region.
We do it reasonably tough in Queensland in terms of the growing traditions, but we have been able to work through that and grow the varieties of grapes that really do bring excellence to our region. I am sure that any South Australian members or the member for Kingston, who is also here tonight, who represents well her winegrowing district, would be proud of what we have been able to establish as a Queensland industry.
I spoke about Duck Creek Road in connection with the O’Reillys, and I have spoken about it on many occasions in this house. The reality is that these are families who have banded together as an industry to produce some very good wines. I say to South Australian members that, while their industry is well recognised and accepted and their branding and labelling are very well known overseas, Queensland wines are making their way to the tables of many people in different parts of the world. It is probably better at times that we compete in the production of wine than in AFL or the national league. The reality is that we now have another area of competitiveness, and Queensland’s wine industry is growing at a phenomenal rate. The development of our wine industry along with this amendment legislation will allow the geographical regions that are represented within my electorate to make their mark.
In conclusion, the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 will further advance our wine industry exports and our opportunities in Europe. Our wine labels will be clearer, internationally consistent and enforceable. This is a bill that supports one of the great Australian success stories of the last two decades, including that of South-East Queensland. I commend the bill to the House.
The old saying that you learn something new every day is certainly true in this place. I learnt today that Queensland produces wine. I did not know that Queensland produced wine. I knew that they stole our water to do lots of things but I did not know wine was one of the things that they did with it.
Mr Hale interjecting
Member for Solomon, I do not think they produce wine in Darwin but they certainly drink a lot of it; there is no doubt about that. They drink some very high quality Adelaide Hills wine in Darwin—the sav blanc suits those sorts of climatic conditions perfectly. I imagine the member for Solomon would enjoy that before his pints of beer.
I rise to speak this evening in support of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 and its passage through this place. Of course, the member for Kingston will agree that the wine industry is extremely important to South Australia. It is not without its challenges at this time, whether it be in the Adelaide Hills, in Langhorne Creek, in Fleurieu or indeed in McLaren Vale. It is a hugely important industry to our economy and to Australia’s economy as well and is driven very much from South Australia through the Barossa Valley and the other regions—including Coonawarra, of course, in the seat of the member for Barker. It employs many South Australians. It has many small family businesses. Many larger businesses are involved in the industry as well.
In my electorate there are about 450 of South Australia’s wine-producing establishments, with a rough value to our economy of about $300 million per annum. We have about 16 per cent of South Australia’s wine industry, which in 2007-08 was worth about $1.8 billion to the South Australian economy. In anyone’s language, that is a very important industry to our state, so if there is good legislation before the parliament we will support it to ensure that the industry is stronger than it was before.
We support this bill as it provides for a much-needed amendment to the current legislation. It will bring the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine into force. This agreement was signed in Brussels on 1 December 2008 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The amendments are strongly supported by the industry, including the Winemakers Federation of Australia. I have spoken to Stephen Strachan about this issue; in fact, he appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties when this issue was before that committee and gave it his strong endorsement. He is a very strong representative of the wine industry in Australia and in particular in South Australia. He has a very large soft spot for the wine industry in South Australia and is a great supporter.
The agreement ensures that winemakers have ongoing access to Australia’s largest export market. During 2007-08 Australia exported to European countries 397 million litres of wine worth $1.3 billion, accounting for just over half of Australia’s wine exports that year. The amendments will give Australian wine producers European recognition of an additional 16 Australian winemaking techniques and simpler arrangements for approving such techniques that may develop in the future.
The bill provides simplified label requirements and protection for Australia’s 112 registered geographic indicators. Secondly, it further strengthens the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act by protecting Australia’s reputation as a quality wine producer through the Label Integrity Program. The program was originally established to increase consumer confidence in labelling. Finally, the bill provides for tough offence provisions and proposed penalties, which include imprisonment, for breaches. These will enhance and improve industry compliance. In that respect, we support the bill.
I will use this occasion to make some remarks about the challenges that the industry faces in my electorate and more broadly in South Australia. They are significant challenges. The first, of course, is the ongoing challenge with water and access to water in South Australia, which is all tied to how much we get across the border—how much is allowed to flow down through Queensland and New South Wales and how much is taken out in Victoria. We have an ongoing and major interest in the activities of those states, and we are of course continually disappointed by the failure of this government to have a truly national system which can regulate the use of and access to water by those eastern states, which do tend to take more than their fair share, in our view. That has flow-on effects for industries like mine in Langhorne Creek, which is right next to the Lower Lakes, in South Australia, and we are therefore continually interested. That is why I was very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition announced some time ago that when we are elected to government, if we cannot get the state premiers to agree to hand over their powers in relation to the management of Australia’s water, we will hold a referendum to ensure that that will be the case. That is a major ongoing challenge.
The more immediate challenge for the wine industry is the glut, which is going to affect many producers throughout the state. The Riverland is facing the double whammy of the glut and the restrictions on irrigation. This is also affecting other regions, but probably not so much. There were reports over the weekend that the Barossa and other regions, including Langhorne Creek and McLaren Vale, are looking at pulling out up to 20 per cent of their vines. That will have a real effect on many of the workers, on the industry and on small businesses. While consumers will benefit over the next few years from lower prices for very high-quality South Australian wine, we will have to go through a very difficult period where many people will face some very challenging economic circumstances. It is important that governments both state and federal are aware of this and ready to assist those people if necessary. I know that Steven Strachan and the Winemakers Federation are working very hard with government to ensure that the industry is managed properly so that we do not have communities destroyed by the situation relating to the glut. It is something we need to continue to watch and face up to. I went to the Langhorne Creek winemakers’ lunch on 30 April this year. It is always a very enjoyable day. Winemakers expressed concern about the industry and the impact of the glut. Added to that are the water challenges that South Australia faces. The winemakers are very conscious of the impact that that is having on an extremely important industry in South Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in favour of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is very important to many of my constituents in the seat of Kingston. As I have mentioned many times before, the electorate of Kingston contains the regions of McLaren Vale and Willunga. I have introduced many members of the House to McLaren Vale wine, and McLaren Vale is one of the premium wine-producing regions in this country. The changes to the laws in front of us today with regard to the wine trade are of particular significance and will be welcomed by grape growers, winemakers and wine lovers everywhere.
As the previous speaker mentioned, the wine industry in South Australia is facing some significant challenges, including water, the grape glut and the value of the Australian dollar, which is affecting exports. I commend the growers and winemakers of McLaren Vale because they have really risen to the challenge. While a lot of other winemaking regions around Australia continue to discuss how they might meet the challenges of a lack of water, the winemakers and grape growers of McLaren Vale got active and worked with other companies, the local council, the state government and the federal government to get recycled water to the vineyards. I will not use the term that has often been bandied about in media releases, but it is about turning ‘something’ into shiraz. It is about turning effluent into water for the grapes of McLaren Vale. This is an example of the growers and winemakers of McLaren Vale being at the forefront of looking at what they can do to secure their future.
As I said, things are difficult at the moment, but I have great confidence in the industry. I was very pleased to recently attend the launch of the sustainability program that McLaren Vale is looking at. They are looking at becoming certified as sustainable so that vineyards and winemakers will be able to label their products as ‘certified sustainable’. That is really important and I know they are really working on that. I just wanted to do a bit of a plug for McLaren Vale because it is a wonderful region. I would encourage all members to visit, and I am happy to give you a guided tour at any time. It is a wonderful place.
In all seriousness, I come back to some specific elements of this bill in terms of Australia’s agreement with the European Community on the trade in wine. This is a significant agreement and I must congratulate the minister for securing the negotiations. The minister has done a lot of work, including signing agreements with Hong Kong and China to ensure access to those markets for Australian wine. Agreements like these make a real difference to growers and winemakers in Kingston. I thank the minister also for visiting the McLaren Vale region and speaking with growers and winemakers on many occasions. He has certainly shown a very active interest in my local area.
The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill includes a whole raft of measures for the industry. These benefits flow both ways in our wine trade. Some will be felt here at home by consumers of Australian and European wines. Any measures that make it easier for someone in Europe to identify and buy a McLaren Vale shiraz must be a good thing.
The first key change provided for in this bill is the European recognition of an additional 16 Australian winemaking techniques and the institutionalisation of a process for future approval of winemaking techniques as they evolve. For a country with a cutting-edge industry this agreement is particularly important so that our evolving and world-best winemaking practice is both recognised and enjoyed by European consumers.
The agreement includes a provision for simplified labelling of geographical indications. Most consumers of wine will know that geographical indications—the GIs—are very important in the labelling of wine, and guide a whole lot of decisions in the purchase of wines. This bill simplifies the labelling requirements of Australian wine in Europe and accords protection to Australia’s existing 112 registered geographical indications. These amendments will ensure the protection of Australia’s GIs in Europe and see that the translation of GIs from Europe meets Australia’s international obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights. The amendments provide rules for the protection of European GIs and the translation of European GIs from their source country language. The amendments also provide rules to cover the traditional expressions used by European winemakers in their labelling.
Finally, the bill also introduces provisions for determining GIs. All of these changes are very important when you consider the significance of GIs that have already been given, such as champagne. One practice that will be stamped out by this bill is the misleading and deceptive use of GIs in some of the European wine labelling. I know that many consumers get confused. Confusion is not used often by European winemakers in their labelling practices but it does happen and these amendments resolve issues around the meaning of false, misleading and deceptive practices, traditional expressions and protected terms, including providing exceptions for common English words in the false and misleading provisions relating to the sale, export or import of wine. This should prevent European winemakers using technicalities to label their wine as coming from a region when it does not, and should reduce the confusion for Australian wine consumers.
A technical amendment relating to the European community agreement is the replacement of the previous register for protected names with a new register of protected geographical indications and other terms. This change is important to bring into practice everything I have been discussing and will ensure the protection of GIs, traditional expressions, wine quality terms and additional terms, so that the Australian consumer is not duped by misleading labelling. I have to say that this bill has been welcomed. I know that some people want to get better at wine tasting and start to learn what all the experts are talking about when they use words like ‘peppery’. Certainly, I think that clearer labelling of the types of wine that people are drinking can only enhance the experience for consumers.
Before I conclude, I want to briefly mention the non-agreement related amendments introduced by this bill. The first is the strengthening of the Label Integrity Program for a system that will allow the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation to trace a batch of wine from the retailer to the vineyard and confirm that the details that appear on the label are consistent at each point of the supply chain. These amendments will be important in maintaining the positive perception of Australian wine both domestically and internationally. An extension of the Label Integrity Program will mean that Australian and European wine consumers can be confident of the accuracy of claims regarding vintage, variety or region of origin.
In addition to these changes, the bill provides for a broader range of injunction powers for the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation so that it can deal with anyone engaging in conduct that compromises the integrity of the Australian wine industry. We do know that the Australian wine industry has a very good reputation overseas as well as here in Australia. This measure is important to make sure that that reputation is not compromised.
In conclusion, the Australian wine industry includes over 2,200 winemakers supported by 8,000 grape growers in 112 distinct geographical wine regions. These winemakers and grape growers and Australian consumers will welcome this bill. The bill will ensure that the integrity the Australian wine industry enjoys will be maintained both here in Australia and, importantly, in the export market in Europe. It will also ensure that consumers here in Australia can be confident that wine coming from Europe is exactly what the label says it is. I commend the bill to the House.
I also rise to support the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 and put on the record some thoughts from a boutique winegrowing region. It still surprises me that, apart from connoisseurs, people do not know that there is a very active, emerging, organised winegrowing community on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. I am probably the only member here not laying claim to representing the premier region amongst the battle of the valleys—you have all done it! But I put on the record that there are some new locations snapping at the heels of many of those valleys throughout Australia and the more recognised premier brands. The mid-North Coast of New South Wales is certainly in that category. We have a desire to grow. I am pleased the growers themselves are now organised. That spirit of working together will enable the region itself to grow and emerge. With beaches, rivers and a wonderful lifestyle to throw in with your bottle of red or white, the mid-North Coast brand is an attractive option for a growing number of people to try.
The bill is important for many of my boutique wines because some are involved in the export market and are incredibly sensitive to two things that public policy can deliver for them. One is export marketing and the work done by various agencies such as Austrade and any other overseas entities of the Australian government that can help gain access to or grow markets such as the European Community. The second is tax. It is an ongoing issue for boutique wineries and, I might add, boutique breweries that how government sets its policy agenda is sometimes targeted towards the bigger players—the big winemaking regions or the big producers—and quite often public policy is driven by those large volumes.
However, I ask for consideration in matters of taxation of small-scale farming and the role that small-scale farming plays in the growth of the Australian economy and in the growth and diversity of branding in things such as wine exporting and agreements with international areas such as the one we have before us tonight. This bill is, I hope, beyond partisan in its support throughout this chamber. The changes it represents are sensible, and hopefully they will continue to grow the Australian wine industry story.
I was first elected to a state parliament in 1996, and the wine industry went through the roof, so I lay claim to everyone’s dancing with joy at my state election and having a nice bottle of red. I also noticed that when I first got into the federal parliament, in 2008, the wine industry bounced back from some tough years. So I am pleased to do my bit to contribute to the growth of the industry, and hopefully we will continue to see that trend rise and the Australian brand continue, not only domestically but internationally, to show itself off as a brand of value and quality and one that we can all be proud of whether we are wine drinkers or not.
It is also a pleasure for me to speak on the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009. It has wide support across the parliament and also across the industry and the sector. It has that support because it is a sensible bill that brings into line a number of agreements between Australia and the European Community on our trade in wine, which has been a long time in development. While in 2008 and 2004 there were particular agreements, this bill in 2010 brings into line some gaps in those previous bills. The amendments in this bill are good and provide some clarity on definitions, particularly, as we have heard from other speakers on this bill—and I will not traipse over the same territory—in terms of geographic indicators of where wine originates, countries of origin and so forth.
There are a number of important points to make. Traditional thinking in this country would probably tell people that it was the Europeans rather than Australia who were trying to protect their wine brands, their labels and their geographical indicators. But I am more than happy to say that I think that balance sheet is truly now pointing more in our favour. Australia now wants to protect its geographical indicators, brands and labelling and provide that confidence and security so that when people overseas buy Australian wine it is exactly what it says it is—it is labelled correctly, there is the assurance of quality and there are all of those things that Australia is very famous for.
People may be surprised to realise that 60 per cent of Australia’s production of wine is exported and that Australia’s exports to the European Community represent 397 million litres of wine with a value of about $1.3 billion, which is quite substantial. In comparison, we only import approximately 17 million litres of wine with a value of about $197 million. That is probably not what people traditionally think of as the balance of trade in wine between our countries. I fully accept the principle that places like Champagne in France want to protect that particular name and that particular product and what it represents as much as we in Australia want to protect brands such as Penfolds, Henschke or others—Three Rivers, for example, which is probably not that well known to many people even in Australia but is one of our most famous Australian labels—in different areas.
We have heard a number of people speak about the importance of this bill in amending the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act. It has gone through a proper review process and, as I said, it is well supported. In fact, there are a number of letters to the minister congratulating the minister and supporting this bill. It does the right things for not only our trade with the European community but also Australian wine. It also meets all of our international obligations under the World Trade Organisation—obligations that Australia is doing very well in keeping in order. The bill is also, as I said before, quite important in preventing the misuse of Australian labels.
It is also important to note the significant advantages that this legislation brings to Australian wine producers, not only in the wine itself but also in the technology that we export overseas. It may surprise a number of people, but countries like France and others are regular users of Australian winemaking technology, and have been for a number of years. We bring to the table expertise in manufacturing processes, in consistent quality and in procedures. We have for quite a number of years been exporting our technology, which is reimported to Australia through the product.
We heard before a number of comments from the member for Kingston, who has a very famous winemaking region in her electorate in South Australia, and from the member for Forde, who spoke about Queensland wines. I too am from Queensland, and the quality and level of winemaking that we have in Queensland is probably not well-known even in that state. It is not famous for it today, but I think sometime in the future Queensland wine will be known for its quality. I recently did a wine tour with a group of branch members just up the road, in the electorate of Forde. We went to the Tamborine Mountain winery area. I was actually quite surprised at the level of quality at the cellar doors, not just in the white wines, which tend to be traditionally better than the reds, but also in the reds. What I found there was a thriving industry, creating local tourism, and a real bonus to the area. I have to be honest—I had not expected the quality of wine that I found; it is something that can be promoted right across Australia and even overseas.
We have other wine success stories much closer to my electorate in Ipswich. Warrego Wines and others for a number of years have been working on wine technology, consistency and quality. They are using mixed grapes from a variety of regions and crushing on site grapes that they grow locally. Again, these boutique wines may not be well known across Australia but they are certainly very good quality. Wines that we export overseas are probably more famous internationally than they are in their own home state.
All in all, we have a thriving wine and grape industry in Australia. It is great for us locally in terms of tourism and great for Australian produce. Due to the sheer numbers and volume that we export internationally, the industry needs to be properly administered and protected, and that is what this bill does. As I said earlier, it is supported across the House, it is bipartisan and it was done in consultation with the sector. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009, which contains three schedules to align the penalties in the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 regarding offence provisions and the use of penalty units as a replacement for fixed dollar amounts.
The purpose of the first schedule of the amendments contained in this bill is to make the necessary changes to the Australian legislation to bring the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine into force. This schedule amends the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 and the Trade Marks Act 1995 and will ensure winemakers have continued access to Australia’s largest export market. This will come as a benefit to all Australian wine producers, as it will give them European recognition of an additional 16 Australian winemaking techniques. It will also simplify arrangements for approving winemaking techniques that may be developed in the future.
The purpose of the second schedule of amendments to the AWBC Act is to further protect Australia’s reputation for the production of wines of quality and integrity. This is the key to our future in exporting wines. This will be achieved by strengthening the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation’s Label Integrity Program. This schedule will simplify labelling requirements and create protection within Europe for Australia’s 112 registered geographical indicators. Under this amendment, wholesalers will have five years to sell stock labelled with EC GI and retailers will be able to sell all of their stock.
The third schedule corrects a number of weaknesses with the compliance provisions of the AWBC Act that have been identified. The changes to the compliance provision will strengthen the AWBC’s ability to stop people from engaging in ways that are contrary to the act and enable the AWBC to pass on information to others who could enforce the laws relating to wine and health.
The coalition is supportive of this legislation, but there are a number of factors currently facing the wine industry that I and the coalition also believe need to be acknowledged and addressed by the government. The wine industry in my electorate of Forrest is a very compact but very high-quality unit-value contributor to the national wine industry, with the Margaret River region recognised internationally as a producer of premium and ultra-premium wines.
During 2008 the estimated value of grape production in the south-west region was $67.8 million. The Margaret River wine region accounts for most of the viticulture production in the south-west of WA with 67.1 per cent of the total tonnage coming from the area. The south-west viticulture industry produces both white and red grape varieties with 26,259 tonnes and 24,000-plus tonnes crushed respectively in 2008. But the wine industry stretches right throughout the south-west from Harvey to Ferguson Valley and all the areas in between.
