I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 will contribute to the success of the G20 later this year.
It will do this by ensuring the powers that can be exercised by police and other authorised persons are clear and unambiguous. These powers are designed to provide for the safety and security of people and property at the Brisbane Airport during the leaders' summit in November.
The G20 is an important global forum.
It brings together the leaders of the world's biggest economies to play a leadership role in addressing economic issues that matter to all countries, members and non-members alike.
Collectively, G20 member countries represent around 85 per cent of global GDP, over 75 per cent of global trade and two-thirds of the world's population. Australia assumed the G20 presidency in December last year. To be able to host the next round of G20 events this year is a great privilege.
These events will bring national leaders and a range of other influential international figures to our shores.
This presents an opportunity for Australia to demonstrate its leadership both regionally and globally on economic issues in a tough economic climate.
As Chair, the Prime Minister has structured this year's events around the key themes of:
Finance ministers and central bank governors had a successful meeting in February and will meet again in September.
Trade ministers will meet in July and employment ministers will meet in September.
These meetings will culminate in the leaders' summit in Brisbane in November which will build on the work of earlier meetings.
The Prime Minister has labelled the leaders' summit the most important meeting of world leaders Australia has ever hosted.
It is easy to see why.
But along with this important opportunity comes great responsibility.
Appropriate security arrangements and effective collaboration between law enforcement and other agencies will be paramount to ensuring these G20 events proceed smoothly.
I am confident our nation's first-rate law enforcement and security agencies possess the personnel, organisational capacity, skills and experience to meet this challenge.
It is our responsibility to ensure that the appropriate settings are in place for our agencies to do their job.
Queensland has enacted legislation to give police and other authorised persons the powers they will need to ensure the safety of our high-profile guests and the public during the G20.
Specifically, the Queensland G20 (Safety and Security) Act will ensure police have the powers they need to:
The Queensland legislation also provides for 'security areas' in which closer security arrangements can be implemented.
This bill is necessary to ensure the powers conferred by the Queensland legislation can be exercised within the Brisbane Airport during the leaders' summit.
It will do this by clarifying the relationship between the Queensland legislation and existing Commonwealth aviation and airports legislation at the Brisbane Airport for the purposes of the G20 summit.
Importantly, it will address any unintended overlap between Commonwealth aviation and airports legislation and Queensland legislation to ensure the safety of this event is not affected by any ambiguity.
The bill will sunset the day after the leaders' summit ends. This will avoid the need to repeal the legislation after it has ceased to be necessary.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2014 is an important reform to achieve improved regulatory outcomes and enhance access to justice.
This government is determined to reduce regulation and make Commonwealth laws clear and accessible. This bill will significantly simplify and streamline Commonwealth regulatory powers across the statute book over time, and improve the accessibility, efficiency and effectiveness of the federal justice system.
The bill will make it easier for businesses that are subject to regulatory regimes to understand and comply with the law. It will also provide greater clarity to those agencies currently exercising regulatory powers under multiple regimes.
The bill provides a framework of powers for general application across regulatory schemes for monitoring compliance with, investigating breaches of, and enforcing, Commonwealth laws.
These powers will only be available in relation to a regulatory scheme if the governing legislation triggers or engages the powers provided in this bill. These powers can be triggered in whole or in part, depending on the requirements of the particular scheme.
The monitoring provisions provide a framework for agencies to monitor whether legislation is being complied with. They also provide agencies with the power to monitor whether information given in compliance, or purported compliance, with a law, is correct.
The investigation provisions provide a framework for gathering evidence that relates to the contravention of offences and civil penalty provisions. These powers include the power to search premises and seize evidential material, and to inspect, test, or copy evidential material.
There are also monitoring and investigation powers for operating electronic equipment and securing electronic equipment to obtain expert assistance.
The bill also provides a framework for the use of civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable understandings and injunctions.
Over the last 20 years there has been an enormous proliferation of regulatory powers and associated provisions, across the Commonwealth statute book. These powers and provisions vary in their breadth and detail, resulting in inconsistency or unnecessary duplication across regimes.
This creates an unnecessary compliance burden for businesses subject to scrutiny or supervision by multiple regulatory regimes. Current inconsistent regulatory regimes require businesses to incur legal costs and face increased risk as they struggle to understand the applicable regime, let alone the differences between them.
Further, the inconsistency and duplication of powers makes it difficult for agencies to perform their functions where they may exercise powers across several regimes with different governing legislation.
Provisions relating to the enforcement of a regulatory regime can easily increase the length of legislation by 30 pages, and by up to 80 pages for some regimes.