I recently conducted a survey of the wine industry in parts of my electorate that are currently facing some challenges and one of the major findings from the survey was the concerns and negative impact the new wine industry award is having on all of the wineries in my electorate. One winery owner stated:
The penalty rates in the modern award are a financial impost.
Our cellar business is in ‘wine tourism’—public holidays and weekends are the busiest and we will be unable to afford to pay the loadings required. THIS WILL COST JOBS!
Another winery owner stated that the new award is:
… confusing and very unworkable for both employers and employees in the industry.
On the issue of award modernisation processes I would also like to refer the minister to Tassell Park Wines in my electorate, which has been unable to receive clarification as to whether their winery business is covered under the new wine industry award or not. Tassell Park Wines, a family trust which has a corporate company as the trustee, has been in contact with both the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Chamber of Commerce in Western Australia seeking clarification on whether their business is covered under the new wine industry award. On both occasions, which concerned me greatly, they were advised to seek legal advice—that neither of these bodies could give them the definitive advice that they needed—and this would be at their expense. I call on the government to give Tassell Park Wines a simple answer as to whether or not they are covered by the new national award system.
Another issue consistently raised in my survey was the overwhelming supply within the market, also known as the wine glut. An article in the weekend edition of the Financial Review in May stated:
No longer able to sustain plunging prices for their fruit—or unable to sell it at all—an increasing number of grape growers will this winter begin ripping up vineyards as a persistent wine glut, high Australian dollar, a deluge of New Zealand wine imports and increased dominance by the supermarket chains conspire to erode profitability.
The article also quotes Wine Grape Growers Association executive director, Mark McKenzie, stating that he expects a further 3,000 to 5,000 hectares of wine grapes to be pulled out in areas including a part of the south-west in WA and central and western New South Wales. In another article also in the Financial Review, Mr McKenzie said that of Australia’s 165,000 hectares of wine grapes about 40,000 hectares should be pulled out.
A majority of the growers who have responded to my survey believe that the current wine glut is one of the major constraints to profitability. One winery owner summed up his situation by stating:
There will be on-going financial hardship until some kind of balance is restored—the industry is currently unviable.
The wine industry in my electorate of Forrest is suffering as a result of the current state of and pressures on the wine industry. A number of vineyards and wineries have been sold recently or are on the market and some smaller operators have not been able to lock in long-term fruit contracts. The cheap imports from New Zealand have led local growers in my electorate to launch a marketing campaign called Summer with the Locals to promote their wine and the local industry. I understand that 19 WA producers have contributed more than $100,000 towards the campaign. Campaign instigator, Jeff Burch from Howard Park Winery, was quoted in an article in the West Australian:
I got sick of seeing advertisements using the principle of banding whereby a good and respected quality WA wine was being offered with a cheap import …
We are not asking people to buy wine—
from WA—
out of a sense of parochialism but because we produce such a superior product …
As a result of cheap overseas wine imports, some wineries have been forced to reduce the price that they charge for what is a quality product. The Australian Financial Review reported on 30 January this year that Western Australian wines were selling from between $17 to $22 three years ago and are now advertised for $12.99 or lower. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are significant issues that need to be researched and acted on to ensure the sustainability of the Australian wine industry.
In my electorate a five-point plan has been developed to assist the sustainability of the wine industry in the south-west region. The plan targets five key areas: strengthening of the domestic markets; expansion of export markets; building on the strategy of the overall Australian wine industry that combines a rigorous business- and return-driven approach, with quality and innovation; gaining a strong high-end position by cooperating with wine industry associations and national bodies; and developing partnerships with all levels of government to ensure that the south-west wine region is supported through liquor licensing trade facilitation and market access planning, environmental and business regulation, and taxation. This five-point plan aims at assisting south-west wine producers through the present and emergent issues currently facing the industry and facing the industry in the future. As we know, the main export markets for WA wines are the UK and the USA. Smaller niche markets established in Asian countries also contribute quite significantly to the local industry—even China.
While I am here, I briefly want to acknowledge the Dardanup Art Spectacular Trail and Exhibition that combined two very interesting factors: wine and art. This was a program in the Ferguson Valley where you could pick up a brochure and follow the art and the wine together, right throughout the Ferguson Valley. There was some wonderful entertainment at a sundowner, including a jazz band. It was a great way of promoting not only the south-west and our quality wines but also the great art and the experience of being in the south-west.
I support this legislation as a positive step for the industry, bringing the Australia-EC Agreement on Trade in Wine into force and protecting Australia’s reputation, particularly that of my electorate of Forrest, in producing wines of quality and integrity.
I stand today to make my contribution to the government’s Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 which will amend the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 to allow the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine to come into force. In addition to this it will further protect Australia’s reputation for the production of wines of quality and integrity by strengthening the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation’s Label Integrity Program and correct, via updates and modernisation of the previous legislation, numerous weaknesses within the compliance provisions of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980.
On 1 December 2000 the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine was signed by Stephen Smith, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. For many this date will be forever remembered for a simple stroke of a pen that concluded the long and drawn out negotiations. The signing of the agreement represents the culmination of protracted negotiations spanning some 14 years, since the signing of the original agreement in 1994—an agreement which left much to be desired. The new agreement finalises negotiations on numerous issues from the initial agreement that were never of a satisfactory standard. This includes issues such as geographical indications and traditional expressions. Fortunately, after 14 long years in which extensive consultations were conducted with the Australian wine industry, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Attorney-General’s office, IP Australia and the Australian Government Solicitor, these issues have been resolved.
The agreement represents a solution to every problem and loophole found in the agreement signed in 1994. Effectively, it fixes the problems that the previous agreement did not, taking a very positive step in supporting and strengthening not only the Australian wine industry but also the ties it has with its European counterpart and the large, lucrative European market. As the Winemakers Federation of Australia noted, this agreement ushers in a new era of cooperation with the European Union, which will not just bring mutual benefits for our respective wine industries but also help cement wider relations.
As the Winemakers Federation of Australia has said, the agreement represents a positive step in building stronger relationships with the European Union, but it is important to remember that this is not the only positive to come out of the negotiations and the final agreement. There are also many other benefits that have come as a result, benefits that the winemakers of Australia are keen to realise. The numerous key benefits to Australia’s wine producers are the European recognition of an additional 16 Australian winemaking techniques, simpler arrangements for approving winemaking techniques that may be developed into the future, simplified labelling requirements, European protection of 112 Australian registered geographical indications, labelling requirements for Australian wines sold in European markets and an effective dispute resolution system for trade related disputes.
The method by which the agreement has brought about these benefits is through the clarification of the intention of the original agreement by redefining, expanding and strengthening a number of provisions, the most important being the assurance of the preservation of Australia’s reputation as a producer of wines of quality and integrity. This also allows the promotion and enhancement of Australian winemakers’ assets in the large and valuable European market, which was worth over $1.3 billion in exports in 2007-08 alone, representing over half of Australia’s wine exports for that year.
In summary, this agreement basically allows producers to make fewer changes and concessions to sell their wines in the European Community. As a result of this easing of trade barriers, Australian winemakers’ techniques will be accepted and the requirements for everything from labelling and blending rules to alcohol levels will be much simpler. It effectively means the European Community implicitly recognises the provenance and prestige of Australian wines. For the winemakers of Australia this means that they can now market themselves independently. No longer will they need to hide behind European names. They can stand freely and be recognised. For wineries in Australia this is perhaps one of the most positive outcomes of this agreement. It will allow them to stand alone as a representation of their own independence and quality in the valuable European market.
However, despite all the benefits that this agreement will provide to winemakers in Australia, amendments must be made to our domestic legislation to bring them into effect, amendments that are presented in this bill. This fact alone demonstrates how important the bill is to winemakers. It represents an excellent opportunity for winemakers here in Australia to capitalise on the potential of the agreement. The first of these amendments is purely to ensure that the protection of geographical indications and translations of geographical indications meet Australia’s international obligations under the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The changes will provide rules for the protection of foreign countries’ geographical indications, translations of foreign countries’ geographical indications and traditional expressions and the introduction of provisions by determining geographical indications.
The changes also provide a determination process for foreign countries’ geographical indications and translations of geographical indications. These amendments will effectively protect Australian and European wine distributors from misuse in Australia. In addition, the amendments also resolve issues regarding the meaning of ‘false, misleading and deceptive practices’ in relation to geographical indications. These are all very important amendments in this bill.
Section 42 makes it an offence to sell, export or import wine in trade or commerce with false description. This is to ensure the geographical indications, traditional expressions, quality wine terms and other terms that are protected under the agreement have adequate protection against misuse. Under the current system the mental element of intention must be presented in order to prosecute someone for selling, importing or exporting a wine with a false or misleading description and presentation. This meant that if a person could provide incontestable evidence that they had no intention to mislead they would avoid liability. The amendments change the offence provisions to make it an offence if the sale, importation or exportation of wines is performed with the party or parties being reckless to the fact that the wine was false or misleading in its description and presentation. By changing the fault element to recklessness, the barrier to prosecution can be improved, making it easier to take action against any parties that commit this offence. It also brings offence provisions in line with the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Other changes extend record keeping requirements for the members of the grape and wine supply chain, whose actions are captured by the Label Integrity Program which operates under the Australian Wine and Brandy Act. The changes to the Label Integrity Program will benefit both consumers and the Australian wine industry by helping to ensure that Australian wine labels are truthful and accurate in relation to their origin and characteristics. Implementing this system will allow the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation to trace a batch of wine from the retailer to the vineyard and confirm details that appear on the label are consistent at each point of the supply chain. This coverage will be extended to all wines. The additional reporting requirements for those captured by the Label Integrity Program will not be onerous, will not increase the reporting demands on the supply chain and will reflect was is generally considered to be sound business reporting practice. By having records at each point of the supply chain the integrity of the label can be confirmed. These amendments will strengthen the Label Integrity Program and increase the veracity of labels.
Another important change is to the compliance provisions in the bill. Changes will be made to rectify identified weaknesses in the compliance provisions of the Australian Wine and Brandy Act. The objective of these changes is to provide the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation with the means to protect the reputation of the Australian wine industry for quality. Where a person is performing actions that may be contrary to the act, the change will provide the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation with the power to apply an injunction to stop or to direct a person engaging in an action that may be contrary to the objects of the act.
All of these amendments culminate in a representation of every area that needs to be changed to maximise the benefit for the Australian wine industry and maximise its potential to expand further into the prosperous European market. It has become quite clear, through support of this bill from the wine industry, that they are very keen to see these changes come into force. The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, as the responsible authority, requested the amendments, which are supported by the Winemakers Federation of Australia, the national representative body of winemakers. This federation holds voluntary membership from parties that represent 95 per cent of the wine produced in Australia. The amendments will have been discussed and supported by the Legislation Review Committee of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, which consists of representatives from the Wine Federation of Australia, an independent lawyer and representatives of the major wine companies in Australia. The representative group, Wine Grape Growers Australia, also attended the committee and supported the amendments, including the requirement the wine grape growers keep a record of geographical indication in which the grapes were grown. The legislation review committee advised that the industry would derive considerable benefits from the enhanced Label Integrity Program and improved compliance provisions that will assist in preserving Australia’s reputation as a producer of wines of quality and integrity.
This bill, which is widely supported by all the parties involved in the agreement negotiation process, will not only bring the agreement into force and allow the winemakers to benefit from the outcome of over a decade of negotiations but also provide improvements in label integrity and in the compliance provisions. With so much support for the bill from within the very industry it will regulate, it seems infallible that the bill will serve only to benefit the Australian wine industry and is thus worthy of receiving royal assent. The sooner it does, the sooner the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine can enter into force and the sooner the Australian wine industry can start to enjoy the benefits that come with it, as well as the other benefits that will arise from the bill—benefits that have been long deserved by all of Australia as well as the Australian wine industry. For people working in the wine industry anywhere in Australia, whether it be in the Barossa Valley, the Margaret River area or the districts of winemakers in southern parts or in the Northern Territory, this bill is good news. I must admit that I googled to see if there was a winery in my electorate of Solomon, and its phone has been disconnected. The bill represents a positive step into a new, prosperous era for the wine industry of Australia. Having said that, I might just go and enjoy a nice glass of shiraz over dinner. I will finish those comments there. I fully support the bill and I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate on the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009, most of whom have referred to the importance of the industry within their own electorate—although the most recent speaker, the member for Solomon, living in Darwin, has a limited number of vineyards in his electorate. Notwithstanding that, I am very grateful for all the comments that were made.
A lot of the themes of the contributions which have been made have gone well beyond the ambit of the bill, but importantly they have referred to some of the challenges that we have at the moment with a glut on the wine market in Australia. I want in particular to acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Barker, who acknowledged the importance of the wine industry’s need to be able to restructure and also noted that it was not for government to take control of that restructure; it is something for industry to do themselves. I do not think any of us want to repeat the mistakes of years gone past, when governments first of all paid people to pull out their vines and then provided tax incentives for them to put them back in, leading to another wine glut, which we are in now. There are some challenges which appropriately rest with industry and some challenges where government can play an important role. This bill represents one of the areas where we can play an important role.
The bill has a number of roles. Importantly, it implements the agreement between Australia and the EU on trade in wine. In that agreement, the Europeans wanted to make sure there was protection of their geographical indications and traditional expressions. In exchange for that, we wanted to make sure that they would recognise the need to simplify their labelling requirements for Australian wines and to protect our geographical indications from incorrect use in the European market. The bill strengthens the Label Integrity Program and rectifies weaknesses in the compliance provisions.
Some people have made reference in passing during the debate to the fact that this bill has been delayed, but thankfully no-one has complained about that delay. The delay was for the very good reason—I know that the member for Eden-Monaro referred to this—that there was a dispute and a disagreement between us and the Europeans over some particular varieties. The bill was stalled in the parliament here while that dispute was resolved. Now that there is agreement between us and the EU, we have a situation where the bill is again able to proceed.
As a result of these amendments, consequential amendments will need to be made to the Trade Marks Act 1995 to enable trademark owners to amend their marks where necessary. The bill also, as I said, amends provisions of the Label Integrity Program, including strengthening record-keeping requirements for those involved in the production, distribution and sale of wine and wine grapes and ensuring that the offence provisions which apply to those who make a false or misleading claim relating to the vintage, variety or geographical indication of a wine are appropriate. Once again, I want to note that although the changes to the Label Integrity Program are important and necessary they do not place onerous requirements on industry and they are fully supported by industry.
The bill also proposes a number of changes to the compliance provisions of the act, which have stemmed from problems which have been identified in the current arrangements. These amendments will strengthen the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation’s ability to stop a person from engaging in action that may be contrary to the act, while also providing the power to pass on information obtained under the act to others who may have a role in enforcing the laws relating to wine and health.
I take the opportunity to thank those involved in the AWBC, both those who work for it and those who chair and serve on the board, for the contributions that they make. I thank the various members who have spoken in the debate for their commitment to the industry, whether it be a commitment through their connection to producers or through their connection to consumers. In either case, the bill puts industry on a stronger footing and I am grateful for the bipartisan support which has been shown during the course of this debate. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Dr Kelly:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2010. I will not take up much of the time of the Main Committee. This is a non-controversial bill and I am not very keen to spend too much time on the record speaking about parliamentary salaries. Section 66 of the Constitution requires a specific appropriation of money to pay for the additional salaries of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. In the past this has required new amending bills each time executive salaries have risen beyond the set appropriation. This bill increases the maximum amount potentially payable under section 66 of the Constitution for the salaries of ministers, including parliamentary secretaries, for the current financial year and for later financial years to $3.5 million. It is currently $3.2 million. It will also allow future increases in the appropriation to be made by regulation, which in my view is a sensible measure. I commend the bill.
I will happily rise and talk about legislation that effectively moves to allow the increase in the salaries of ministers and to make further increases subject to regulation, because how can a government propose legislation like this with a record of 2½ years not of incompetence, not of impotence but of shameful and hideous waste? How can any minister in this government support this legislation when they have a record of having watched billions of taxpayers dollars burnt away to nothing, with nothing to show for it except smouldering ruins in their own portfolios? I am looking for one government minister to come in here and justify that pay rise under a Prime Minister who in his first year in power froze all parliamentary salaries in seeking out a headline for a day. He froze those salaries and then, when we were in the midst of an economic recovery, when we most needed to stimulate the economy, he allowed the salaries to rise again. That is what I call countercyclical economic policy, if ever I have seen it. This is a Prime Minister who says one thing and then does something completely different. This is a Prime Minister who has presided over spin and inputs rather than wins and outcomes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the honourable member can talk under water, which is why I am taking this point of order. He is not allowed to do that or range wide. He needs to be brought to the details of the bill, which are quite restrictive. I ask that you bring him to order.
The member will refer his comments to the bill.
I will defend my right to speak to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2010 if it pertains to increasing the salaries of incompetent ministers. Let us do them one by one. Why doesn’t the minister for the environment step in here and justify his salary increase that is part of this bill. This is a minister who burnt off $2.45 billion—not million—on home insulation and could not get it right. This is a minister who set it at $1,600 per household. Some of these were 40 square metres. He amped up the price of home insulation from $4 per square metre to nearly $8 per square metre, mostly gouged, and then employed thousands of people who relied on the word of our Prime Minister to lay out and roll out that program. It was guaranteed to run until 31 December 2011 but it crashed in a heap because they could not monitor the training component. Show me the education minister who is meant to train those installation advisers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the speaker opposite is abusing his position when speaking on this bill. He is only entitled to speak on the generic details of this bill, which relate to a generic increase across the whole of the ministry and relate to a regulation being added about future increases. It does not allow him to go into the level of bluster that he is going into now. I would ask you to call him into order—otherwise, he will have 50 points of order. He will not be able to open his mouth to say more than two or three words, and that is not the intent of this debate.
I would ask the member to return to the facts of the bill.
These frivolous points of order I will contest. Let me read through this. It says ‘parliamentarian’s base pay’. I am saying these ministers have not even justified an increase, and these ministers have certainly not justified the right to make future increases on regulation, when for 2½ years they have not even given value for money. I will continue to go through these achievements. We have a record in education of $1.6 billion going down the hole, completely unaccounted for in school blowouts. We have $25,000 being spent per square metre on school halls—
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the speaker, I submit to you, is in effect speaking against your ruling on speaking to this particular bill. If he continues in the way he is, there might be other forms that we will use. I do not want to stop him speaking on the generics, but it is abuse. I also note the other point on the substance of what he is saying. The former speaker from the opposition indicated the opposition is supporting this bill. If you listened to this speaker, you would think he is opposing the bill, and that is a further consideration I would ask you to take into account in bringing him to order. I am reluctant to do this. I have rarely done it in the 20 years I have been in this place, but this is an abuse.
I must rule on that point of order. I do believe that you must return to the facts of the bill. So I would ask you to do that; otherwise, you may leave me with difficult choices.
That is fine, Mr Deputy Speaker. I return to another element of the bill. Since 1952, this change to legislation has only been made a number of times. The last time it was done was in 2006. I would put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the justification for bringing this legislation to this chamber cannot be supported, given the performance of these ministers. I am absolutely insistent that we have a situation, politically and historically, where, for the first time in Australia’s history, we have a government that has insisted on wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer resources, with extremely limited accountability, and then they have the effrontery at the end of their first political term, only months before an election, to demand a salary increase. If I were this government, I would be scurrying away from this place, trying to do everything I could to obfuscate the lack of achievement over these last 2½ years because it is a shameful record. I think that the records of this party, the records of this government, are extremely tenuous and to make the association—
I have a question that I would like to ask the member, if he wants to take it.
Are you prepared to take it?
Yes.
We have had a railing for the last six or seven minutes on each and every minister that he seeks to name, when dealing with this bill. Can I ask through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it is a fact that this member is going to vote for this bill, or whether he is going to remain silent and do what his party has said it will do, which is support the bill—completely in contradiction to the things he is now placing before the committee. I refer to his former Prime Minister, John Howard, who issued an edict about truth being absolute as part of his 1996 election speech. What has this ranting and raving to do with how he is going to vote on the bill? How is he going to vote on this bill? Does he support the bill? Is he voting against it?
Our position as opposition does not preclude me from pointing out many of the inconsistencies of the administration on the other side. I am within my rights to stay within the matters pertaining to this bill. In this case, it is ministerial salaries, the right to increase them and the right to make subsequent increases by regulation. I am simply, in the period of time allotted to me, pointing out the enormous waste that has occurred. Each of the ministers should be speaking to this bill but they have not come and done so. I ask the ministers who thought up the 2020 Summit to come and speak on this bill. I ask the ministers who are asking for a pay rise, who dreamt up GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch, to come and speak on this bill. But they are silent, and that in itself says something about the subconscious guilt that exists on the other side about their performance in the last 2½ years.
In effect, with respect to the member on the other side—and I have taken this question in good faith—they are simply too shy to come up and justify a pay increase. I would not mind if this were a government that had set out with some pretty big challenges and had done fairly well. I would not mind if this administration had actually been fairly incompetent but not wasteful. But, no, they have wasted enormous sums of money. To the average small business holder in this country they would say, ‘If the till is a little bit out, there are plenty of workers around who have been asked to make up the difference.’ But there is no minister who will take responsibility for the enormous waste that we have seen.
I will commend one minister. The member opposite will be pleased to know that this is not all a rant of criticism. There is one minister who definitely, on fiscal responsibility alone, deserves the pay rise. The best finance minister that the government has had in a very long time is their very own Minister for Health and Ageing, who has spent the last 2½ years bringing in Treasury bills to save money in the guise of health legislation. The best examples of that were the alcopops legislation, the cataracts legislation and the cuts to pathology funding. We have had no serious health reform to remove the overlap, the waste and the cost shifting between Commonwealth and states. No, there is none of that, which would make a more efficient health system. There is just a more bloated one with pre-election promises and a whole series of Treasury bills that have occupied our health minister for 2½ years.
The minister’s first year was completely consumed by the alcopops debate—fighting over whether we taxed tiny bottles of sweetened alcohol. Then it moved to trying halve the rebate on cataract surgery, which for three months left seniors in Australia having no Medicare rebate to assist them with a cataract operation. Then, of course, there was an idea from the blind side to gouge into pathology rebates for seniors, leaving many of them without bulk billing. If there is one minister who does deserve a pay rise, it is the health minister for being a very good finance minister. But that is a complete disaster for health, as you on the other side know. How many of the superclinics have been built? Three have been built and only two of them are operational. Even today, we had 50,000 services delivered Australia wide out of 150 million needed. It is a speck in the ocean. So for health, it is a big D; for being a finance minister, it may well be a B-plus.
Let us move onto the promises about whaling. Wouldn’t a minister wanting a pay rise admit that they had failed in their pre-election promise to actually take Japan to court? Instead we have this perpetual and tired—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I continue to rise to say that the speaker needs to be pulled up. Not only is what he is saying irrelevant but he is being hypocritical. He has conceded that he is going to vote for this bill. More importantly, if he wanted to single out particular ministers, he would have a case if there were amendments before the chamber. There are no amendments being moved by the opposition, and I submit that that is further evidence that he is way off the mark and running a political argument, not an argument in relation to the bill. He should have moved an amendment. I have raised the point.
I have asked the member to speak within the confines of the bill. I think perhaps, Member for Bowman, that you should bring your remarks to a conclusion.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Ramsey. I will do that, because I have almost run out of billion-dollar blow-outs by this government. You are quite correct; my material is running thin. I am down to the National Broadband Network, the $4.7 billion that became $43 billion of money that this government cannot even find. I will finish with the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, a person who has spent 2½ years trying to create an internet filter that, from any evaluation done in the private sector, no-one can actually see will work. We have an NBN that remains completely unfunded. We have only just seen a business plan. I do not think that minister can justify that either. I thank you for the latitude you have provided me with, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your understanding and sympathy and I think that one thing is very clear: no minister who is asking for this pay rise is prepared to stand up and justify it, and that is a great sign of their reluctance to stand up for their record.
in reply—I thank all members who have made a genuine contribution to this debate. Section 66 of the Constitution, which we are discussing here, prescribes the maximum annual amount that can be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the salaries of ministers of state, unless the parliament provides otherwise. The parliament has otherwise provided for the maximum amount payable in section 5 of the Ministers of State Act 1952, which currently limits that amount to $3.2 million each financial year. This amount needs to be increased to $3.5 million to pay ministerial salaries at current levels for 2009-10 and for future financial years and to meet any additional expenditure such as payment of additional salaries for acting arrangements.
There have been 29 amendments to the amount set under section 5 of the Ministers of State Act 1952 since its introduction in 1952. This averages one amendment every two years. This section was last amended in 2006 and is therefore well overdue for the regular amendment. This constant cycle of amendments is not the most efficient way of dealing with this matter—as I think is agreed by both sides. Enabling the maximum sum available for ministerial salaries to be provided for by regulation obviates the need for recurrent amendments to the act. As such, regulations would be subject to disallowance and there will continue to be parliamentary scrutiny of any future changes to the amount. So I thank all members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill reported.
I rise to acknowledge three young, passionate individuals from my local community who visited Parliament House two weeks ago to participate in the Make Poverty History awareness week. I had the pleasure of meeting with Zoe Tomaras from Kurrajong, who is a media and cultural studies student; Joel Clark from Blackheath, who is studying law and manages a local YMCA facility; and Caley Bawden from Katoomba, who is vice-captain at Wycliffe Christian School and has a passion for international policy development.
Around the globe more than 2.5 billion men, women and children live in grinding poverty on less than $2 a day. They suffer from chronic hunger and malnutrition, preventable diseases such as malaria, measles and tuberculosis, environmental degradation, low literacy rates and countless other social, public health, economic and political challenges.
The eight Millennium Development Goals that we must continue to promote and support are: to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; to achieve universal primary education; to promote gender equality and empower women; to reduce child mortality; to improve maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; to ensure environmental sustainability and to develop a global partnership for development.
I commend Zoe, Joel and Caley and the other students who joined with them to help the Australian and international community draw attention to the importance of these goals. (Time expired)
The Dampier Archipelago is a group of islands located off the northern Pilbara coast of Western Australia which is a vast treasure trove containing the largest concentration of rock art in the world, with an estimated one million petroglyphs, or stone carvings. This area is of great spiritual and cultural significance to Aboriginal groups in the Pilbara region, with a demonstrated occupancy of the area of over 9,000 years, with many extraordinarily diverse and dense archaeological remains such as quarries, food middens and camp sites.
It would be reasonable for Australians and visitors to Australia to assume that such fundamental cultural heritage would be comprehensively studied, catalogued and protected. Unfortunately, with limited exceptions, that is not the case. From the 1960s, the Pilbara region has been exploited for its mineral, oil and gas resources without sufficient regard for its heritage values or adequate consultation with local Aboriginal groups. In 2006, the former Premier of Western Australia Dr Carmen Lawrence stated:
… successive governments—mine included—have failed to appreciate to the global significance of the Peninsula.
The current WA Premier, Colin Barnett, also said back in 2006:
World heritage listing is inevitable … The status of the rock art [makes it] in my opinion without doubt the most important heritage site in WA and possibly the nation.
I seek leave to present a petition initiated by the Friends of Australian Rock Art calling on the government to encourage the WA state government to nominate the Dampier Archipelago for World Heritage listing. I should make clear that this petition has not yet been certified by the Petitions Committee. (Time expired)
The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to the confirmation of the committee that it conforms with standing orders.
As the federal member for Cowan I have a lot involvement with schools across the electorate and I intend to be involved because I like to encourage the potential in our young people. I have a lot of faith that they will be great contributors to our nation in the future. Earlier this year I was at South Ballajura Primary School speaking with senior students about how parliament works.
This is a school with great diversity and perhaps it is a little more challenged by socioeconomic circumstances than those in other areas, but without doubt the children there have a potential the equal of children in any other schools across the electorate of Cowen or indeed across Australia. I enjoy visiting the school and it is made even better when I have contact with the nice young people there. I would particularly like to mention the three students who helped me pack up afterwards without being asked. So I thank you, Denim Eccles, Gaby Allan and Kyleigh McGuire. I hope that there will be more reasons for me to speak of you in the future.
I have a long involvement with the school. Several years ago I helped to arrange the quotes and then filled in the grant application that saw the school receive evaporative cooling. As I said, I have spoken many times at the school about parliament and about being a good citizen and community member. It is great to have these opportunities to visit South Ballajura primary and then speak of what a positive school it is. This is a school that has always been very professional and even-handed in its dealings with elected members of parliament. I appreciate that and thank principal Yvonne Arnott.
Although South Ballajura Primary School was never mentioned in a speech before I was the member, this is certainly not the first time I have done so. When I see young people with great potential and I see the schools assisting students to achieve that potential, that is something worth saying in this place and I will do it again.
It was my pleasure in April to officially open the Glen Huon Primary School’s multipurpose hall as part of the Rudd government’s Building the Education Revolution program. The Glen Huon Primary School received $75,000 under the National School Pride Program and $850,000 under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. I would like to read to the House the statement that the students gave to me on the day and that they have asked me to pass on:
On behalf of the students of Glen Huon Primary I would like to thank the Federal Government for giving us the BER & Pride in our School money. This has enabled us to build this new hall, a canteen and to re surface our oval.
The new hall has given students a place to go to during wet weather lunch and recess, and we have been able to play table tennis in here at lunchtime.
Now on a wet day our PE lessons can still go ahead.
We have a proper space for our school assemblies, with a stage and audio gear.
We have used the hall as a large Art space, a place for a drama and after school some one is hiring it to run African drumming workshops.
We now have a proper canteen, better cooking facilities, a proper place to serve food and a space where groups of lucky kids will be going to have cooking lessons.
None of these things were possible before.
The school has also managed to resurface our oval, and soon we will be able to play soccer and other games there. With our money we have also bought to 2 interactive whiteboards, got a set of Glen Huon sports tops, and done lots of repairs around the school.
All the students are very grateful, and love the ‘new look school’ we have..
Thank you very much.
I rise to congratulate one of my constituents, Tim Bull, on his preselection for the Nationals as a candidate for the upcoming Victorian state election. Mr Bull is an outstanding choice of candidate, having been born and bred in the East Gippsland area. He was born in Metung, where the Bull family’s Bulls Cruisers is a famous local business, and Tim has lived the rest of his life in the Bairnsdale area, where he has been heavily involved in community and sporting organisations. In fact, he is a talented footballer and cricketer in his own right. He has been a very passionate advocate for regional communities.
Tim successfully led a community campaign to establish the East Gippsland Specialist School in the Bairnsdale area. It has made an enormous difference to young children with special needs and their families in that area. Tim is personally devoted and committed to improving services for children with disabilities in our region. He is already working hard for our community and wants to take the next step to provide strong representation in state parliament.
Tim is actually the principal petitioner on an issue which is very important to me and to the wider Gippsland region and which is gaining a great deal of support in the electorate. It relates to the Princes Highway east of Sale and the need for additional funding to upgrade the safety of that stretch of road. It is one of the worst stretches of highway in Victoria. In fact, there have been 28 fatalities in the past six years. More money is needed for safety upgrades, and the petition, which I will be tabling in the coming weeks, calls on the federal government to include the highway east of Sale in the national road network. I will be strongly supporting Tim’s petition and will continue to lobby the government in the months ahead. I look forward to working with Tim as part of a very strong team in the Gippsland community to represent the interests of our region in the future.
Riverview residents are set to benefit from an additional pedestrian crossing over the Ipswich Motorway following breakthrough changes to the project design. The addition of a pedestrian bridge at Tessman Street follows a recent review of design and access requirements, which means that the bridge can now feature both stairs and ramps.
Cross-motorway connectivity is a key aim of the multibillion-dollar Ipswich Motorway upgrade, which is being fully funded by the Rudd Labor government and constructed by the Origin Alliance. I said, with the state member for Bundamba, Jo-Ann Miller, that this is a win for the local community. I want to congratulate the local community, particularly Terry Murphy, who in an email today said, ‘Thank you very much, Shayne, for what you have done in relation to the issue.’ He said:
We will be very happy and safer walkers in this community now.
That is absolutely correct because not only will there be new vehicular and pedestrian connections in Endeavour Road but a new pedestrian bridge at Tessman Street will give residents another option, particularly those using Riverview train station. This is a great win for the local community. The Tessman Street bridge is expected to be finished in line with the project’s planned completion date at the end of 2012. It is another feature which will help transform the Ipswich Motorway into something of which we can be very proud. Congratulations to the Riverview community for their advocacy.
I rise to express my concern with regard to the areas for further assessment announced recently by Minister Garrett. Communities from Hat Head to Brooms Head in my electorate could be decimated if this assessment process is poorly conducted. Sadly, this government has a very poor record when it comes to the implementation of programs and program delivery.
Coastal communities are very concerned for their future. They are very concerned about a future that may largely exclude fishing. The management of Commonwealth waters needs to be done in a way which balances the needs of environmental sustainability with the needs of economic sustainability. That is why I have launched a petition. We have seen an overwhelming response to that petition, with over 3,000 signatures already collected. The petition calls on this House to take into account the economic needs of communities as well as the need for an excellent environment. I have certainly had a great response to it. The petition was launched at the South West Rocks Country Club and at the Coffs Harbour Deep Sea Fishing Club. We have also had another launch in Maclean.
Both fish co-ops and recreational fishers are greatly concerned at the potential that their livelihoods may be decimated. Also, the owners of accommodation fear that the loss of fishing may mean the loss of future potential tenants. In many small communities, tourists come to fish. The decimation of the ability to fish could mean the economic decimation of many small communities. (Time expired)
I am thrilled to be able to speak in this place about a rare being indeed: a modern-day Arctic explorer, Tom Smitheringale, who calls Fremantle home. On 26 February 2010, Tom embarked on a solo unsupported trek to the North Pole, a feat only achieved by two people in the history of polar exploration. Setting out from McClintock Inlet at the top of Canada, Tom battled blizzards, bears and broken ice as he attempted to cover 800 kilometres in less than two months. This time Tom, an experienced extreme adventure racer and veteran of the British Army, fell short of his mission. After struggling for several days with frostbite on his extremities, he fell through the ice, suffered severe hypothermia and was rescued by the Canadian military.
Tom is now home in Fremantle recuperating and planning his next adventure. Tom said to me, during a meeting at a favourite Fremantle cafe last week, ‘Getting there was always optional; getting back was mandatory.’ Certainly Tom has long dreamed of adventuring, but the recent effort also aimed to raise funds for the Burnet Institute, an Australian organisation which focuses on curing and preventing the spread of some of the world’s worst infectious diseases. Only a month since his return, Tom is busy planning his next mission, while also visiting schoolchildren throughout Fremantle to share his experience. He says: ‘Unlike adults, they never ask why.’ Most important to Tom is instilling in his young admirers a buoyant self-belief and passion for the myriad possibilities in life. As Helen Keller said in Let Us Have Faith: ‘Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.’
Last Thursday evening I had the pleasure of presenting awards to some fantastic young people at the Association for the Blind of WA-Guide Dogs WA 2010 awards ceremony in Victoria Park. I must thank Dr Margaret Crowley for the invite and also make a special thanks to Justin Cox and his mother, Sue Green, who met me at the front entrance when I arrived.
I was invited to speak to the audience about the importance of believing in yourself and how vital it is to set big goals and refuse to accept limitations. It was humbling and inspiring to see that so many in the audience had already achieved those goals. Ryan Honschooten was the MC and the audience enjoyed hearing from Ann Barton, the daughter of Angus Stewart, whom several of the awards are named after.
Two of my constituents received awards, and I want to make a special mention of them. Kelsey Allen of Victoria Park was runner-up in the Angus Stewart Achievement Award and was awarded the Ida Lloyd Fellowship. Kelsey received the awards because of her achievements in the academic and musical arenas. The awards will assist her with music lessons at the University of WA. I was also pleased to present Sagar Verma of Cannington with the Fred and Lorna Craggs Award. This award will allow Sagar to attend Central TAFE and help equip him with vocational skills. Congratulations to all the award winners—they are worthy recipients. They are: Monika Volpi, Kylie Forth, Thanh Tu, Rachel Savage, Davinia Lefroy, Claire McGlew, Fletcher Boyd, Jayde Abbott, Luke Scott, Nick Hosking, Savannah Boyd and Justin Cox. It would be a great honour to be able to attend this ceremony again in two years. (Time expired)
On 16 May 2010, I was pleased to officially open the Scenic Rim Community Hydrotherapy and Health Management Complex. It is a fantastic initiative and I congratulate the whole Boonah community. I was present with Labor candidate Andrew Ramsay and his wife, Trish, and it was a pleasure to be there. This project is an initiative of the Boonah Shire Disability Support Group, a volunteer community agency performing a wonderful service to the Boonah district. The pool will include top-class facilities, providing a number of people with wonderful support. I look forward to the day when the Ipswich Jets and the Brisbane Broncos go to Boonah to stay for the weekend and enjoy the wonderful facilities. The complex will offer age and disability assistance. It is centrally located in Coronation Park and will be very beneficial for people requiring physiotherapy post surgery and for people with sports injuries.
The Rudd Labor government has committed $480,000 to the project through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The total cost of this program is over $1 billion. The facility will have year-round use, including learn-to-swim classes for youngsters, and will attract health professionals to the Boonah shire. Forty jobs were created as a result of the initiative. We are determined to provide for local communities.