The bill will be rolled out in three stages. In stage 1, new laws that require monitoring, investigation or enforcement powers of the kinds available under the regulatory powers bill will be drafted to trigger the relevant provisions.
In stage 2, laws that have been drafted over recent years using precedents based on the regulatory powers bill will be amended to remove those provisions and instead trigger the relevant provisions of this bill.
In stage 3, monitoring, investigation and enforcement regimes in current laws may be reviewed and amended to instead trigger the relevant provisions in the regulatory powers bill.
Over time, the amount of duplication between these laws will be significantly reduced.
The powers contained in this bill will not be suitable for all regulatory regimes. Specialised powers will continue to be needed, for example, by law enforcement and security agencies which deal with national security or serious and organised crime.
Importantly, the key safeguards of parliamentary scrutiny will be maintained, as the powers in the bill are rolled out across regulatory regimes. The primary legislation which governs a scheme will need to trigger the powers in this bill. These legislative amendments will provide parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise the suitability of powers in the particular context in which it is proposed that they be exercised.
This also means that an assessment of the human rights implications will be undertaken each time a bill proposes to apply provisions of the regulatory powers bill. This will require consideration based on the context of the particular scheme and the specific provisions that are triggered.
There are also operational safeguards included in this bill.
Entry to premises can only be authorised by informed and voluntary consent, or by judicial authorisation. If entry has been granted by consent, and that consent is subsequently withdrawn, the agency must leave the premises.
If entry is authorised by warrant, the agency must make a copy of the warrant available to the occupier of the premises, and provide them with written notification of their rights and responsibilities. This includes the right for the occupier to observe the execution of the warrant.
The bill also provides for the courts to have sufficient oversight to ensure against the risk of abuse or the arbitrary exercise of power by an agency.
Where an infringement notice is issued, a person may elect to have a matter heard by a court rather than pay an infringement notice. This right must be set out in the infringement notice issued to the person.
Significantly, the bill also preserves fundamental common law privileges. Individuals who are subject to these powers must be informed of their rights and responsibilities, and will continue to have the right to refuse to answer a question or produce documents if doing so would tend to incriminate them or waive legal professional privilege.
The regulatory powers bill is an important step in streamlining the Commonwealth's regulatory frameworks, and in doing so, improving the accessibility and consistency of these laws.
This will make it easier for individuals and businesses to know and understand their rights and responsibilities and be able to more readily comply with the law. This will reduce legal costs and risks, promote greater access to justice and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses that are subject to multiple regimes.
This bill will also ensure that Commonwealth regulatory powers are sufficiently certain and predictable, while being flexible, to ensure that agencies with specialised functions can operate effectively.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill gives effect to this government's election commitment to fairly index Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (DFRB) and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) pensions for recipients aged 55 and over from 1 July 2014.
This legislation amends the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 to deliver the government's commitment.
The government's fair indexation commitment, as reflected in the bill, addresses a long-standing grievance of the veteran and ex-service community about differing—and inequitable—indexation arrangements that apply to DFRB and DFRDB pensions compared to age and service pensions. The bill recognises the government's commitment to ensure that age and service pension indexation arrangements apply to members of the DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation schemes.
The government recognises the unique nature of military service. The government's commitment to address this long-standing grievance of the veteran and ex-service community is underpinned by this belief.
The bill will also exempt DFRB and DFRDB members from the division 293 tax for the one-off capitalised value of the benefit improvement relating to past service as at 1 July 2014. This will ensure members with significant past service but modest superannuation pensions will not incur a taxation liability resulting from the changes to indexation. However, superannuants on high annual incomes will not be excluded from an ongoing annual liability under this provision.
The new fairer pension indexation methodology is to apply to DFRB and DFRDB pensions from 1 July 2014. The measures extend fair indexation provisions to invalidity pensions, reversionary pensions and pensions for those associates in receipt of a pension as a result of a family law split, who are aged 55 and over on the current relevant indexation date.
Under the new fairer indexation methodology, which mirrors the two-step indexation process for age and service pensions, the first step would be to calculate the pension that would result if it were increased in line with the better of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI). Then the second step would be to compare the resulting pension to the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE). If the calculated pension is greater than the specified floor percentage (27.7 per cent of MTAWE for the single pension), then no further adjustment is made. If the resultant pension is less than the floor percentage of MTAWE, it is increased so that it equals the floor percentage of MTAWE.
It is important to note that the new fairer indexation methodology will not result in a DFRB or DFRDB pension that is currently less than the MTAWE floor percentage increasing to the floor percentage (and conversely, that a pension that is currently in excess of the floor percentage reducing to the floor percentage). The proposed changes will have an immediate impact on some 45,000 current DFRB and DFRDB pensioners where the originally entitled member was aged 55 or over at 1 July 2014.
This bill gives effect to many years of advocacy by this government for fair indexation of DFRB and DFRDB superannuants and their families. It delivers a key election commitment and addresses a long-standing grievance of the veteran and ex-service community.
This bill recognises the unique nature of military service and ensures that recipients of DFRB and DFRDB pensions have their pensions indexed in the same way as age and service pension are indexed.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill, repealing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, delivers on our election commitment to abolish the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
The CEFC was established on 3 August 2012 and was given a wide remit to lend taxpayers' borrowed money. The CEFC extended the reach of the carbon tax by creating a $10 billion fund to invest in renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency projects.
From the outset, the concept of the CEFC overlapped with the 20 per cent renewable energy target. By itself, this target encourages investment in renewable energy. The target does not need to be accompanied by $10 billion of borrowed taxpayers' money going into the CEFC to encourage investment.
This bill also transfers the CEFC's existing assets and liabilities to the Treasury. The Commonwealth will ensure both an orderly transition of the CEFC's investments to the Commonwealth and minimal disruption to the clean energy market so business can continue as usual.
We will of course honour all payments that are necessary as part of meeting our contractual obligations to committed investments. These obligations will be met from the CEFC's existing funding, which will be transferred to a new CEFC transitional special account.
This account will also cover the Treasury's management costs in administering the CEFC's investments. Any other liabilities relating to the CEFC will also be covered by funds from the special account.
Future monies that were due to be appropriated to the CEFC annually until 2017 will be returned to consolidated revenue. This bill also provides for excess funding to be returned to consolidated revenue at any stage if it is no longer needed for managing the CEFC's assets and liabilities.
With this bill the government is delivering on its commitment to abolish the CEFC.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014provides legislative authority for the government to charge Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants an annual celebrant registration charge. The administrative arrangements for implementing the celebrant registration charge are provided for in the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014, which I will also introduce today.
Separate legislation for the celebrant registration charge is required under section 55 of the Constitution as the charge is a cost recovery levy.
The annual costs of administering the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program will be fully cost recovered through the imposition of this charge. This will enable government to improve services delivered to Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants, while also better regulating those celebrants. These measures will in turn facilitate Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants delivering professional, knowledgeable and legally correct services to marrying couples in Australia.
The bill provides that the amount of the charge is to be determined by the minister by legislative instrument and is not to exceed the statutory limit. The statutory limit for the financial year commencing 1 July 2014 is $600 and is to be indexed annually in line with the consumer price index.
However, in line with the expected costs of administering the program, the charge for the 2014-15 financial year will be considerably lower than the statutory limit at $240. This charge will not generate revenue.
Costs are incurred by the program in administering newly appointed celebrants from the time they are registered until the next annual charge becomes due and payable on 1 July. Where a new celebrant is registered after 1 July in any financial year, a ministerial determination may provide that different amounts of the celebrant registration charge are payable in respect of that year. This is only fair as the celebrant will not be accessing the resources provided by the Marriage Celebrants Program until registration. It will also ensure that people registered close to 1 July in any given year are not disadvantaged by having to pay a full celebrant registration charge twice in a short period of time.
The imposition of a celebrant registration charge under the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014is consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines and will result in enhanced services and support for marriage celebrants. This will assist marriage celebrants to continue to provide couples seeking to marry with professional and legally correct services on what is one of the most important days in the lives of marrying couples.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014amends the Marriage Act to introduce cost recovery for the regulation of the Marriage Celebrants Program and makes minor amendments related to the administration of the program. This bill provides the administrative arrangements for the celebrant registration charge which will be implemented by the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014, which I introduced earlier today.
Marriage celebrants are an essential feature of many modern weddings. In 1973, less than two per cent of couples were married in a civil ceremony. In 2012, ABS figures show that 71.9 per cent of marriages were performed by civil celebrants. The number of marriage celebrants has increased significantly in recent years from 3,334 in September 2003 to over 10,400 Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants administered by the program in 2014.
A couple's wedding day is one of the most special and enduring moments in their lives. It is, therefore, important that the person solemnising the marriage does so in accordance with relevant standards and legal obligations.
While the great majority of marriage celebrants perform this role to a very high standard, the quality of services provided by celebrants does vary. Their important role carries significant legal responsibilities and the community is entitled to expect that Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants are suitably equipped to discharge their functions. Failure to do so properly can have devastating consequences for the couple being married.