As I announced at the venue, the claims by the LNP that the Boonah Hospital is to close are simply nonsense and rubbish. Labor is committing enormous funding to regional communities in terms of health. (Time expired)
Probably no aspect of the federal budget has been the subject of more unanimous criticism than the lack of attention to funding mental health services. Right at the local level, in my electorate of Wentworth, one of the most beautiful parts of our electorate is also one of the most tragic and is another demonstration of the Rudd government’s failure to properly fund mental health services. The Gap, overlooking the Pacific Ocean and South Head, is a beautiful spot but also a tragic one. I use the word ‘tragic’ advisedly—it is a popular place to commit suicide. Thousands of people go past the Gap every day as tourists, little knowing that dozens every year use it as a place to take their own lives.
Woollahra council has a plan to install proper fencing, cameras and lighting and provide telephone lines to provide help for people contemplating taking their own lives. This needs funding from the federal government—$2.1 million could save countless lives. The Rudd government’s refusal to fund this important, life-saving infrastructure is a demonstration at the grassroots level of a serious neglect of mental health services.
Order! In accordance with standing order 192A the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Morrison:
That the House:
Sydney airport is vital economic infrastructure for Australia, for Sydney and, more importantly and specifically, for the Sutherland Shire, supporting thousands of local jobs. The long-term operating plan for Sydney airport, also known as LTOP, was an election commitment that the Howard government took to the 1996 election. It involves the principle of sharing aircraft noise around all areas surrounding Sydney airport, using different combinations of runway modes. Subject to safety and weather considerations, LTOP seeks to maximise the number of flights over water and non-residential areas. Within LTOP there are specific targets for the percentage of flights to be routed from and to the south—around 55 per cent—and equally from the east, the west and the north. The assumption is that flights to the south are over water—but, as those at Kurnell would know, those flights are over their places. It is also implicit in the assumption that 55 per cent of flights to the south are over water that the flight path predominantly used, other than for planes that come in directly over Kurnell, will be over water.
A key component of the plan to achieve this objective was the way in which flights are intended to track when landing from the south. Approaching from the north, they are intended to track east of the airport—out to sea, off the coast—before looping around and landing from the south along the two parallel runways. On this route they do substantively travel over water. LTOP became a legal obligation for Airservices Australia when it was made the subject of a ministerial directive referred to in a motion by the then transport Minister John Sharp in 1997. Following the last election an announcement was made by Sydney airport that construction works were required at the western end of the east-west runway to erect a jet blast barrier. These were important and necessary safety works. Following consultation and approval by the minister for transport, requiring a series of worthy safeguards for the project, the project was agreed to and allowed to proceed.
A key element of the approval was to ensure a fair sharing of aircraft noise during the construction phase due to the restricted use of the east-west runway. An environmental impact statement was also done as part of this process. The project got underway in the latter part of 2008 with the goodwill of the communities that would be affected. For shire residents, a key issue was that the government should be held to the promise that—and I quote from the Sydney airport release—‘as soon as the construction is complete, normal airport operations and noise-sharing arrangements will resume’. As the project proceeded, many residents from Kareela and the nearby suburbs of Sylvania, Jannali, Miranda, Gymea Bay and Grays Point contacted me to register their opposition to the increase in aircraft noise over their homes. I raised this issue with Airservices Australia and they told me that these flights were normal and not subject to any LTOP obligations. That was plainly not true. They were definitely subject to LTOP obligations, as required over many years.
The publication of operational statistics for Sydney airport told me a very different story to the one initially presented by Airservices Australia. It showed that there was a direct concentration of flights over the area that was affected and from which the complaints were originating. The increased noise was the result of the increased use of a standard arrival route known as Boree 4. It showed that there had been an increase in the concentration of flights on that route from 2.8 per cent of arrivals to 7.8 per cent of total arrivals in just a 12-month period. I call it ‘Labor’s highway in the sky’. Once again, this route applies to landing from the south but, rather than going to the east of the airport and out to sea, the planes are flying directly through the member for Lowe’s electorate, right down through the member for Watson’s electorate and the member for Barton’s electorate and across my electorate in the shire. They are supposed to be flying over those areas at a height of 6,000 feet before looping around and landing from the south. The problem with this approach is not only that it is against the principles of LTOP—which were put in place and which this motion seeks to have applied—but also that there has been a constant struggle to ensure the community gets access to information about what they know to be really happening on the ground.
These flights arrive during the early part of the morning, particularly in the curfew shoulder period and between six and seven. What we have been able to establish through the Sydney Airport Community Forum is that not only has this been happening, and it has been a real experience, but also, since the construction project that was blamed for the increase in noise has been completed, the noise continues. So we have been asked to ensure that the government provide the information that will confirm what people know on the ground: this flight noise is continuing because the government has not changed the flight paths back to normal, as was suggested, and the community is calling on them to do just that—to return aircraft operations at Sydney Airport to normal, as promised.
I thank the member for Cook, through his motion this evening, for the opportunity to discuss the issue and the history of aircraft noise arising from Sydney Airport. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I have been campaigning long and loud for fair aircraft noise sharing for more than a decade in this place and also at the Sydney Airport Community Forum. I am somewhat astounded, astonished and amazed that the opposition would raise this issue, in light of the Howard government’s appalling 11½-year record of failing to address the concerns of the people I represent to the north of the airport. I make the point that the Howard government did very little to get Airservices Australia to fully implement the long-term operating plan.
I accept that the member for Cook was not here in the period during which I raised issues with the former government, so I will go over some of the history. I have prosecuted the case for many years on behalf of my constituents, both here and at SACF, as I said. Through all that time, the Howard government threw sand in my eyes. I remember well asking the then Deputy Prime Minister and minister for transport, John Anderson, hundreds of questions about the failure of Airservices Australia to meet the 17 per cent target of aircraft movements to and from the north of Sydney Airport. Mr Anderson eventually refused to answer my questions and arrogantly dismissed me and my constituents with the line, ‘The LTOP has been substantially implemented.’
The arrogance of the former, Howard government on this issue does not end there. The Howard government’s indifference to my constituents was plain for all to see when it sold its soul on this issue by selling the airport to the Southern Cross consortium, which included Macquarie Bank. The government sold the airport without community consultation and without requiring the 17 per cent movement target to the north to be met. Moreover, the Howard government claimed Sydney would not need a second airport for at least 20 years and approved the master plan for Kingsford Smith airport which has allowed substantial expansion of activity at the airport.
However, I can assure my constituents that the current minister for transport, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, has already established a joint planning task force with the New South Wales government to search for an appropriate site for a second airport and that it received $8.5 million in this year’s federal budget. I am also pleased to report, as the member for Cook knows, that Minister Albanese attended the Sydney Airport Community Forum last Friday and pointed out that the most recent figures from Airservices Australia show that aircraft movements to the north of the airport are the lowest they have been since the LTOP was introduced. In addition, I am pleased to report that the minister has reaffirmed our commitment to maintaining the curfew and cap on aircraft movements, ensuring respite for noise-affected residents. Furthermore, the minister has announced that older and noisier jet aircraft will be banned from Sydney Airport from 1 September, including the noisy Boeing 727 freight plane that currently flies over thousands of Sydney homes late on weeknights. The minister has also announced the establishment of an aircraft noise ombudsman to give residents more than an automated voice recording to lodge a complaint, and to improve the dissemination of information. My local community campaigned on this very issue, and I thank the minister for listening to their call.
It is also very important to note, particularly for the member for Cook, that the Sydney Airport Community Forum will be retained, because our government recognises the importance of community consultation. These measures highlight the fact that the minister and the government are serious about the concerns of aircraft noise affected residents and are acting to minimise the impact on our community. Minister Albanese, unlike former Howard transport ministers, is making a real difference.
I am very pleased with the actions of our government to minimise aircraft noise at Sydney Airport, particularly in light of the unforeseen closure of the east-west runway announced only days after the last federal election. It is timely to record at this point and to the House that before the last federal election the Howard government concealed its negotiations with Sydney Airport to close the east-west runway for the safety upgrade that the member for Cook talked about. He did not mention that first part. Due to the closure of the east-west runway, flight paths as prescribed in the LTOP were necessarily restricted. However, since the recent completion of the RESA project and the reopening of the east-west runway I have had feedback from constituents, and this improvement has been noticed and appreciated, as supported by Airservices statistics. I will, however, be campaigning to monitor closely the continued movements of flight paths over my electorate. (Time expired)
I am delighted to rise in support of the member for Cook’s motion today. Residents of Wentworth took on substantially increased aircraft noise in 1996, when the Sydney Airport Long Term Operational Plan, or LTOP, was established. As a consequence of the LTOP, Wentworth residents received two new departure flight paths and about 30 per cent of all take-offs.
In mid-2008, at the Sydney Airport Community Forum, my office was advised by Airservices Australia that in order to undertake runway upgrades—known at the Runway End Safety Area—Airservices Australia would implement from late 2008 a new runway configuration. Known as mode 15, this configuration directed increased departures over suburbs in Wentworth. However, we were assured that mode 15 would only be used for the specific period of the Runway End Safety Area works, and would then be discontinued.
It was with alarm that residents in my electorate read recently in both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Wentworth Courier that mode 15 could potentially be reintroduced. Last Friday, the minister for transport, Mr Albanese, announced at the Sydney Airport Community Forum that the mode 15 option remains on the table. This is not what we were told in mid-2008. It is very disappointing, considering our community’s preparedness to accept increased levels of noise during the airport upgrades. Mode 15 does not meet the objectives of the 1996 LTOP and the principle of fair and equitable noise sharing. I have written to the minister requesting that he clarify, as a matter of urgency, this position on the continued use of mode 15.
There were further concerns at the same Sydney Airport Community Forum last Friday. Members were given a brief presentation by Airservices Australia on new technology soon to be introduced to Sydney Airport. This system, called required navigation performance, has the potential to channel aircraft down corridors as narrow as 30 metres wide and to concentrate noise over a fewer number of flight paths than currently exist. A study is to begin into the environmental and noise implications of this technology; but, alarmingly, the recommendations will be the culmination of the findings across 28 airports in Australia and will not exclusively address the unique situation of Sydney Airport. No other airport in Australia confronts the same problems of aircraft noise as Sydney, with such a high density of residential development in such close proximity and the sheer numbers of commercial aircraft movements. At the meeting, the minister called for a cooperative approach to aircraft noise problems at Sydney Airport. If that is the case, this is not the approach he needs to employ. He needs to start listening to potentially affected residents and to those who represent them.
This brings me to my last point: the position of Aviation Community Advocate. If the government wanted to ensure that the interests of residents affected by aircraft noise in Sydney were given due consideration, then the single most useful thing it could do would be to reinstate the position of Aviation Community Advocate. The myriad issues arising from the operation of an airport are complex and are getting even more complex. It is unreasonable to expect any single member of the Sydney Airport Community Forum to be able to locate, monitor and research the reams of information that the operation of an airport of the magnitude of Sydney generates and to then evaluate in a timely manner the impact on local communities and to engage directly with the local communities. That is truly a full-time job, and correctly it is the role of the Aviation Community Advocate, a role the current minister sees little benefit in maintaining. He argues that no other airport has an aviation community advocate and that there are no funds available. Well, there is $1.6 million remaining from the airport noise levy program, funds which should continue to be used for the mitigation of airport noise. The role of the Aviation Community Advocate is in substantial measure devoted to reducing the impact of aircraft noise on residents, and these remaining funds should be released to reinstate immediately this vital position.
It gives me great pleasure to get up and speak once again about airports and airport issues in Australia, especially because I have an airport in the middle of my electorate of Hindmarsh. In the case of Adelaide Airport and the residents of Hindmarsh, no matter where the flight paths change, how they change or what diversions are made, every single plane that lands at Adelaide Airport is at such a point that there is no diversion from the flight path because Adelaide Airport is situated in the middle of the electorate. Therefore, by the time they reach my electorate, they are actually landing. I have said in this place many times that the residents of Hindmarsh—in suburbs like Mile End, Richmond, Cowandilla, Glenelg North, West Beach and Henley Beach—can stand on their roofs and tickle the tummies of the airplanes as they go over their houses.
It is interesting to hear the members opposite and to hear the member for Cook, who obviously was not here in the last parliament, speak on this issue. On many occasions I raised the issue through questions on notice to the previous government and through letters to the then minister about an airport ombudsman. In fact, I moved two private member’s bills during the last parliament and on each occasion they were not raised within the federal parliament. They fell on the deaf ears of the former government. So I was very pleased when last year the aviation white paper was released under the Labor Rudd government and it included the establishment of an aircraft noise ombudsman. As I said, in opposition I moved a private member’s motion twice and twice it fell on deaf ears.
The white paper states the aircraft noise ombudsman is to be established in Airservices Australia to:
This is real action that has been taken by this government not only for the residents in my electorate but also for residents all over Australia. This is real action that will ensure residents have an independent voice. They will have an independent say through an independent body that is not related or governed by the government or by Airservices Australia. It will look at issues independently and come out with particular findings.
I was also very pleased that in the white paper the curfews that are currently operating around Australia are enshrined and that we have ensured that they will remain to ensure there is some stability in terms of noise around the country where residents live under the flight path and that there will be no change, especially to the Adelaide Airport curfew. We recently heard of the diversion of a Qantas plane that was flying from Canberra to Adelaide. It had to be diverted back to Canberra because approximately 10 to 15 minutes out of Adelaide the pilots asked for dispensation. The following day we had a whole range of people speaking out, including Michael Pengilly from the Liberal Party, who went on radio and said he wanted to get rid of the curfew. The Leader of the Opposition into South Australia, Isobel Redmond, said that we should look at the curfew and perhaps change the laws that exist. Here are people who have no understanding of what it is like to live under a flight path. They have absolutely no understanding of what it is like to hear jets go over your roof on a constant basis. I have lived under the flight path all of my life; I was born under the flight path. For many years we would run out to the front yard to see the planes that would fly over into Adelaide two or three times a week. Now they fly over two to three times every hour.
So I have to say that there have been some achievements under the Rudd Labor government. There was also the issue of banning noisy aircraft in and around Australia, and an announcement was made recently that from 1 July 2010 no new services using old, noisy freight jets will be allowed at Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, Cairns, Gold Coast, Essendon, Newcastle (Williamtown), Avalon and Canberra airports, and from 1 September 2010 all existing services will cease at the Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth airports. This course of action was first foreshadowed in the aviation green paper in December 2008 under the Rudd Labor government and then restated as government policy in the aviation white paper. (Time expired)
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Georganas:
That the House:
I rise to draw to the attention of the House the importance of acknowledging the contributions of Australian, New Zealand, British and Greek soldiers and Greek civilians in the defence of Crete against the 20 May 1941 invasion in World War II. Only a few days ago the commemoration of that particular date was celebrated in Greece, and it will be celebrated this weekend here in Canberra. Also in this motion I call for an annual commemoration of the Battle of Crete within Australia as an event of national significance and to encourage reflection on the shared experiences of Australian diggers and Greeks through the Battle of Crete, the bond that was forged between our two nations in a time of war and the evolution of remarkable Australian-Greek relations after the war and continuing to this day.
I know, Deputy Speaker Scott, you were Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and visited Crete for the commemoration of these celebrations at the Rethymnon war memorial for the Australian diggers who lost their lives in Crete. While Gallipoli is an extremely important part of our national heritage and we all acknowledge the emphasis placed on it, especially on national days of commemoration, it can sometimes eclipse equally significant though lesser-known battles where the Anzac spirit shone no less brightly. I feel the time is right for some of those other stories to share the limelight. The story of the Battle of Crete, in which Australian soldiers, Greek civilians and allied troops fought shoulder to shoulder against the Nazi invasion, is one such story that deserves our remembrance on an annual basis in Australia as an event of national significance.
The extraordinary story of the Battle of Crete begins on 20 May 1941. Three weeks after the Nazi forces had captured mainland Greece, Crete was the last frontier for the German forces in Greece and they spared no expense in launching the biggest German airborne operation of the war. As more than 8,000 Nazi troops parachuted out of the sky, 4,000 were killed or wounded as a result of the allied effort. But over time the Nazis increased their stronghold in the west and the balance of the war tipped towards a less certain victory for the allied troops.
The battle was significant on a number of fronts, but the civil resistance by the local Greek population was in itself highly significant in the spirit of resistance to the Nazi domination and in the bond that was forged between the peoples of Greece and Australia. Local men and women and even children became involved in the battle proper, but when the allied withdrawal commenced and the many thousands of troops were scrambling to evade capture the local population put itself at extreme risk by assisting allied forces and Australian soldiers who were left behind. It is my belief that through this period of adversity a bond was formed between the peoples of Greece and Australia.
Many Australian soldiers were left behind and they were harboured by the local villagers. For every Australian soldier who was caught by the Nazis, whole Greek villages were executed in response, to send the message that this was not on for the Nazis. But this did not stop the local Greek community. They continued to harbour Australians and others from the allied forces to ensure their safety and that resistance continued. We know that a bond was forged between the peoples of Greece and Australia through a shared desire to prevail against an invading Nazi force that proved to be a disaster for the local population. Today in Australia, with thousands of Greeks and Cretans still remembering the battle at home and abroad, they and their relatives, together with all Australians, can be proud of what they together fought for and against.
I am pleased to see that today we have bipartisan support for this motion from the member for Cowan and the member for New England. I think that shows the breadth of support in the wider community for substantial recognition of the contributions of all those involved—all those Aussie diggers and Greek resistance fighters in the Battle of Crete. I also acknowledge the member for Calwell’s support for the motion, as I said, and I know that as a person with close ties to Cretan Australians she is very much aware of the need for proper recognition of the unique relationship we share with Greeks in Australia. I hope that, along with all of them, all Australians continue to acknowledge the important contribution of the Australian defence forces, the Greek soldiers and the Greek civilians in the defence of Crete against the 20 May 1941 German invasion. I hope we also continue the annual commemoration of the Battle of Crete within Australia as an event of national significance and encourage the reflection of the shared experiences of Australians and Greek nationals through the Battle of Crete, the bond forged between our two nations in a time of war and the evolution of Australian-Greek relations in the post-war period. (Time expired)
I rise to join the member for Hindmarsh in support of this motion on the Battle of Crete. It was on 20 May 1941 that the battle for Crete began. If you look back at the circumstances at the time, what we knew was that the British had naval superiority most of the time in the Mediterranean and the Germans had air superiority. It was always going to be the case that the German invasion, once accepted by Hitler, was going to occur via air. The Germans knew that they had a limited period of time to capture Crete, because they knew there was going to be the invasion of Russia from 22 June 1941.