The existing legislative regime governing marriage celebrants is robust, with statutory provisions to ensure their integrity and professionalism. However, the program has had limited resources to effectively utilise the legislative provisions available to properly regulate the industry—for example, to respond in a timely way to concerns raised about the non-compliance of celebrants with their legislative obligations or code of practice. Nor has the department been in a position to provide to marriage celebrants the services it would like to support them to meet their obligations.
The implementation of cost recovery will improve the education and training services delivered to Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants, while better regulating those celebrants. It will also enable improved scrutiny of aspiring marriage celebrants before they are registered. These measures will in turn facilitate Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants delivering professional, knowledgeable and legally correct services to marrying couples in Australia.
It is proposed that the following fees and charges will apply to the program:
Subject to passage of the bill, these will commence from 1 July 2014.
Exemptions from the fees and charges will be available in certain circumstances, including for marriage celebrants in remote areas to ensure continued access to celebrancy services for those communities.
An extensive consultation process was undertaken by the Attorney-General's department. The consultation process elicited significant feedback from marriage celebrants about the charging structure and inclusions, which was considered in the development of these reforms.
In addition to cost recovery, the bill also includes administrative improvements to increase the efficiency and operation of the program.
Marrying couples must provide their celebrant with evidence of date and place of birth as part of the process of completing their notice of intended marriage. An Australian passport will be included in the range of documentation that an authorised marriage celebrant may receive as evidence. This amendment reflects the reality that many Australian citizens hold an Australian passport, which may be more readily accessible than their birth certificate, in the lead up to an intended marriage.
The bill will also remove the requirement to review a marriage celebrant's performance every five years. Instead of all celebrants having their performance reviewed, the focus of attention will be on celebrants about whom there are grounds for concern about their conduct or professional standards as a marriage celebrant. For the majority of celebrants, this will remove the burden of going through a mandatory review process.
The requirement for the majority of forms in the Marriage Act to be prescribed by the regulations, or in a prescribed format, will also be removed. Instead, most of these forms, which are administrative in nature, will become forms approved by the minister. This will remove the need to amend the Marriage Regulations every time a form needs to be updated or modernised. This will facilitate relevant and timely updates to these forms, while maintaining appropriate checks and balances for the available marriage forms.
The marriage certificate received by marrying couples will remain as a form prescribed in the Marriage Regulations.
In return for the fee, marriage celebrants can expect improved service and accessibility to the department through an online celebrant portal, a dedicated phone service, enhanced education and guidance materials and a quarterly newsletter. There will also be strengthened application, performance review and complaints handling mechanisms.
Conclusion
Through the introduction of cost recovery, the Marriage Celebrants Program will be placed on a more secure foundation into the future, ensuring that the high standards Australians rightly expect of Commonwealth-registered celebrants are properly monitored and enforced.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I would like to thank the members on both sides who have contributed to the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014, an important initiative promised by the government in the lead-up to the last election. We are very eager to see it put into place. The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill delivers on a pre-election commitment to progressively restore funding to the EMDG Scheme, starting with an initial $50 million boost over four years. It confirms the government's intention to increase funding to support Australia's small and medium enterprise exporters. This increase in funding enables the scheme to be expanded to provide support to an increased number of small and medium enterprise exporters and increased support to most existing EMDG recipients. The changes in this bill will help small and medium enterprise exporters to capitalise on existing export markets, re-enter export markets that are showing greater potential as the international economy improves, and enter new markets. The increased grants will be paid from 1 July this year. Therefore, it is important that this bill come into force at the earliest opportunity. That way, Australia's small and medium enterprise exporters will have the certainty they need to increase their marketing expenditure in pursuit of valuable export markets as quickly as possible. They will be able to qualify for the increased grants payable from 1 July.
In summary, the bill provides for the following changes to the Export Market Development Grants Act. First, it will apply an increase in the maximum number of grants per applicant from seven to eight, allowing many of the more experienced EMDG recipients to capitalise on their investment in international markets and pursue important diversification into new markets. Second, it will apply a reduction in the required expenditure threshold to qualify for a grant from $20,000 to $15,000. This will enable many small exporters, including those testing international markets for the first time, to qualify for a grant. Third, currently there is a $5,000 deduction from the provisional EMDG grant amount, and this will drop to $2,500, enabling most EMDG recipients to receive an extra $2,500 per grant. Fourthly, 'not fit and proper person' provisions will be applied to EMDG consultants to protect taxpayer dollars devoted to the scheme. Similar provisions have applied to EMDG applicants for many years, so this simply brings the provisions for EMDG consultants into line. Fifthly, the bill will enable a grant to be paid more quickly where the final amount of grant take-ups for a given year is known and where it is possible for grant amounts to be determined early. Finally, for the financial year 2013-14 only, additional administration costs can be met by Austrade from departmental appropriations.
I must say that the support the coalition is providing to small business, as exemplified in this bill, stands in stark contrast to the previous Labor administration's record over recent years. In the six years that those opposite were in government, 412,000 jobs were lost in small business, whereas in February we saw jobs growth in small business. Yesterday in this debate, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition lauded Labor's history of support for the EMDG program, yet they stripped $25 million per annum from the program at a time when hundreds of thousands of jobs were being lost from the small business sector and at a time when they were looking desperately for loose change to try to satisfy that imaginary surplus target, which we saw them pursue for two or three years. They cut the program by $25 million to just $125 million, the lowest level in over two decades. We are repairing some of that damage to our exporters, by putting $50 million back over four years.
If we are to get productivity and innovation back to where it should be, we must remember that our innovation centre in Australia always has been, and always will be, our small business sector. The small business sector is the heart of innovation. When those innovations take hold and start to succeed, the bigger companies come in and develop them. Really, the bigger companies in Australia have, in large part, outsourced innovation to the small business sector. It is critical that we create opportunities for small and medium businesses in Australia to get a toehold and to build relationships early so that in the years ahead we can take full advantage of the opportunities that are emerging in the region around us, especially from the exploding middle class.
We saw Labor add over 21,000 new rules and regulations, heaping an additional burden on small exporters. With this week's repeal day, we will be scrapping over 9,000 rules and regulations. Bear in mind, this is the just the first repeal day. We will have a succession of these in the months and years ahead. We are determined, as a government, to create the best possible environment, and the least cost environment, that we can for the over two million small businesses in our country. Labor's legacy is 412,000 jobs lost; major programs, such as the EMDG, being stripped of money; and a firestorm of regulations that have been imposed over the last six years. That is the miserable legacy of those opposite.
As I said, we do see small and medium businesses, and the exporters among them, as the engine for sustainable growth, led by the private sector. We understand how our exporters nowadays have to fit into global supply chains. Last night we heard the member for Sydney speak on this bill. She decried the fact that we have not proceeded with Labor's plans to cut EMDG funding for exporters to the United States, Canada and the EU. In fact, Labor tried to make those cuts last year. They have the mistaken belief that somehow this would contribute to Australia's engagement with Asia. They simply do not understand business. They have not got the experience on their front bench, or on their back bench for that matter, to inform their caucus and their shadow cabinet about the nature of business in the 21st century. Global supply chains are the overwhelmingly significant feature of modern-day business for both large and small businesses. Labor simply does not understand that the future for our sophisticated exporters is fitting into these global supply chains. In global supply chains, our exporters are often dealing with major multinationals, at the apex, based out of the EU or USA. Our exports might be one input into a multistage manufacturing chain—a chain stretching across several countries—with a product that ends up being sold to a consumer in China. We see this with the example of carbon fibre wheels produced by Carbon Revolution, an EMDG grant recipient out of Waurn Ponds in the seat of the member for Corangamite. This is new-age technology. This is leading-edge technology. This is technology that has been developed, and is now being produced, in a city which has been bedevilled by the loss of 20th century industries, with the movement of Ford, with the disappearance of Alcoa and with the pressure on cement manufacturing. All of these 20th century industries have created employment issues in Geelong—a major regional city in Victoria.
This technology is the way of the future. We are a knowledge-based economy, but these carbon fibre wheels are sent to the EU—they actually go to the EU—and Italy. Under Labor's proposed changes and the changes they sought to make last year, they would not have had the opportunity to engage or the assistance to develop an important market which is starting in the EU. That carbon fibre wheel will end up propelling a brand spanking new Lamborghini that will end up, in large part, being sold out of a showroom in Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou—all over China.
This is called global supply chains and why there needs to be a grant scheme that is available for small and medium business to sell into any area of the world, because we in this House have no ability to determine what global supply chain is in play with any particular product or service or where these products or services will end up. We just have to create the environment, the opportunity and the assistance to get our small and medium exporters into these markets in a way which allows them to start to develop 21st century products which will sustain economic growth and give us sustainable job growth in the decades ahead.
We do understand small and medium business, and that is why the government is seeking to pass this bill now. We want to deliver on our election promise to increase the funding, provide certainty for small business and encourage them to increase their export marketing expenditure this year and in the future. Again, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate and I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendment (1):
(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 13), after item 9, insert:
9A Section 105
Omit "The costs", substitute "(1) The costs".