The Allied forces were really up against it during this battle. They had lost most of their heavy equipment when Greece itself had fallen. They had quite a few soldiers there but their equipment was not that great. They did not have that many artillery pieces, the tanks were worn out and not in particularly good shape, and even the Matilda tanks, with 40-pound shells, were not suited to antipersonnel fighting. The Germans were also very susceptible through certain weaknesses in their plan. The German paratroopers would parachute out with nothing more than pistol grenades and a knife. Their rifle would go in a different canister, and that could land hundreds of metres away. Even the way the parachutes functioned was a major problem for them—they could not steer them towards where their main weapons were.
It is no wonder that the quite decent defences put in by General Freyberg, the New Zealand general, made it very dangerous for the paratroopers who came in. That is why we hear these stories of 400 out of 600 German paratroopers being killed very early on in the battle. Most of the German casualties did seem to happen on the first day. There was even a reported case of an elderly Cretan civilian actually beating to death with his walking stick a German paratrooper. This really highlights the ferocity and the determination of the Cretan people in the defence of their island. The Germans had really made a mistake when they thought that the republican movement on the island of Crete was somehow going to be in support of the Germans as opposed to the King of Greece at the time. In actual fact, the Cretans did object to the invasion and they fought very hard. They paid a high price, as well.
On the morning of the second day, 21 May, there was an error of judgment in an infantry unit, and one of the commonwealth units withdrew from Hill 107, which then gave the Germans the opportunity to take the main airfield on Crete, the Maleme airfield. After that, the Germans were then able to reinforce with heavier weapons and more soldiers. For the next six days after that, the Allies kept on facing fresher and better armed troops. By 27 May, the British command in London decided that a withdrawal would take place.
The highlight of the battle for Crete was without doubt the ferocity and the determination of the Cretan resistance. As I said, they paid a very high price for it. The Germans lost just over 6,500 soldiers killed or wounded. It should also be remembered that over the course of the war 6,593 Cretan men, 1,100 Cretan women and almost 900 Cretan children were killed by the Germans. The price of liberty can be very expensive. I pay tribute to the Cretan people and all those who fought in the Battle of Crete.
I rise to congratulate the member for Hindmarsh on this very timely motion, which draws to the House’s attention the recent 69th anniversary of the Battle of Crete. The anniversary commemorates the heroic efforts of the Australian Defence Force and the local Cretan community in defending the island from German invasion in this historical significant battle, which began on 20 May 1941. The battle took place three weeks after the Allies lost mainland Greece and consisted of Allied forces made up of three British battalions, two New Zealand brigades, eight Greek battalions and six Australian battalions. After one day of fighting, the Germans had suffered—as has been said—appalling casualties. The next day, events turned and the Maleme airfield in western Crete fell to the Germans, enabling them to fly in reinforcements and overwhelm the defenders.
The Battle of Crete is documented as an unprecedented battle in three respects. It was the first mainly airborne invasion, it was the first time that the Allies made significant use of intelligence from the deciphered German Enigma code and it was the first time that invading German troops encountered mass resistance from a civilian population. During the battle, the Greeks and Australians sacrificed much and suffered terribly in unison and side by side in their defence of the island. The loss endured by the local population and the gallantry of the soldiers is something that has forged an eternal bond between our two countries.
Australian authors Dr Maria Hill and Peter Thompson, in their respective books Diggers and Greeks and Anzac Fury, point to the terrible price the Greek people paid for their support of and sympathy with the soldiers. It is well documented that after the defeat thousands of Allied troops were scrambling to avoid being captured. The Cretans risked all to hide, feed and look after the Australians left behind, particularly in the face of German reprisals. Perhaps it was the exposure to the horrors of the Nazi occupation or the unbreakable bond that can only be forged between people in times of war through which the relationship between Australia and Greece was tempered and strengthened. The courage shown by the Australians and Greeks is commemorated annually at many ceremonies around Australia, including my home state of Victoria.
In 2006, I was part of an Australian delegation that visited Crete, and I had the very special opportunity to meet a wonderful man, Mr Marcos Polioudakis, who, until his death a couple of years ago, was a tireless advocate of the need to elevate the Battle of Crete to an event of national significance. Marcos was more than an advocate for the cause that this motion speaks to. He dedicated his entire adult life to preserving and documenting every bit of information and memorabilia he could get his hands on that related to the local Cretans and to the Anzacs, producing a three-volume account of the Battle of Crete. The books are written in the Greek language. What a valuable addition to this nation’s war history it would be if these significant firsthand accounts could be translated into the English language. It certainly Marcos’s desire that this happen.
It was also Marcos’s desire to see a number of other happens. I remember having lunch with him in Crete together with the member for Indi. We were both very much impressed by the energy and passion of this man, who was born in Rethymnon in 1928 and was just 13 years old on 20 May 1941, the day ‘the Germans fell out of the sky’, as he put it. Those dramatic days were a nightmare for young Marcos and they left a lasting mark on him. His father was executed on 1 June by the German paratroopers for having taken part in the Battle of Stavromenos and his grandmother was killed on 3 June during an altercation with a German paratrooper, as was his grandfather, who sought to intervene and help his wife.
Marcos is credited with being instrumental in developing the Greek-Australian relationship and friendship. He was president of the committee that oversaw the dedication of the memorial for Greek and Australian soldiers in Rethymno. Marcos made it his life’s work to research and collect documents and material pertaining to the Battle of Crete. He felt that its importance, and the bravery and sacrifices of the locals, had been somewhat overlooked.
Marcos’s activities brought him to Australia on two occasions, and he was awarded the Order of Australia for his efforts. He was immensely proud of this award, and he genuinely loved Australia. We are, as he said, forever bonded to each other because of those events in Crete in 1941. I certainly feel honoured to have met him. I want to pay tribute to him this evening and to support the motion’s call for the commemoration of the Battle of Crete to be an event of national significance here in Australia. I am sure Marcos would have wanted this and I am sure that this chamber would also want this.
It is with pleasure that I support this motion, and I congratulate the member for Hindmarsh and the others who have spoken. The tragedies that occurred in the campaign for Crete were something that most, if not all, of us would support being recognised as a day of national celebration. It is definitely something that has brought the people of our two countries much closer together. The sacrifices that the Cretans and the Greek community made during that campaign and in other campaigns were quite incredible. The loss of women and children, as well as men, from the various communities and villages that protected people is something that we should never forget and is something that has created a very firm bond between peoples on different sides of the world.
The major reason that I want to speak on this motion is to recognise a former parliamentarian who has died but who served Australia in a number of theatres of war. He was in North Africa, Greece and Crete and had a couple of stints in New Guinea. He was one of four young Australian officers that were awarded the DSO during the Second World War. His name was Noel Park and he was the National Party member for Tamworth prior to my becoming involved in politics in 1991.
Noel Park served for 17 years as the member for Tamworth and gave extraordinary service to that community. But one of the things that he never forgot and that he talked about often was the way in which the people of Crete and the Greek community generally treated him and others. He was captured by the Germans and installed in a prison camp for a short time before escaping with others. He was protected by various villagers and community people and lived in a cave for a while. Subsequently, he took a boat with some others and was bombed by the British. The bombs did not go off, apparently. He was also bombed by the Germans and one of his party was injured. He subsequently made his way across to North Africa and, obviously, escaped. He went on to great service in other theatres of war and was injured twice in New Guinea. As I said earlier, he spoke very highly of the Cretan people and how they were quite prepared to sacrifice their lives for the people who were there to fight for them. To the day he died, one of his great memories was the way in which those people looked after him and others, and the story of his escape is one of real heroism.
So I pay tribute to Noel Ernest Park. He, above all people who have come from my electorate, would want to see this motion endorsed by the parliament, would want to see a commemoration take place and would want to see that the Greek people and the people of Crete are recognised and remembered for what they did for Australians. If they had not done that service for Noel Park, he would never have had the capacity to serve his community as a member of parliament and do so in the fashion that he did. His wife, June, is still with us, and I am sure that on his behalf she would ask that this motion be endorsed. (Time expired)
The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
On 17 November last year I reported to the parliament my concerns about a debt tsunami raging across my electorate. After 10 years of drought and drastic water shortages for irrigators, the impact is devastating. Six months have rolled on since then, and still the tsunami rages. The resolution I am putting for consideration today requests some support from members towards putting proper protocols in place for commercial lending. We have very good protocols in place for mortgage lending. That comes from the fact that Australians take great pride in having a home, and we need to make sure that if they get into trouble they are treated properly. Primary producers, particularly, live on their farm; it is their home. Some of these impacts, of course affect other businesses as well as primary industry, but I am particularly focused on the primary production sector here with this resolution.
One of the things I have noticed is that many of my constituents have interests on both sides of the river—my constituency in Victoria and over the river in New South Wales, particularly in the electorate of the member for Farrer. In New South Wales, state legislation exists that requires compulsory mediation when a borrower gets into trouble. This forces both parties to sit down together in a non-adversarial environment. It is very good for borrowers, because sometimes they are in denial about how much difficulty they are in. It encourages them to come to grips with the shocking reality that they may lose their farm. It is working very well in New South Wales, and Queensland has similar legislation. In Victoria and South Australia it does not exist, but I think it is prudent. The banks I have had discussions with do not necessarily like it, but they would not create a fuss if the arrangements that exist in New South Wales and Queensland existed in Victoria and South Australia, which is where I am hoping this resolution takes us as a chamber.
The Commonwealth cannot implement any necessary legislation, because we only have corporate powers, and most farming operations are family partnerships and conventional business arrangements. It is necessary for the states of Victoria and South Australia to initiate legislation—it is a very simple thing to do—to mirror the New South Wales model. I am hoping that government members who might speak on this would lend their support to encourage a discussion through COAG to have the legislation that exists in New South Wales mirrored in Victoria.
Sadly, I have seen some very bad examples of how lenders can behave. Sometimes they are led to frustration because borrowers are in denial and are putting the correspondence they are receiving on top of the fridge, hoping it might go away. The tragedy is that it will not; it needs to be addressed. We have put rural counsellors in place right across rural Australia to assist. A debt mediation process would make the process much more dignified, particularly for the borrower.
I have spent the last 16 years of my career in this place standing in the breach to provide moral support to my constituents. There is a new case two or three times a week of people pleading with me just to stand with them for moral support. Some of them have been subjected to some very unsavoury practices by lenders. I am not a bank basher. We need the banking industry to be there so we can have productive growth for the nation; all I say to the banks is that there is a much better way than to force the legal process to mortgagee in possession and fire sales that sell up farming properties. It is like a treadmill when there is a fire sale to sell a farm at just enough for the bank or the lender to get the money that they need—I have had some shocking examples.
But over all that time I have put together a list of the good guys. I have a particularly good working relationship with the ANZ and a particularly good working relationship with Westpac, both of which behave as honourably as they can while making the point, and rightly so, that they are entitled to have the money that has been borrowed repaid. I say to them, ‘Yes, that’s true if there is a default—at a commercial interest rate but without an exorbitant penalty rate.’ Those two lenders behave with consideration and address the resolution of the difficulty with a kind of commercial reality.
I have a provisional list and currently I have disputes raging with the National Australia Bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Suncorp Metway. They are not on my bad guys list, subject to them hearing my message and my plea to treat my constituents with dignity. In that contribution on 19 November, I warned these lenders: ‘If you treat my people badly, it’s the same as treating me badly.’ I warned them I would name and shame them in this place if I saw an example of what I dealt with that day in November.
The people who win the prize for the bad dude lenders in the nation are Rural Bank of Australia. This bank has emerged from what was Elders bank. It is now 60 per cent owned by Bendigo Bank, which is a community bank owned by its depositors—
I’ve got one!
Yes, we all have them now. And 40 per cent is owned by Elders themselves. There was a very bad example of absolute brutality and bullying of a constituent of mine, whose name I will protect—I do not want them exposed. I have to say that this bank has a mortgage collection officer whose name is Malcolm Sparrow, who is the worst piece of work I have ever struck. I have had 17 years of association with this dilemma and he is the worst person I have ever struck. I will never forgive him for what he has done to my constituents. I drove 15 hours out of my way to meet up with him and the CEO of Rural Bank. I drove all the way to Murray Bridge and spent the whole day there to plead with them that there was a better way to resolve the difficulty—for them to get their money but leave my constituent with some capacity to retain a small amount of equity he had in the property. But, no, this bank knew better. It ignored my advice. I express my absolute disappointment in the CEO, a man by the name of Paul Hutchinson, who was impotent in bringing Malcolm Sparrow under control.
What this bank did was use a shelf company that my constituent had there for future use. It was a proprietary limited company and was not even trading, and yet they used that to get around the normal processes they have at their disposal through the court, and they appointed a liquidator. That property, a magnificent farming operation with a good crop on it last year and some rain, ended up being sold for half its commercial value, which leaves my constituent and his parents in a desperate situation and me with the problem of trying to get them some Centrelink support. I am not having that anymore. I am naming and shaming the Rural Bank of Australia.
I know they are busy. They have been extremely busy in the member for Barker’s electorate on the South Australian border outside my electorate, and I am advised that there are five cases where Malcolm Sparrow is using his bully tactics in the member for Farrer’s electorate. I warn him: if you try those tactics again in my constituency, I will tell the people of Australia that this is the worst bank of all to deal with. In all the time I have been in this place I have never used the power that the founding fathers gave us to use privilege, but Malcolm Sparrow is a piece of work. He is a man with no conscience. He is a man who has a vengeful attitude to the resolution of difficulties. My advice to Paul Hutchinson is to have him dismissed—to retire the man before he does any more emotional harm to my constituents or anybody else’s.
The other banks are on my provisional list and, if we can get through the current difficulties and they recognise their need to treat my constituents with dignity and behave honourably, I will put them back on the good guy list. But in the meantime it is provisional and I say all you lenders out there: if you treat my constituents badly, you may as well treat me badly. There is one thing that makes me angry—I think I am the most generous spirited of people; I hope I can get some agreement on that—and that is to see bullying, with big corporations crushing the little people under their ruthless heels. I have had enough of it.
I speak in general support of the sentiments that are driving this motion before us today and that I can see expressed in the motion put before this place by the honourable member for Mallee. Under the national credit reforms phase 2, it is the government’s intention to examine hardship procedures and options available to small business, including farmers. So some of what the honourable member for Mallee is putting forward today can be looked at in phase 2 of those national reforms, and that pleases me.
The honourable member and I have in the past had occasion to speak in agreement before the Main Committee on the issue of managed investment schemes, particularly on the inquiry and report that was tabled about how that was impacting on our respective electorates, because there are some similarities between them. We spoke in support of the impact it was having on the farming community—not just the farmers but also the broad farming community. We talked about the issues of regional royalties, local government involvement and a whole range of other issues, and that is still a work in progress with those respective communities. I put on record that the national laws around consumers in phase 1 have been about fairness—that is, making it fairer—for consumers. Consumers in the case that is before the House are farmers and the farming community—that is, the primary production community.
I turn to the issue of the four parts of the honourable member’s motion. I had a little bit of experience in the area when I was in legal practice. I was in a country legal practice and often used to deal with people from the primary production sector and from forestry. There were not as many laws then, but I acted as an advocate for them beyond being a legal advocate in relation particularly to the banks and the lenders and all the associated issues. Also, I was a member of the New South Wales rural authority, so I had some experience there. The honourable member would know at the New South Wales rural authority does. We used to have the rural banks, and he would remember that. So I have a bit of experience in that area, and, like the honourable member for Mallee, I get hot under the collar about lenders who lean on families, on farmers and on small people that do not have the capacity to fight back. Also, if they are experiencing financial hardship, they are already in trauma and then have to deal with the lenders, and being prevailed upon can make it extremely difficult for them.
On debt recovery itself, across the primary production sector, in the first part of the motion, the honourable member talks about the Australian economy and the consequence of more than seven years of drought. We know that the drought over the last number of years has had a really serious impact right across Australia, but that also brings its own attendant difficulties. I can also say that in my area there have been other climate change events, with floods and frosts and hail storms which have impacted as well. I did look at some figures from ABARE, and they talk about the debt-servicing ratio for horticultural farms—which I have a lot of in my area—being relatively low, at around 8 per cent in particular areas compared with 7 per cent in other areas for 2006-07. The honourable member talks about the need for debt recovery protocols in commercial lending similar to those that exist for mortgage lending, and I have some sympathy for that and would want to examine that more to make sure that we do not do anything that provides a negative impact.
As we know, some states and territories already provide such coverage for farmers who are in debt. In New South Wales, under the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994, a creditor must give at least 21 days notice to a farmer of intended enforcement action, and mediation is available under the act. I know that in Queensland there is a Hire-purchase Act. I do not know the situation in other jurisdictions, but that is certainly something we can build on. Under these laws, mediation and the temporary suspension of payments allow the borrower time to negotiate a change to their repayment obligations that will avoid or mitigate the risk of further default. But, again, it comes back to the person being in a position where they feel empowered enough to work through that process. Sometimes we need the advocate, and that is what the honourable member is obviously proposing here tonight for some particular constituents, whereas the motion goes to the general.
Also, with the Code of Banking Practice we know that lenders are subject to the Australian Bankers Association code, and once that is adopted by a bank it becomes a legally binding contract between the bank and its customers for which the institution has to be held accountable. We need to make sure that these codes are implemented. Also, under the consumer hardship provisions, I know that under state and territory regulation all lenders—all—have an obligation to consider an application by an eligible borrower who is experiencing financial hardship for a change in repayment arrangements such as making smaller regular repayments over a longer period of time. I can say to the honourable member for Mallee—and he would know about this—that this is sometimes difficult, again, for those borrowers to actually deal with and have enforced. For many lenders, this obligation is reinforced and extended under industry codes of practice. These are some of the areas that can be looked at again in that second phase that I talked about.
This year, in respect of financial hardship principles, the government requested that banks, credit unions and building societies in particular make a commitment to assist borrowers, and the Treasurer announced in June this year the sign-up of these financial institutions to the principles of a common approach for assisting borrowers facing financial hardship. They are important, and I will turn to (3) and (4) in the time I have remaining. The third principle says:
… supports the concept of compulsory debt mediation prior to lenders exercising their rights to pursue recovery through legal processes …
I do have some sympathy for that and, prima facie, it is something I want to support. Given some of the experiences I have had in this particular sector, I would say we would need to consider that carefully to make sure there is no perverse outcome. But prima facie I am attracted to it. The issue we would have to look at is that some lenders may be more reluctant to lend to farmers if the constraints on legal proceedings are too onerous. But, having said that, my sympathy is clearly with the farmers and the associated farming businesses.
I know that, with the debt mediation process in New South Wales, before a creditor can take possession of property there is a range of things that need to happen. I would also like to commend the work of our rural financial counsellors in debt mediation and debt agreement administration. I have not had an opportunity today to talk with my wonderful local rural financial counsellors and servers and get their take on the motion that is before the House. I have been in conversation with them over the time that I have been a member and they have been able to inform me broadly about extra things that need to happen. Thank you.
I rise tonight to speak on this motion in support of my colleague the member for Mallee. He has been a fierce advocate for the farmers in his electorate in what has been a very difficult seasonal decade in the Mallee area.