9B At the end of section 105
Add:
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply in relation to the financial year that started on 1 July 2013. Despite paragraph (1)(a), to the extent that the costs of the administration of this Act for that financial year exceed 5% of the appropriation amount for that financial year, those costs are to be paid otherwise than out of that appropriation amount.
The government proposes to amend section 105 of the Export Market Development Grants Act relating to administration costs for 2013-14 only to provide for additional administration costs above the amount provided for in the EMDG Act to be met from departmental appropriations. Additional funding will ensure that Austrade is able to promptly process EMDG applications while prudently protecting taxpayer resources by carefully evaluating claims. This is a technical amendment to allow us to meet our fiscal responsibilities and to ensure the rapid introduction of these measures. Austrade will pick up any additional costs so as not to be at the expense of the grants we are seeking to provide. I commend the amendment to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Yesterday, there was another accident on the Calder Freeway, which is the main road connecting Bendigo to Melbourne. Four people in a vehicle heading southbound sustained non-life-threatening injuries and were taken to Bendigo Health. However, the driver of the second vehicle was flown to Melbourne with serious injuries, and the passenger in his vehicle also sustained non-life-threatening injuries.
However, tragically, it is not the same story for a fatal accident that occurred in almost the exact same spot on the Calder less than two weeks ago. Yesterday, an 83-year-old woman died nine days after this accident. She was the passenger, and her sister, who died at the scene, was the driver. This accident was at Fogertys Gap on the Calder Highway intersection. It is one of the notorious spots on this stretch of highway from Bendigo to Melbourne.
The incident came after a horror Labour Day weekend, where deaths in my local area hit seven. That is seven in one weekend. Police, the CFA, ambos and SES personnel attended all these scenes. I thank our emergency services in central Victoria, who are always quick to respond when these accidents occur. They are some of our finest local heroes.
The Calder Freeway—the Calder Highway in some sections—runs through the heart of the Bendigo electorate, and sadly almost every week there is another accident. Sadly, there are lots of accidents on many roads in the electorate—not just on the Calder. Whether it be a country road, street, highway or freeway, I am concerned that in the Bendigo electorate there are too many hot spots and too many road accidents. Road safety is a major issue that is quite often raised with me, when I am out and about in the community. That is why we cannot underestimate the importance of the former Labor government's Nation Building Program and how it has helped increase safety in regional communities like my own.
Ensuring that we have safe roads is not something that you can do overnight. It requires long-term sustained investment from local, state and federal governments. I am relieved that these amendments will continue the funding for the Roads to Recovery and Black Spot programs. In the Bendigo electorate, over $10.5 million has already been spent in recent years to fund the Black Spot and Roads to Recovery programs.
Roads to Recovery has provided funding to local governments for roads that are in much need of an upgrade. In a meeting with the Macedon Ranges council, the CEO said, 'It would take 10 years to fix the roads from our own budget that we have been able to fix with Roads to Recovery funding. Thank you.' Small regional councils like the three that I have in in the Bendigo electorate have a small rate base, but large country areas and roads. Mount Alexander actually has more bridges than any other council area in Australia. Ensuring that they have budgets to maintain roads and bridges is a continual struggle. That is why it is important that our federal government partner with local governments to tackle this issue.
Black Spot Program funding is targeted at identified roads where there have been more accidents than is normal. Recent Black Spot funding in the Bendigo electorate included the Bendigo-Redesdale Road in Strathdale, Hargraves Street in Castlemaine and Bayne Street in North Bendigo. I can remember talking to some of the residents who live near these black spots, when I have been out doorknocking, and some of the comments they have are quite frightening. There is quite often relief, 'Finally! Thank you! It's great to hear they are working on the road.' One resident, in fact, said, 'You know, I'm sick of getting out there and picking up bodies off this road. I'm so relieved that something is finally being done about it.'
However, what concerns me about this bill is that the minister will require ongoing power to determine the Roads to Recovery list. The question has to be asked: how can one person know every road in the country? How can he not only know every road in the country but also work out the order of most need? How can the minister know that the intersection between Edgecombe Street and Epping Street in Kyneton is dangerous? That is why it was listed by the council and the department for a $200,000 construction and upgrade. How can the minister know that Axe Creek Road is dangerous? That is why the council and the department listed it for a $300,000 upgrade to seal the shoulders, install edge lines and widen the left turning lane. The minister's having control over the list only serves one purpose—that is to change the list. The reason we have departments and councils to set the priority list is so that they can have direct say over what is of urgency. The only reason that the minister would need this kind of control is to change the list. That worries me and it will worry my community.