As a rural representative whose electorate’s new boundaries after the last redistribution now cover 40 per cent of New South Wales, I too have an interest in this motion. Largely because of the debt mediation legislation that New South Wales operates under, as a member I do not get the level of extreme cases and brinkmanship between banks and farmers that comes to the member for Mallee, but I am picking up an undertone. I have received some correspondence from some farmers in the Coolah area. They showed me the interest rates they have been paying over the past five or six years. Even with the record low rates of recent times, the minimum rate they paid was nine per cent and, on default, they paid up to 21 per cent—and that was recently. The member for Mallee mentioned that it seems rather perverse that the sector that is most under stress pays an exorbitant rate compared to regular mortgagee holders.
As a farmer myself for more than 30 years, I truly appreciate the relationship between a bank and a farm business. Indeed, I am extremely grateful for the relationship I have had with the different banks I have dealt with in my time before I came here. And while we should not single farmers out as being different to the rest of the community, one of the issues with farming businesses when they get into a tight financial spot is that it is not just about losing your job or about losing your business; it is about losing your home—and quite often there are several family members, mainly across several generations, who are impacted by this. So it is important that the banks, in relationship with farmers, foreclose as the very last resort. I also acknowledge the role of rural counsellors. Unfortunately, we have far too few rural counsellors, but they have done a mighty job over the past decade or so of keeping many businesses afloat and keeping that relationship and the lines of communication between lenders and farmers open.
One of the real problems we face, and in my electorate I do not think I am that far from the crisis that the member for Mallee is facing, is that the increase in property prices to a certain degree has masked an issue that is coming our way. Quite often many farmers are there because the increase in the price of their property has enabled them to stay there with their equity levels. But that is starting to run out and certainly farmers are making the decision now whether they should go. But the real tragedy of this is that it is not just the most inefficient or the poor farmers that get caught up in this level of debt; more often than not it can be the most innovative and quite often it is the youngest. The most vulnerable time for a family farm is during intergenerational change, where, because of the price of land, quite often large borrowings are undertaken to allow the next generation to continue on in the farming career. Once again, people outside farming might say, ‘Why should they be any different to anyone else?’ Farming is highly skilled and you need certain levels of motivation to undertake it as a career. We rely on farmers in this country and around the world. Australian farmers feed 70 million people around the world. If we do not do something soon to keep those younger farmers on the farms, we are going to have a crisis in Australia’s ability not only to feed itself but to feed countries around the world. (Time expired)
As we have heard, few in this parliament would know more about the reality of drought than the member for Mallee. His region has been living through the most severe and prolonged drought any of us can remember, and we have heard just some of the stories of hardship and distress that have come to him, as the local member, from farmers and their communities as they wonder how much longer they can keep going.
Tonight’s motion asks us to think about what these farmers are going through, particularly when it comes to the attitude and practices of lenders seeking to recover the debts accrued during the long years of drought that brought so much devastation to farming businesses. These debts are substantial. National Farmers Federation figures show that rural debt has increased by 85 per cent since 2002-03, and the debt-servicing ratio has followed a similar upward trend in that time. The NFF warns of the potential for regional land prices to fall should the banking sector withdraw its support of the agricultural sector and aggressively foreclose on rural debt. This was echoed by a farm management consultant in my electorate who said that lenders need to be careful that their actions to recover debt in a region do not drive down the equity of other landholders.
It appears that this caution is not always being heeded in Central Queensland. One grazier, an industry leader, told me that she is aware of instances in Central Queensland of banks being overly aggressive at present in their dealings with farmers. The solution the member for Mallee proposes in his motion is to introduce debt recovery protocols in commercial lending similar to those for mortgage lending and also to require compulsory debt mediation prior to lenders exercising their rights to pursue debt recovery through legal processes.
While the conditions applying to home mortgages may not always be suitable for the kind of debt arrangements farmers need to enter into, because of the differences in the amount of loans an income patterns, there are other measures that should protect farmers just like they protect other borrowers. State and territory regulations oblige lenders to consider an application by an eligible borrower who is experiencing financial hardship for a change in repayment arrangements. The major banks are also subject to the Australian Bankers Association code of banking practice. It would be interesting to know whether the Rural Bank of Australia that the member for Mallee referred to is part of that code. This includes an obligation on the bank to act fairly and reasonably towards their customers in a consistent and ethical manner. Under the code, banks are specifically required to assist with financial difficulties.
The Queensland Farmers Federation and other farming bodies in Queensland such as AgForce and Canegrowers have taken a proactive approach and reached an agreement with a number of lenders on the Queensland Farm Finance Strategy. Among other things, this requires lenders to inform farmers in writing if they are aware that there are financial problems and encourage farmers to take remedial action to resolve their financial problems as early as possible. It also requires lenders to urge farmers and their advisers to identify and develop actions and financial and business goals that will improve their position. The strategy also sets out a framework for resolving financial problems by negotiation and includes a formal mediation process. The banks that have signed up to that strategy include the National Australia Bank, Westpac, ANZ, Suncorp, Rabobank, Bendigo Bank and Bankwest, just to name a few. Given these protections, I am concerned by reports from a local grazier whom I spoke to today, and I remind banks and other lenders of the commitment they have given to treat farmers fairly and work with them to manage their businesses in a way that ultimately benefits both the farmer and the lender. On the face of it, the proposal for compulsory mediation does sound attractive, but we must be wary of possible perverse consequences making it more difficult for farmers to access finance because they are seen as more risky or the restrictions on legal proceedings too onerous. I join with the member for Page in hoping that we can work through some of these problems through the second phase of the consumer credit legislation.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Oakeshott:
That the House:
I fully recognise the complexities of this issue of military superannuation pensions for the government. There are budgetary issues at play. That is why I am not bringing this into the House as a private member’s bill, and I am sure that is why it has been an issue of contention for various governments over recent decades. I also recognise that there are contextual issues with regard to the full package of veterans entitlements and how that sits alongside a superannuation scheme. It has taken me 18 months to drill through some of the complexities and the details. But I still find myself coming back to the very broad principles that remain unanswered by government, by the Matthews report and by the minister. So those broad principles, in as simple terms as possible, are what I am putting before the House tonight.
I want it be recognised that Defence service is unique within the Public Service. I would hope that most, if not all, members in this place and those who decide on public policy would agree with that basic principle. I hope I do not have to go into detail, but the uniqueness of Defence service lies in defending the nation, our sovereignty and our freedoms. In carrying out their duties of office in the Defence Force, individuals’ safety and lives are endangered, and therefore the circumstances of their families are put at risk. I hope that is broadly accepted by all in this place. If that is true, I would ask all members to consider revisiting the issue of how we treat military superannuation in comparison to all the other types of superannuation and pension schemes that governments support. If you are willing to consider that, there is then a contentious question to answer—and I know that many members have had contact with members of various Defence welfare groups in their electorates. The question is: where do we peg military superannuation and is that fair and equitable for those who have served within our Defence forces?
Currently, military superannuation is indexed by CPI. But the question now is about using ABS quotes about purchasing power and cost-of-living measures, or whether we go right back to what the CPI itself was really designed for, through Professor Pollard in 1973. I would hope it is generally recognised that CPI is not a good indicator for cost-of-living measures and for purchasing power. The question is therefore whether we as policy makers have pegged military superannuation to the most appropriate index possible—and, if not, what are the alternatives? In my view the alternatives that are worthy of consideration are in the form of the age and welfare pensions, which are indexed by the new living cost index, to reflect the failings of CPI in the pensioner and beneficiary living cost index, or the male total average weekly earnings, whichever is the greater. Those are the two options which age and welfare pensions are indexed by. From 1989 to 2008 the age pension rose by 110 per cent, compared to military superannuation pensions, which over the same period rose by 68 per cent—again making that point that CPI is not an appropriate measure of cost-of-living pressures and was never really established for that purpose. I ask the government to therefore consider the motion. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Lyne for bringing this matter on for debate. Let me begin tonight by saying that there is no question that the men and women who have served our country in our military deserve our full support and appreciation. It is a unique job, and our veterans will always be valued in this country. I note that Bob Baldwin and Stuart Robert are in the room. I certainly valued the 10 days that I spent with these guys and others with the servicemen and women at Al-Minhad, which is part of Operation Slipper. I certainly came away, and no doubt all the rest of us did too, with a deep appreciation of the professionalism, dedication and commitment from our young men and women who are serving this country. Clearly, being in the ADF is a unique job.
The one reason when coming to office that we initiated this review is that it was an election commitment. We engaged an independent reviewer, Trevor Matthews, to determine whether there was a case for change from the current arrangements in terms of the calculation of military pensions. It was our election commitment to hold that review. It was conducted at arm’s length from the government, hence it was conducted by Mr Matthews. The result of Matthews’ recommendations was that there be no change to the current method of CPI indexation. He found that CPI at present was the best available mechanism for the purpose of indexing superannuation pensions.
I feel it is important to point out that this motion essentially seeks the military superannuation pensions to be increased in the same way as the age pension. However, in his review Mr Matthews did not consider it unfair that civil and military pensions be indexed on a different basis to the age and service related pensions. In fact, he considered that these are different benefits, providing for different purposes, and he concluded that it is fair that they can be increased on a different basis.
As the Minister for Finance and Deregulation originally noted in the parliament, Mr Matthews drew a distinction between the obligations of state when it came to providing a safety net for its more disadvantaged citizens and the obligations of state as employer to provide a superannuation benefit to its employees and former employees. It is also important that I point out tonight that the government is committed to considering a better indexation method for civilian and military superannuation pensions. Again, that is one of the recommendations that we accepted from the Matthews inquiry. I take the opportunity to encourage veterans associations to work with government to determine the best long-term method for indexing military superannuation pensions.
During a debate of this type, we should also acknowledge the work being done right now to ensure that the Australian Defence Force’s employment package is competitive and attractive. While it is very important, superannuation is but one element of the total employment package of ADF members. The current package is highly competitive and attractive and, as a result, has had a marked improvement in retention and recruitment rates within the ADF. Target incentives are needed to enable us to attract and retain personnel, particularly when the skill sets that they acquire are in such high demand in industry generally. Let there be no doubt that the government is committed to providing a competitive employment package for ADF members, and military superannuation certainly rates very highly.
If one examines the employment packages of ADF members as a whole, they certainly reflect the unique nature of military service. Military superannuation is already accessible after five years, earlier than civilian superannuation, and under the older schemes ADF personnel can access their superannuation benefits after 20 years service, no matter what their age is. Furthermore, the military superannuation scheme is complemented by the military rehabilitation and compensation arrangements, which provide more appropriate compensation and support to members who suffer injury or illness as a result of their service.
Finally, I acknowledge that there will be members of the veterans community in Australia who do not agree with the Matthews report and its recommendations. I would encourage veterans associations to continue to work with government to find an acceptable long-term outcome in the indexing of military pensions to safeguard their interests into the future. (Time expired)
The matter of military superannuation indexation is the single biggest issue affecting the veteran community and the most important, according to the vast majority of ex-service organisations. The issue has, in varying forms, existed for at least two decades, yet the most recent manifestation of the issue can be traced back to the promises made by the Rudd Labor government in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, when they promised:
To restore the value of compensation and prevent further erosion due to unfair indexation.
The Rudd Labor government has not done that. The Rudd Labor government has not even bothered to respond to the Review into Military Superannuation Arrangements, also known as the Podger review, which was publicly released two years and five months ago today. In fact, Minister Tanner, in a media release dated 21 August 2009, completely contradicted that election promise when he said:
… we are satisfied that the CPI is the most suitable index to protect Australian Government superannuation pensions against inflationary price increases available at this time.
This government unashamedly lied to all veterans at the last federal election. Veterans have every right to feel betrayed by this Rudd Labor government—a government that at the last federal election promised so much but has since delivered so little, a government that has wasted taxpayers’ money through poorly targeted spending programs and a government that continues to tax and spend, all the while wilfully neglecting the veteran community. Veterans have every right to be disappointed and disillusioned with the Rudd Labor government.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I and the coalition have always considered and will always consider service rendered by our military personnel as unique. Although I have not served in the ADF, I have had many opportunities to experience the many facets of service life through, for example, my work as the shadow minister for defence science and personnel, through my participation in the ADF Parliamentary Program and most recently by spending a week with Australian troops on the ground in Afghanistan with my colleague Stuart Robert. But I would argue that one need not have served in the military to understand the unique nature of service. To those that think otherwise, I would simply suggest they talk to the spouse, mother, father or child of a current serving member. They will, I have no doubt, convey to you the uniqueness of their relative’s service. One of the finest summations of the uniqueness of military service I have read to date comes from David Jamison, the President of the Defence Force Welfare Association, who said:
In volunteering for military service, the individual accepts the surrender of his or her basic rights under Article 3 and places his or her life, liberty and security of person in the hands of the State. This surrender is not unconditional, though in extremis, it is absolute.
The coalition truly appreciates the unique nature of military service, which is why we continue to oppose the Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Bill 2010 in its current form, for it will further blur the distinction between military and non-military service. The indexation of military superannuation is a very complex issue. While I am of the view that the proposal to index military superannuation more fairly has merit, the cost of such changes remains substantial. It is worth noting, however, that at the time the Podger review was tabled, this government had a $23 billion surplus. That was the time for the Rudd Labor government to take action, as promised. Now, however, the task at hand is much harder, given the Rudd Labor government has incurred debts of $93.7 billion. But it is pursuable in the longer term.
Labor’s 2007 election policy document said that a Rudd Labor government would ‘maintain a generous military superannuation system in recognition of the importance of the ADF and the immense responsibility placed on personnel in securing and defending Australia’. Of course, those in the veteran community know that the Rudd Labor government took them for a ride. They know that they were used purely for political reasons, and they know that they can no longer trust the Rudd Labor government.
To conclude, I want to assure the veteran community that the coalition remains committed to introducing a fair, equitable, financially responsible military superannuation system and that we will pursue these reforms when in government and when we have brought the nation’s accounts into line so that any measures we enact are affordable and sustainable.
In my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland we have many fine organisations of military and returned service personnel—Leagues clubs et cetera. There are many fine people; it is a place where people purchase homes and retire after serving at the RAAF base at Amberley. We honour those military people who have served overseas as well as at the RAAF base at Amberley and at other places throughout Australia. We want to make it plain to them that we support them, and that is why we have done many things to make their lives easier.
In my electorate, for a start, we have Defence housing of a quality that was never seen under the previous coalition government. This weekend, in fact, I am opening some Defence houses in Ipswich. We have provided the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, which was rolled out on 1 July 2008, helping ADF members and their families to achieve home ownership in a way that the previous government never did. I heard the member for Paterson going on about what they have done. You would wonder what they did in all those years—the Howard years. What would you believe of the vague and obtuse references they made? We made commitments to the veteran community at the last election, and we fulfilled that by undertaking the review.
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
If people want to ask questions, there are forms. Member for Paterson, if you want to ask a question, there is a form.
We engaged Mr Matthews, an international leader in the global pensions and life insurance industry—an Australian citizen, Past President of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and currently a prominent actuary in the United Kingdom; he was eminently qualified to carry out the review. We have heard this feigned moral unction from those opposite in relation to this issue, and you heard the comment of the Leader of the Opposition in April this year. Why would you believe a word he said when he served in the cabinet of the Howard government all those years? You only have to hear what he said about this. We engaged Mr Matthews to undertake the review, and he undertook it. He looked at schemes throughout the world. In fact, the review went on to look at military pensions in Canada, South Africa, the United States and the United Kingdom, all indexed to increases in the consumer price index in those countries. In at least two cases—the United States and South Africa—the relevant pensions were increased annually by less than increases in the local version. He looked at this in detail. His recommendations were that pensions from the Australian government civilian and military superannuation schemes continue to be indexed against the effects of inflationary price increases. The same indexation methodology would continue in relation to civilian and military pensions.
Pensions from the Australian government civilian and military superannuation schemes continue to be indexed to CPI. This is the most suitable index, according to Mr Matthews. If there is a more robust index, he said in recommendation number 4, that justifies a change in the scheme, the government should look at that in the future. I heard what the member for Werriwa had to say about the issue. If the veteran community want to have some discussion about that and want to keep advocating for their position, in a democracy they are entitled to that. I want to thank the veteran community for what they have done in relation to their service. We have made it plain that we will listen to the veteran community. We have acted on what we said, and that was to have a review. We have done that.
The member for Paterson talked about Podger. The government committed in 2007 to make public the Podger review into military superannuation. The coalition refused to release it. We have done so and the government is considering it. They refused to release it at all. The government also committed in 2007 to the independent review. We have held that. We have a strong record in this area, going back to the Hawke government, which established the Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme in 1991, recognising that the previous schemes had served many members poorly. The Labor government did that back in those days. The Rudd government has acted on it now. Superannuation is one aspect of the total remuneration package available to ADF members. We have made that clear and we have acted on that.
With respect to the Matthews findings, we have acted on the basis that the most appropriate purpose of indexing an occupational superannuation pension is to protect the purchasing power of those pensions from the effects of price inflation. And that is what happens overseas. That is exactly what happens in the OECD and the countries that I listed before. That is the reality. We followed the independent advice of Mr Matthews, which was the appropriate thing in the circumstances to do.
I rise to make comment on the motion put forward by the member for Lyne. It is instructive that I mention that I am here with my parliamentary colleagues Bob Baldwin, the member for Paterson and the shadow minister for defence, science and personnel, and Louise Markus, the member for Greenway and the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs. The shadow minister for defence, Senator David Johnston, would have like to be here, but he is in Darwin. Tonight when we speak on this motion we have three out of four of the shadow defence team here. The entire team would have been here to discuss the gravity of this motion but for pressing matters that have driven the shadow minister to Darwin.
We are here gathered, three of the four shadow ministers, because we understand the unique nature of service that is the military. We understand the hardships, the deprivations and the toughness. We understand the difficulty of being away from families and friends and of being separated from loved ones. I speak from personal experience, having served as a military officer for 12 years and having served overseas in operations. And I speak from some recent experience, with my colleague the member for Paterson and I having just returned from 10 days in the Middle East area of operations and just short of a week in Afghanistan proper.
We understand the compact that government has with our defence and veteran community. This compact says that we will put you in harms way and put you in places of great difficulty where life and death is the order of the day. We will put you there to further the diplomatic and national interests of our nation and to safeguard and to protect our nation. We do it knowing full well that this nation has a responsibility to you during your service and post service. We understand and accept this responsibility keenly.
We also note that the Matthews report, when released by the government, recommended that indexation arrangements stay the same. The government, not surprisingly, grasped that and did nothing. What is so personally disappointing for all of us here on the coalition side is that in opposition the current Minister for Veteran’s Affairs, Minister Griffin, said that the government should clarify the military superannuation situation immediately, as the morale of current members is being seriously affected. Well, the government has clarified it. It has said that this compact is not well regarded and that they will do nothing.
Before the election, a number of people on the Labor side made comments to say that they would index the pension to 25 per cent MTAWE. I am even led to believe that Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, may have made such comments. If so, this is one more broken promise in the conga line of broken promises that so typifies this government. Once again, the Rudd government has demonstrated its unwavering commitment to spin when it should have demonstrated a commitment to addressing the military superannuation system and honouring the compact we have with the men and women who go in harm’s way. Now the Rudd government is retaining the current indexation. And with the government currently borrowing a hundred million dollars a day—$700 million a week and over $40 billion this year alone—with gross debt exceeding $130 billion and with net debt just under $100 billion, it has neither the means, the capacity nor the political courage to address the situation.
We appreciate the unique aspects of service. We appreciate the need to provide certainty and security for those who have contributed so much to our nation. In simple terms: the coalition gets it. We have promised and our leader has made the point that we will return when the budget is in surplus— (Time expired)
Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed from 15 March.
The question is:
That grievances be noted.
This afternoon, Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith received a letter from the Prime Minister regarding the reinstatement of original gallantry recommendations for 12 veterans of the Battle of Long Tan. Would anyone in this parliament be surprised that not only did the Prime Minister turned down Harry’s request that the honour be reinstated but that it took fully six months for the Prime Minister to respond to Harry’s original correspondence of November last year? Bear in mind that between then and now Harry had written two follow-up letters and neither of those was acknowledged either.
My taking up the cudgels on this matter would come as no surprise to those who know me. I have spoken on this topic before and I will continue to do so until a satisfactory conclusion is reached. This matter has dragged on for a number of years, following the 2008 review by the Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, which reinstated the original award recommended to Lieutenant Colonel Smith—he was Major Smith at the time of the action. He received the Star of Gallantry, which is the equivalent of the Distinguished Service Order. Upgraded with him were two of his platoon commanders: Dave Sabben and Geoff Kendall, who were awarded the Medal of Gallantry, the equivalent of the old Military Cross. However, 12 other men from D Company did not have reinstated their original gallantry recommendation—three medals for gallantry and nine commendations for gallantry, the commendations being the equivalent of mentions in dispatches. This is something that Harry Smith and I want to see reconsidered.
For the record, the causes he is promoting are those of Delta Company’s Lieutenant Gordon Sharp, posthumously because he was killed in the action; Bill Roche; Ian Campbell; Geoff Peters; Barry Magnussen; Neil Bextrum; Allen May; Noel Grimes; and Bill Moore; and the APC Reaction Force’s Adrian Roberts, Frank Alcorta and the late Ron Brett, who died after the war. All these were seminal characters in the Battle of Long Tan. It is hard not to think that these men have been and continue to be treated with disdain by this and previous governments. In fact, in his response, the Prime Minister goes to great lengths to reiterate the awards already presented to the members of D Company and praises Lieutenant Colonel Smith’s efforts to gain recognition for his men. He then shamelessly goes on to say:
The government’s policy is to adhere to the Tribunal’s finding. I am confident that the Tribunal’s recommendations in the case of honours and awards for the Battle of Long Tan are based on sound reasoning and I do not intend to seek to have them overturned … I reassure you of the government’s commitment to honouring our Vietnam veterans.
Consider this: if the six-month delay in responding to Lieutenant Colonel Smith’s correspondence—along with the very content—was not enough, it seems that our government has not even informed the New Zealand government of an Australian unit citation for three New Zealanders who fought in that Battle of Long Tan. It is almost unbelievable.
One of these men—gunnery officer Morrie Stanley, who is terminally ill with cancer—is meant to be presented with his award this coming weekend. Lieutenant Colonel Smith is travelling there for the ceremony and he informed me that as of this morning the New Zealand government still had not had an official letter from our government saying that the award has been approved. I find that inconceivable. I hope there is some explanation for it.
Many observers have suggested that the Battle of Long Tan, if decorated along the UK system of similar awards, would have received something like: two Victoria Crosses, 10 distinguished conduct medals, 10 military medals and 20 mentioned in dispatches. Smith recommended 23 awards—being the commanding officer of the company—but only nine were awarded. Such a state of affairs makes it hard not to agree with Harry Smith when he says, ‘Long Tan may be an historic battle, but it is an absolute shambles in terms of awards.’ And so it is.
The treatment of our troops when they came back from Vietnam—by all of us, I am not being partisan in this—was disgraceful. But what is worse is that the shameless way those troops were treated has still not been corrected and could be corrected. There were 726 awards over the 10 years of Vietnam. Nearly half of them were MIDs—mentioned in dispatches. Only 61 went to private soldiers in the front line. Of these, only 35 received medals. There were only 35 medals that went to privates in 726 awards! To my way of thinking, this is an utter disgrace.
In the First World War seven per cent of troops received awards. In the Second World War, it was 2.8 per cent. In the Korean War, again it was 2.8 per cent. But in Vietnam, it was 1.7 per cent. Some of these people have been recommended: Harry Smith; two of his colleagues whose awards he had upgraded by the tribunal, Sabben and Kendall; one for whom he is recommending a posthumous award, Cameron Sharpe; and an APC reaction force lieutenant, Roberts. Not one of them went to Duntroon. Four of them were Portsea graduates and one was a national service officer.
I find it almost inconceivable that these people, who were forced to go there—and they were forced to go there by a government of my colour, so I take my share of blame in this—did not receive appropriate awards. Smith himself did, and the two he fought to get their awards for did, but not the others. A DSO was awarded to the brigadier for his able and personal direction of the battle. He did not attend the battle. A DSO went to the lieutenant colonel who arrived after the battle and was there for the three or four days afterwards when the Vietcong had gone.
In that battle, the Australians faced somewhere between 2½ thousand and 3,000 troops, and not all of them were Vietcong. Some of them were North Vietnamese regular troops and some were local regional troops. There was another regiment in reserve. That night, it is now acknowledged, they planned to knock off the Australian base at Nui Dat. Had it not been for Harry Smith and his D company, who took them on in the rubber plantation at Long Tan, God only knows what would have happened that night. It could have been our worst disaster since the Second World War, but I will not speculate on that—I will just say this: why weren’t those last 12 properly acknowledged when everyone else, the commanding officers and so on, got their honours? Two tribunals have looked into this. Furthermore, 37 DSOs were awarded to senior officers during the Vietnam War: one to the Navy, 10 to the Air Force and 26 to the Army. It seems that these 12 that Harry fights for have not received their just rewards.
I beg to disagree with the Prime Minister. This will never rest. Every time we put our hands on our hearts on Long Tan Day, or Vietnam Veterans Remembrance Day, and do not correct this, it is a denigration of the work of all those troops who went to Vietnam. I will not abide it and I will not rest until it is corrected. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the names and ranks of the people that Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith has recommended for awards.
Leave granted.
I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Hinkler. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to highlight some of the achievements of the Rudd government in the last two years. The Rudd government has already delivered a massive reform program in the areas of health, workplace relations, taxation, social policy and nation-building infrastructure. The Building the Education Revolution program is a major reform initiative that helped save Australia from recession. It continues to protect jobs and help families manage the impact of the global financial crisis. The BER is also a long-overdue investment in every school in Australia. There are 24,000 projects in 9,500 schools supporting students and teachers as well as small business people right across the nation. This side of the House is proud that the BER helped save Australia from the worst effects of the GFC while delivering modern facilities in our schools that will give our kids a better pathway to jobs.
As the Deputy Prime Minister said in her address to the National Press Club in February this year:
The Rudd Government is investing more than $62 billion in school education from 2009-2012, almost double what was invested under the previous Government.
But when it really comes to the crunch the Education Revolution is about more than record investments—it’s about improving the quality of what goes on inside the classroom.
We want to see the combination of great classroom instructors, led by professional school leaders, using modern educational facilities, teaching the right curriculum, offering the best means to improve outcomes across the nation and overcome the effects of educational disadvantage.
In my electorate of Solomon, everywhere I go I see the benefits of the Building the Education Revolution. The National School Pride Program delivered much-needed funding for school infrastructure projects and, importantly, has supported local jobs. The program has delivered much-needed funding to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and build minor infrastructure in all schools. In my electorate alone, in round 1 $5.5 million was delivered and in round 2 $1.5 million was delivered. It is fantastic to see our local schools and the local community benefit from the government’s $16.2 billion investment in vital school infrastructure. The BER program benefits every part of the nation. The Territory was delivered $13.6 million to 121 schools in round 1 and a further $6.5 million to 64 schools in round 2.
I must say I am concerned about the approach the opposition are taking to this program. What are those opposite and the Country Liberals planning to do with education infrastructure reforms across the Northern Territory and the nation if they get into government? I think we all get a pretty good idea when we see the comments the opposition have made in the media recently.
When asked about the Building the Education Revolution, Senator Barnaby Joyce made these comments on the AM program earlier this year:
Reporter: Can I ask you on the BER, you say it is $16 billion worth of glorified garden sheds. Do you stand by that comment?
JOYCE: I think it is an absolute waste of money. You’re right on that one. Yep, on that one we agree.
Reporter: OK because some of those schools are receiving halls, toilets, libraries, fences, covered outdoor areas.
JOYCE: Vastly inflated price to what they should be paying and you and I and everybody listening to this program is borrowing the money to pay for it.
Reporter: Are these facilities not more important to schools across the country than, as you describe them, glorified garden sheds?
JOYCE: I don’t believe that they are actually adding to the capacity of students going there to be better at English or to be better at maths, or to learn a second language. They are merely a tokenistic gesture.
Senator Joyce, I have been around in my electorate and been speaking to principals. I have a funding information form that I have given out to principals and they are giving their stories back to me. For example, I have heard from Principal Peter Swan of the Malak Primary School, a public school in my electorate with some 280 students which had $2 million spent there. Their project was a redevelopment and expansion of the front office as well as an added community conference, meeting and learning centre. Nightcliff Builders were the local contractors that were given this job. On the comments about the infrastructure, the principal, Mr Swan, said:
More area to engage easier with the Parents. Space to include parents in the Learning Process such as Literacy and Numeracy programs.
That is a boon to all schools. I asked him if it was on time and on budget. He said, ‘Yes, everything is running to budget and to the same schedule at this stage.’ He went on to say:
Staff are excited with the changes especially the opportunity to be able to interact with the Parents.
Good value for money.
His final comment was:
Once in a lifetime opportunity for all schools to have much needed infrastructure put into place.
That was Mr Swan from the Malak Primary School, but it was right across the board. I spoke to some 20 principals and slowly, as they have filled these forms in and they have come back to me, they have given me an idea of how their programs have been running. I have also been inspecting them.
But there is real feeling within my community, after the comments that were made by the member for Sturt, who is the opposition spokesperson on education. He said in a doorstop recently:
The Round 3 part of the program which has not yet been rolled out should be suspended.
That was said by the member for Sturt, the shadow education minister. You can say some things down here and think you will get away with them, but these comments are picked up. In the electorate of Solomon, St Paul’s catholic school has a principal by the name of Kelly Smith—a young lady who is doing a fantastic job. The school has 265 kids and $2 million worth of funding. She was getting a 21st century library as well as a roof over the outdoor learning area. She said of her project:
Library—on budget, but have delays due to rain.
The outdoor learning area currently has not commenced. This project is being stalled currently. It is a round 3 project and her comments were quite alarming. She said:
There is some nervousness around the talk of possible funding being cut though. Our community is extremely appreciative of all funding received. Thank You.
There is a real worry for the people in my electorate that the round 3 funding will be cut.
I was asking the person who is standing against me, my opponent, to come out and tell us whether she is going to back the schools in my electorate or whether she is going to be part of a government, if elected, that will cut the funding to my schools. But, just in case anyone may have held out a little bit of hope that they would not get rid of it, just last week the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, confirmed that he will cut funding to school building programs across the nation, putting thousands of local jobs at risk and leaving schools without new facilities promised to them. On the AM program the Leader of the Opposition confirmed his intentions when he was questioned as to whether the funding would remain the same. I quote from the transcript. The presenter said, ‘But the pot of money will be the same size?’ The Leader of the Opposition said, as only he can, ‘Well, look, um, ah, I’m not going to give you that absolute commitment.’ All those opposite need to go and tell the students, parents and teachers in their electorates which school projects the Leader of the Opposition has on his hit list. They have to go and tell these people which schools are not going to be funded, which superclinics are going to be cut and which social and affordable housing projects are going to be cut. They need to come clean.
The best one yet, though, is this one. It is Mr Abbot once again, and it is to do with health. On 18 March this year I listened to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition debate hospital and health policy. During the debate I heard a statement by the Leader of the Opposition that was so alarming I just had to go back to the Hansard and double-check whether I had heard him correctly. Tony Abbott, Leader of the Opposition, said:
The Prime Minister comes into this parliament today, puts his hand on his heart and boasts about the opening of the new cancer centre in Darwin. I provided that money in 2007. It ought to be called the Tony Abbott Cancer Centre in Darwin.
Well, I am glad to say it is actually called the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre in Darwin. Alan, a well-respected Territorian, was a physician for over 30 years in Darwin. Fair dinkum: ‘the Tony Abbott Cancer Centre in Darwin’. Is he kidding himself? I will reiterate what the Prime Minister said in reply to this outlandish claim:
On the way through, he made an extraordinary claim about the cancer centre up there in Darwin. He said it should be called the Tony Abbott Cancer Centre. Did I hear that correctly? The minister for Health and Ageing reminds me that in fact I got it wrong. I said earlier today that they had promised it prior to the last election. I got it wrong; they promised it prior to the last two elections. Pardon me for understating their level of commitment. They were so committed that they committed to it twice! As of when we went to the election at the end of last year, did we see a brick or any mortar? Did we see any evidence of anything on the ground? No, we did not.
(Time expired)
I rise this evening to raise a grievance on behalf of my constituents regarding access to health services and doctors within the electorate of Paterson. It is important to note the Rudd Labor government’s broken promises and overall track record when it comes to health. The government has only delivered three fully operational superclinics out of a promised 36 since December 2007, and yet it has now announced another 23 GP superclinics in the budget. The Rudd Labor government also promised 7,750 nurses, but only 617 were recruited in two years. The Prime Minister promised to have hospitals fixed by mid-2009 and we are not one day closer to them being fixed.
For the constituents of Paterson, it is sad to see that this is a government that continues to overpromise and underdeliver when it comes to health. The Prime Minister has failed in his commitment to take control of health from the states. He has rolled over and thrown billions upon billions of dollars at the states in added levels of bureaucracy, rather than what the people of Paterson really need: more beds, more doctors, more nurses, more services.
Only today in question time the Minister for Health and Ageing mocked my commitment and support for two fine doctors who have moved to my electorate to manage the new GP superclinic at Nelson Bay. Politics aside, both Dr Warwick Yonge and Dr George Manoliadis are hardworking doctors who want the best for the community in which they work. They want to provide the best medical services to the community. Warwick and I have had many discussions over the years regarding the lack of bulk-billing services and the severe doctor shortages in the community, which have in turn lowered competition and led to a rise in consultation fees.
I will not begrudge them making a difference to the lives of those who live in the Nelson Bay area. My grievance regarding the GP superclinic is its location. I have said from the outset, including at the Hunter New England Area Health Service planning forums for the clinic, that I believe Nelson Bay is the incorrect location for this first clinic to be placed, especially when there is a greater community need in locations such as Medowie and the Tilligerry Peninsula. Medowie and the Tilligerry Peninsula are in desperate need of additional doctors and facilities. I have been informed that all the clinics in Medowie and the Tilligerry Peninsula have closed their books and are not taking any further patients. With public transport a challenge, constituents who live in the area need to travel long distances for their doctor services.
Back in November 2009, I highlighted the case of Mr Bill Seoullis. Bill moved to Mallabula from Sydney with his wife, Carol, three years ago. Bill has a heart condition and needs to see a GP on regular basis. Bill contacted four doctors surgeries on the Tilligerry Peninsula, but none would accept Bill onto their books as the number of patients they serviced was at capacity for the doctors available. I recently caught up with Bill, who indicated that he is still not able to get into surgeries on the Tilligerry Peninsula and is looking at other options.
The issue of age is concerning when taking into account local residents and their needs as patients. Much of my electorate, in particular the Port Stephens and the Forster-Tuncurry areas, are popular amongst retirees and, therefore, a large proportion of my constituents are elderly, and this number is expected to grow. GP Access chief executive, Mark Foster, has explained that the elderly need triple the care of younger people. In Paterson, where the number of elderly is already high and is still growing, this means the number of patients demanding medical services is climbing at an exceptional rate. Take, for example, the need for dialysis units within the Paterson electorate, in particular the Port Stephens area. I have been advocating for this service for a long time. Currently 13 patients in Port Stephens are being transported to Maitland Hospital and John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle. One of those is Mr Allan Wilson from Salamander Bay. Allan requires dialysis treatment three times per week at the John Hunter Hospital. This trip takes approximately two hours door-to-door for him. As Allan is quite ill he is unable to drive himself and he does not have a carer who can drive him. He currently utilises the wonderful services of the Community Transport Group of Port Stephens to ensure he makes his medical appointments. If this transport service is unavailable then Allan needs to rely on ambulance transport to and from his medical appointments. Firstly, a trip in an ambulance is very uncomfortable and, secondly, if an ambulance is not available to take him home, wait time for Allan can be anywhere from four to seven hours. This in turn makes an already long trip into a very long day. It would be much easier for Allan and others in the area if there were dialysis facilities available closer to home, such as the Tomaree Hospital.
I would also like to highlight Raymond Terrace, another area of significant medical and other healthcare workforce shortages in my electorate, particularly in the discipline of general practice. It is important to highlight two doctors, Dr Chris Boyle and Dr Damien Wellbourne, who run and manage the Raymond Terrace Family Practice. Raymond Terrace Family Practice has a long history of providing quality medical care to the Raymond Terrace community, along with training for medical students and GP registrars. As the population and throughput of the practice increases, rooms used for teaching in the existing facility have had to be relocated for health service delivery. In recent years the number of students and registrars accommodated at the practice has had to be reduced, despite the availability and willingness of GP supervisors. That is why I am glad to see that plans for a one-stop health clinic—HealthOne Raymond Terrace—is back on the agenda more than three years after it was first promised by the New South Wales Labor government.
The HealthOne Raymond Terrace project proposes the construction of a new healthcare facility in Raymond Terrace, providing quality integrated primary health services. The new facility will be developed adjacent to the Raymond Terrace central business district. HealthOne Raymond Terrace will utilise an integrated primary and community healthcare model to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of local health services into the future. A significant component of the model of care will be the clinical teaching and training of medical, under and postgraduates and other health professional undergraduates of the University of Newcastle, the University of New England and universities in other locations.