Getting the right advice on priorities for Roads to Recovery funding is essential to ensure that we do not only have road safety, but have value for public investment. That is why I support the amendment that has been put forward by Labor to require consultation with Infrastructure Australia projects before approval. It is important that we have transparency around decision making. Many stakeholders in the infrastructure debate have called for greater transparency and accountability over how the Commonwealth spends its infrastructure funds. Only just recently, the Macedon Ranges Residents' Association, which is one stakeholder in my community, raised the issue and called for greater transparency and accountability. It is worried about black-spot funding and making sure that the roads in its area continue to remain high on the priority list. In responding to these growing calls, the first amendment that has been put forward requires the minister to seek the views of the government infrastructure expert adviser, Infrastructure Australia, before funding for projects is approved. This amendment will also require full evaluation by Infrastructure Australia for any project over $100 million in value, this is where the Calder comes back into play. Finally, in approving of funds for the project the minister must make public the Infrastructure Australia findings on the priority of the project and its cost-benefit evaluation.
The Liberal-National governments have form in this area. We have seen that at a state government level and previously at a federal government level, as they prioritise their pet projects before the community and national interest. I am nervous not just about the minister's having control over what projects are on the list but about election promises that they made when in opposition and now in government, particularly about one in my own area. During the federal election campaign, both sides of politics committed an investment of $45 million to upgrade the Calder Highway-Calder Alternate interchange at Ravenswood. Oddly, however, it was not the then shadow minister responsible for infrastructure, who was there for the announcement. It was not the then shadow minister for regional development; it was not the then shadow minister for finance or even the then opposition leader who was there. It was in fact somebody who had nothing to do with infrastructure, roads, expenditure or regional Australia. It was the then opposition spokesperson for employment and industrial relations who made the announcement. It raises the question: how serious is the coalition, in opposition and now in government, about keeping their election promise to fund the upgrade to the Ravenswood interchange?
During the minister's second reading speech, he listed 11 priority projects for vital funding for upgrades. However, Ravenswood—the Calder interchange—was not on the list. Again, people in my community are asking, 'Is the minister really committed to this project?'
This project—the Calder Ravenswood interchange upgrade—has moved from being a key priority to being an urgent priority. The number of accidents that are occurring on this stretch of highway is unacceptable. Only last month VicRoads announced urgent safety measures to be introduced at this dangerous intersection. The Calder Highway speed limits have been lowered at the interchange. VicRoads have reduced the speed limit from 100 kilometres per hour to 80 kilometres per hour. This is the last remaining option available to them to improve road safety on this very bad stretch of road. Hopefully, applying the new limit will allow the trucks that are coming from the north to get across the Calder safely.
There is growing concern about the pattern of crashes and near misses at this site. The chair of the Calder Highway Improvement Committee, David Pollard, has said that the interchange at Ravenswood is critical, as are a number of other areas on the Calder. We have already seen 11 accidents involving serious injury and 21 involving casualty in the past couple of decades. In July there was another serious collision, which fortunately resulted in only minor injuries, but it did close the stretch of highway again. Every time there is a closure, it hits productivity and slows cars down. So it is not just an issue of road safety; it is also an issue of productivity. CFA Captain Jamie Tatt said:
I have been a member of the CFA for 35 years and I have been to my fair share of fatalities on the crossroads of the Calder. There are a lot of near misses as well …
That is why we need urgent action on the Calder. According to Bendigo police there have been six accidents involving injury on this particular stretch of the road in the last five years, as well as several up and down the Calder, including those I listed earlier. The Ravenswood interchange is a key intersection and carries a high volume of not only cars but also heavy vehicles, which is why we need this vital upgrade. Upgrading this interchange will make it safer for the thousands of motorists and truck drivers who travel from Bendigo to Melbourne or to Mildura every day.
Like many, I have been waiting for the state coalition government to start the planning that is required for the federal government and Infrastructure Australia to complete the project, and that is one of the key problems we have. To ensure that we have road safety, we need local, state and federal government to work together to ensure that the planning is done so that the funding can then be provided for these projects. What we saw in the state of Victoria, in Bendigo in particular, was that the state Liberal-National government dragged their feet on this issue for three years in not getting the planning done so this road could be upgraded. I have been told—and it has been said in the media—that the state government is now doing this planning so that we can see this upgrade happen. But the planning cannot stop at Ravenswood; it needs to continue up and down the Calder. It is so important that for all of the hotspot areas—Kyneton, Fogartys Gap and Harcourt, or Ravenswood—we see the planning done at state government level and then the funding from federal government level.