The HealthOne clinic will be a purpose-built facility and will provide GP and other specialist services, including, but not limited to, preventative care and allied health services, including speech pathology, physiotherapy, nutritional services, social work and psychology counselling services. The clinic will also deliver specialist services such as women’s health, mental health, drug and alcohol, palliative care nursing, Aboriginal health, sexual health, sexual assault and child protection. This project greatly expands the clinical service delivery capacity of Raymond Terrace Family Practice. It also is a goal to restore and expand the clinical teaching capacity at the practice. It is wonderful to see GP Access, Raymond Terrace Family Practice and Port Stephens Council working together to ensure this clinic comes to fruition and services the Raymond Terrace community. I am proud to be the member for Paterson and support local initiatives to ensure access to doctors and health services are maintained and grown.
It astounds me that the Rudd Labor government has failed to put a real plan into place. In 2007 our Prime Minister looked into the eyes of Australians and promised to fix their health system. Now, after three years of failed benchmarks, underfunding and broken promises, the Prime Minister has finally decided to do something. Ironically, in an election year Mr Rudd has decided to take some action. Clearly this is policy on the run, and sadly, after all this time, he has still not managed to get it right. Mr Rudd went into the election promising he would fix the health system. Not only did he fail to deliver on this promise; he has wasted billions of dollars on the BER, insulation and the climate change department, which sits idle. This money could have been spent on fixing the health system.
The Prime Minister’s ongoing modus operandi is to manage perception. His priority is clearly to be seen to be doing something through tricky media manipulation and photo opportunities rather than actually doing anything. We saw him in a hard hat on school building sites and we got the school halls rip-off. We saw him roll up his sleeves and head out onto the Parliament House lawn with his notepad to apologise to industry over the home insulation debacle and say that he would fix it, but they got nothing. We saw him stalking unsuspecting patients in public hospital wards, promising a better health system, but we got another layer of bureaucracy at considerable expense to the Australian taxpayer. We got no new doctors, no new beds and no new nurses.
My commitment to my constituents in Paterson, whom I have the honour and privilege to represent in this House, is to stand up for increased health services within the region, and if the minister, as she did today, tries to ridicule me for that then so be it, because nothing will stop me standing up for better service delivery in my electorate. The health of a community is critically important. It is something we have worked very hard at in the electorate of Paterson. When I was first elected as the member for Paterson, there were just over 530 aged-care beds. At the last election, there were over 1,500 aged-care beds, and the future projections are that there will not be enough to cope. I have a rapidly ageing electorate—a very large number of aged people—and along with that comes the need for even more GP services to service those in aged-care facilities. There is no point in building aged-care facilities if you do not have the doctors and healthcare professionals to service them in that location.
In a very large regional electorate where the towns are many kilometres apart, it is unrealistic for doctors to travel into smaller regional towns to service aged-care facilities. That might suit the needs of some, and that is why we are having a centralisation of aged-care facilities in the major population centres, but more needs to be done. More services need to be provided. The increase of diabetes will lead to more people requiring dialysis in the long term. These are issues that my constituents have raised. That is why I have raised them as part of the grievance debate tonight.
In tonight’s grievance debate, I want to take issue with the opposition’s decade of lost opportunities to institute reforms and changes to address longstanding issues of concern to women in the workforce. Among those concerns are the important issues of economic security for women both at work and in retirement, balancing work and family life, making child care more affordable and accessible, closing the gender pay gap and introducing a national paid parental scheme.
I recall that over the years I have been in this House I have made a number of contributions on these important issues. In fact, very early in my first term as the member for Throsby, again in a grievance debate, I made the following comments:
I take this opportunity to grieve about this government’s inaction on the work and family agenda. We hear a lot of rhetoric from this government—
remember the talk about its being a barbecue stopper—
but we see no substantial action where people desperately need it, on major issues like the introduction of paid maternity—
and parental—
leave and meeting the growing demand for child-care places … and outside school hours care programs. We have heard a lot of talk but have seen no delivery of the services required to help the majority of Australian families balance their work and family commitments.
I went on to argue that the situation for many families was in fact becoming critical and that, by comparison to many OECD countries, we were doing very poorly in terms of women’s participation in the paid workforce after giving birth to children. I recall that at the time—and I mentioned it in that grievance debate—the now Leader of the Opposition, then in his ministerial capacity, said on the public record that paid maternity leave would be introduced ‘over this government’s dead body’. I spoke on a range of these issues in the forlorn hope that the Howard government would finally listen, but by way of a response we instead got a full assault on the status of women at work. This was achieved primarily by the promotion of individual contracts of employment through the Work Choices legislation, which had as its aim the deregulation of the labour market.
The government was warned at the time that the provisions of Work Choices would have the most negative consequences on those most marginal in the labour market, namely women, in all employment categories. I argued this on many occasions, and in one debate I said:
… women are often employed on a part time and casual basis, they are often located in industries with little bargaining power and they are often not members of the trade union movement … more and more of these vulnerable workers will be forced onto individual contracts in order to get paid employment, or indeed to retain their jobs
As a group, women will lose out on pay and conditions in a deregulated market place. Despite all the spin that we heard from the government, the statistics and the data revealed by the ABS clearly showed that these deleterious impacts were being felt by women across the board. The data showed from very early days that women on AWAs were doing far worse in comparison with women in collective agreements and even on award conditions.
This decade of lost opportunities is finally being redressed by the election of a Rudd Labor government, and I am very delighted as a member of that government that we have seen major advances in the government’s first term. The first major advance was of course the abolition of the insidious Work Choices legislation and its replacement by the Fair Work Act. There are a number of provisions in that act which go a long way towards addressing some of those issues of concern that I raised very early in a grievance debate in this House. Let me just mention a few of them. Our legislation provides for a safety net of 10 national employment standards which will provide all employees, including great numbers of women, in the federal system with enforceable minimum protection standards. There is to be an annual minimum wage review by a specialist panel, again of great value to women, who form the majority—almost 60 per cent—of the nearly 1.5 million workers reliant on the minimum wage.
Our act provides for a special bargaining stream for low-paid workers, and that is particularly important for women because historically we know that enterprise bargaining has been problematic in many of the industries where women continue to have high representation. Very importantly, the equal remuneration provisions in the Fair Work Act will now provide for cases to be heard on the basis of a claim for equal pay, or equal pay based on the principle of comparable value. This provision now in the federal act translates very much the provisions that have been contained in the New South Wales legislation for some years now and which have been used quite successfully to advance the pay of many women at work.
Interestingly, when I reflect back on some of the debates of past years, the issue of pay equity was another matter on which I made a number of comments in different contributions. I remember arguing with the then industrial relations minister, now the opposition’s shadow Treasurer. I accused him of misleading parliament, because one day he did come in and claim:
… the pay gap between men and women has narrowed. So we are getting to a better position in relation to the pay gap.
The facts presented a totally different picture. In November 1996, female ordinary time earnings as a percentage of male earnings stood at 84.2 per cent. A decade later under the Howard government, this ratio had fallen to 83.7 per cent. The gender gap was in fact widening at the same time as the opposition shadow Treasurer was coming into the House and misleading parliament about their so-called great achievements in narrowing that gap. So much for the minister’s spin and the lack of action over a decade by the former government. I am very heartened that a test case will shortly begin to test these new comparable worth provisions. That test case will apply to pay rates for community sector workers—a long overdue initiative. We all know as politicians the worth of workers in the community sector. We know the great contribution they make. But we also should know that this sector and the workers in it—predominantly women—have had their wages historically undervalued, and they continue to be underpaid in relation to the contribution they make. I am pleased that that test case is being pursued by the union covering those workers. I was quite concerned to read just yesterday that the most recent data from the ABS shows that gender wage gap is now the worst it has been for a long time. It is totally unacceptable to read that on average a woman today is earning only 82 cents for every dollar that a man earns at ordinary time rates. The gender pay gap is now at its widest since August 1994. That reflects very adversely on this parliament and the lack of commitment by the former government to this very important issue.
I want to again place on record the importance of getting an early response from our government to the report Making it Fair. It was a report of a House of Representatives standing committee, chaired by my colleague the member for Hasluck, that inquired into pay equity issues. I had the opportunity to speak on the significant matters it canvassed when it was tabled back in November 2009. It is a very comprehensive report, with 63 strategic, yet very practical, recommendations. It points to the obvious need to look beyond the possibilities that may come with the test case that I have just referred to. In other words, let us broaden our horizons and look at what else can be done outside the auspices of the industrial relations system to advance the pay equity arguments. I repeat my desire for an early government response to what I consider a very groundbreaking and seminal report.
In conclusion on this issue, let me just restate that the former government cared nothing about the fact that Australia was only one of two OECD nations that had no national paid parental scheme. The current opposition leader said that paid parental or maternity leave would be ‘introduced over the government’s dead body’. It seems that he has had now had a change of heart, but I ask the question: can we believe in his commitments and his change of heart on such a fundamental issue? Our government will go down in history as providing Australia’s first paid parental scheme from 1 January 2011. It will provide for 18 weeks of government funded parental leave at the national minimum wage— (Time expired)
I rise tonight to report to the House, and also back to the electorate of Lyne, on some of the targeted strategic planning issues that several of us have been working on in the local area of the Mid-North Coast to try and achieve some real, long-term outcomes in both employment and education. I arrived 18 months ago in what could only be considered a changed environment in this place, with a vote being put to the House in the first fortnight of my coming here with regard to an $80 billion stimulus package. So it is an understatement to say there was both a lot happening normally within the role of the Commonwealth government and, at the time of the financial storms and the response from government in the form of a stimulus plan, that it was a particular time of Commonwealth swirl with regard to the amount of money and activity that the Commonwealth was engaging with the community on.
It was for that reason a few of us sat down early on in my time in federal politics and decided to try and be a bit strategic. The key areas that we focused on included trying to get Regional Development Australia up and running—I am really pleased to see that has now happened—and also the transition from area consultative committees across to RDAs.
There was and still is a great deal of interest in the education and training reforms that we are seeing in the post-Bradley environment, and all the key words—collaboration, pathways and pipelines—that we hear constantly in regard to the issues of change in the field of education. The third area was in relation to our region being identified as a priority region with regard to employment and accessing things such as a local employment coordinator and the development of a Jobs Plan. The strategic decisions we made were to focus in around those three general themes and to really hit 2009 as hard as we could, in an effort to maximise those and then to pop out the other side with a plan that hopefully incorporated all three of those general themes—and we are now at that point.
I will summarise some of the events of 2009 sitting underneath those three general areas. We established an education and skills forum. Our area was one that received two Australian technical colleges—
Two!
Two! It was a long process of seeing those transitions at a community level into a role either within the education sector—and Catholic education sector—in Port Macquarie, or within the local government, the Greater Taree City Council, to take on the building in the Taree community. So thankfully that was not lost to the community.
As a consequence, the flow-on from that was the establishment of an education and skills forum. All the private, public, secondary and tertiary sectors were sitting in a room and talking every three to four months. I was surprised that this was not happening before I arrived. I was surprised at how difficult it was for many people within the education sector to sit in a room and talk. But now we have some really vibrant discussions going on in what I consider to be a relatively seamless approach to education in our local area—and from that better outcomes as a consequence.
In 2009 we had several very good Keep Australia Working forums as part of being the priority region. From that, we have some detailed strategic planning and half-a-dozen core areas to focus on. As well, we saw the establishment of the RDA mid-North Coast and the morphing of the state and federal government regional department areas. That requires more resources and support, and more belief from government in the RDA network and the belief that regional development actually matters. But we are pleased that this has finally happened and that there is something on the ground that can play an advocacy and lobbying role, and it is doing that now. We also held a very successful jobs expo at the start of this year. Thank you very much to Centrelink for its role in putting a letter in everyone’s letterbox and for drawing a very big crowd and some very good outcomes. The expected outcome of 250 jobs being found on the day was substantially beaten by the 400 actual jobs found on that one day. The model of having a one-stop supermarket-type expo is one that we want to replicate, not necessarily doing it without too much government support—other than the Centrelink letter—but rather empowering the community to do it.
In the past couple of years we have had two very successful business industry showcases, which are more about long-term engagement with career advice for school-aged children. The latest one was held last month and was very successful. We are into the second year of engaging the innovation festival. While there have been about 15 years of innovation festivals throughout Australia, I was surprised that it was not happening on the mid-North Coast but I am encouraged now that it is happening. We have had the second innovation festival. It is still going on this month and it has now, in just two years, become the biggest of all the regional innovation festivals within Australia, as far as the event program is concerned. The community is engaged very strongly in that.
As well, there are the Deadly Days. For those that do not know what a Deadly Days is, I would encourage you to find out. The North Coast Institute of TAFE—but I think other TAFE providers also do it—put on an Indigenous-specific expo of both career advice and entertainment. It is a point of contact that demystifies what education and TAFE in particular is about. They had attendances this year at the three campuses of over 500 potential Indigenous students. The results are that Indigenous engagement within TAFE and within the education sector of the mid-North Coast has skyrocketed, which is a lesson for others to replicate. The figures for unemployment within the Indigenous community on the mid-North Coast in August 2006 were one in four—that is, 26½ per cent. It is shameful, as the reflection on everyone within the system, that we are at that level. I am thrilled that we are now, at a community level, starting to turn that around.
These are all steps that have been taken under those general themes and we are now starting to roll the end of the priority employment region into, hopefully, some well-resourced Regional Development Australia work. We will start the transition across there. It is important that RDA does get well funded into the future. As we see these priority employment areas start to wind down, it is necessary that RDA starts to wind up at the same time. I would hope that government members and ministers take that on board. We are going to basically carry the strategies of the last 12 months across to the RDA and place a great focus on the education changes—and I think very exciting education changes—that are happening through the post-Bradley review.
We have had a good hit over the last 12 months and we think that is going to create some long-term change. We cannot force people to go into education—it is the centrepiece of all of this—but I once again urge my community under the general name of ‘study for a job, study for a job, study for a job’. It is the key to all of it, coming out of and representing a low-SES region, if we can get more people engaged in certificates II, II, IV and beyond. There are individual benefits through participation, but there are also now well-documented productivity gains at a community level. I cannot guarantee jobs as a consequence of it, but it is the best ticket anyone can buy if they are wanting to improve their chances.
This is not only about hitting up government; this is also about hitting up community and increasing the aspiration. I think it is happening. We have some really exciting things percolating on the mid-North Coast, and the combination of the strategy that we have been running over the last 18 months with that increased activity at the community level I think leads to some pretty exciting times. (Time expired)
I would like to grieve tonight about the state of the delivery of health services in Townsville in my electorate of Herbert. There are a number of issues that I would like to cover tonight. The first one is that recently the Prime Minister came to Townsville to announce a PET scanner for the North. We have been fighting for a PET scanner for a long time. It is the most convenient way of detecting many cancers, because it really is a once-only procedure—you do not have to keep going back to get checked with other X-ray procedures. At the moment people from Townsville have to go to Brisbane, which is something like 1,100 air kilometres away, and they have to take family support members, which is very difficult for them.
We are the capital city of Northern Australia, effectively, and we are entitled to have a PET scanner. So our community was overjoyed when the Prime Minister came and announced a PET scanner for Townsville. I had previously approached the health minister and said: ‘Look, Minister, I have got a great deal for you. I have a private company who will provide a PET scanner. They will put in half the capital cost if you put in the other half; they are prepared to put in $2 million, and what is more they will do Medicare rebatable procedures; they have the support of the Townsville hospital; and they already have a nuclear radiation specialist on their staff—if we get cracking now.’
But the government rejected that and the Prime Minister came and said, ‘No, we’ll fully fund a PET scanner.’ So it was double the cost. Then the Prime Minister said, ‘But it will be in the public hospital’, which immediately meant it would only do half the patients, because the efficiency of the public system is about half of that of the private system. So we had this deal where it was double the cost with half the number of procedures. But what the PM did not tell the community was that it was not going to be delivered until 2014. My community expects a PET scanner basically next year, but it is not going to happen. It is really sad that the community has been misled in that way. But it does not surprise me, as the same was done in relation to the GP superclinic promised for Townsville.
That promise was made prior to the last election, 800 days ago or so. The health minister came to Townsville and announced a GP superclinic. Nothing has happened. It is to go on land opposite where my office is—the busiest corner outside Brisbane. I know that it is not going. It is nowhere near being started. It is going to be three years and more before we get a GP superclinic. That is really sad. The public has been given the expectation that there will be this clinic that will deliver integrated services across the board. That is the model that was proposed. But that is nowhere near in sight. It is a terrible way to manage the health care of our community.
When the government announced its plans for taking over the health system in Australia, it kind of half pinched a coalition policy, which was to have local hospital board control. There are some very good reasons for that. I now see that the government is advertising on television and in the press that they are going to have local control. It is actually not true. What the government announced was that it would have regional boards that would supervise a number of hospitals in the region. But there would not be local control of a local hospital. It is sad that the government said one thing and is now trying to tell the public another thing. It is not a good way to manage health.
I fear that the hospital system, which in Townsville goes from crisis to crisis, waiting list to waiting list—and there is a waiting list to get on the waiting list—is never going to change. When Mr Beattie was in power as state premier, he said that he was going to put a few extra billion into health and fix all these problems. But it never changed. I rather suspect that many of my colleagues around the Australia have had the same experience, no matter which side of the parliament that they are on. They have heard all these promises about fixing the health system, but it never changes.
On the one hand, the more money that you put into health the more money there is to put into health. That makes things pretty difficult. The new technologies are costing more and more. But the leaders of our country do not seem to be able to grasp how to fix the problem. All this consultation goes on, people go around the country and there is lots of talking. But I rather suspect that in 2014 the same problems will be there. And I rather suspect that many of my colleagues on both sides of the parliament think the same way.
Some of the problems are to do with workforce issues in the public hospital system. I am not in any way demeaning the work that is done by the doctors and nurses in the hospital system. What I am saying is that when you count the number of bureaucrats in the hospital or health system and count the number of practitioners, things are out of kilter. In the federal budget this year there was another $500 million provided just for bureaucrats. That is pretty tough, I reckon. That makes things very difficult.
I would certainly like all of us in the parliament to apply our minds to how we may be able to get some meaningful changes made. It is kind of like trying to manage Defence. Many of us do not seem to be able to get the tiger by the tail. It is the same with health. We really have to get the tiger by the tail. We have to make improvements. People are entitled to decent health care and they are entitled to timely health care.
It is sad. All of us in the parliament have examples of people coming to us and saying: ‘I’ve been in agony. I need a hip replacement and I can’t get it for another two years’—that sort of thing. Or they might say, ‘My teeth are rotting and I can’t get my teeth fixed and they’re telling me I’ve got to wait seven years.’ It is pretty tough for a country that is so wealthy that that should be the case. All of us on both sides of the parliament should do our bit to try to make sure that we do provide the best care that we can to people who need health care. I thank the parliament for its indulgence tonight.
Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.