Fogartys Gap, which I just mentioned, is a major problem area. A paramedic said that there have been a number of incidents since Fogartys Gap opened up 15 months ago. It is one of those areas where you are supposed to slow down to 100 as cars turn on and off a busy freeway. This paramedic said that it is just an accident waiting to happen. And sadly, as we have heard over the past fortnight, those accidents have started to happen. I am calling on both the Victorian state government and the federal government to continue the planning for these dangerous spots on the Calder and to continue the funding investment. Planning and funding is needed now up and down the Calder—and not just on the Calder but also on the on- and off-ramps associated with it. Some parts of the Calder are freeway standard, but others are well below standard. That is why it is so important that our local, state and federal governments work together. It is really simple stuff.
Last night another family sat at a hospital bedside hoping that their loved one would pull through. There was another tragic accident on the Calder yesterday. And governments need to do everything they can to reduce the risk of road incidents on our regional roads. Governments need to do whatever they can to ensure that fewer families spend their nights at the bedside of their loved ones in our hospitals.
I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today. In Leichhardt we know how vital it is for land transport infrastructure to be in place. It enables people to travel regularly and reliably to every corner of the electorate. Unfortunately, this is rarely an option. The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 lays out a detailed map of the government's infrastructure priorities. At the same time it repeals and amends Labor's legacy of failed policies, replacing the fragmented Nation Building Program with the National Land Transport Act 2014. This bill will enable the coalition government to get on with the job of delivering the biggest infrastructure agenda in Australia's history. This is no mean feat, but I can tell you now we are well and truly up to the task.
Over six years, through our $35.5 billion Infrastructure Investment Program, we will construct the vital road and rail projects that will improve efficiency, boost productivity, and drive Australia's economy forward. Of all the major projects under this program, I am extremely pleased to see that the Bruce Highway upgrade is the biggest financial commitment, at $6.7 billion. That is incredible. But, as the Coalition's Policy to Fix the Bruce Highway states, the importance of this highway cannot be overstated. Covering the 1,700 kilometres between Cairns and Brisbane it is the major arterial connection between Queensland seaboard communities and economic centres. I think Regional Development Australia summed it up very well, when it said that the Bruce Highway is:
Critically important for the efficient, reliable and safe movement of people and freight throughout the state, and is the most significant single piece of transport infrastructure used by residents, visitors, business and industry all year around.
The North Queensland Road Alliance estimates the Bruce Highway contributes $11.5 billion per annum to the Queensland economy, and supports some 60,000 jobs in North Queensland. At the same time, however, this stretch of road accounts for more than its fair share of road accidents and fatalities. Despite comprising just seven per cent of the National Highway it accounts for 17 per cent of national road fatalities. Between 2008 and 2011 there were 170 deaths and 1,620 hospitalisations as a direct result of crashes on the Bruce Highway.
The upgrade is one of the Australian Automobile Association's top national priorities, and a recent report from the Australian Road Assessment Program stated:
… the Bruce Highway is medium-high and high risk along much of its length.
In addition, large sections of the Bruce Highway are prone to flooding and lengthy road closures. Queensland figures show that each year, on average, nine locations along the highway are closed for more than 48 hours, and six locations are closed for more than five days per year due to flooding. This causes economic paralysis for Far North Queensland, with critical supplies being stalled and hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders being isolated at a financial cost in the many tens of millions of dollars.
The third major driver for the Bruce Highway upgrade is the increasing congestion and capacity constraints, especially on roads within or approaching our regional cities. Congestion means that more people are stuck in traffic, frustrated. It means more cost to business and less capacity to deal safely with the volume of traffic. This contributes to the accident rate, which is often caused by driver frustration.
In Far North Queensland almost $700 million will be spent on this major transport route between Gordonvale, Edmonton and Cairns. This includes more than $300 million for the three stages in the Cairns Southern Access Corridor project, which will increase sections to a six-lane motorway, along with associated overpasses and service roads, and walking and cycling paths.
Some of this work has already started under Labor, but not unexpectedly they ran over budget. We will make sure that the money is actually available, so that the work is actually completed and paid for in a timely manner. There is a further $385 million for the Edmonton to Gordonvale duplication, doubling its capacity and increasing overtaking facilities. This is slightly outside my electorate, but it will certainly benefit all those travelling into my city of Cairns. The great news is that, unlike what we have seen in the distant past, all of the planning has been done, so as soon as the work is completed the next project can start. And, of course, the money is already committed to make sure that happens.
The $6.7 billion will ensure there are sufficient resources and momentum to get vital safety, flood mitigation, and congestion-busting work on the Bruce Highway well underway over the next few years. As well as delivering the infrastructure investment program, this bill also reinforces the government's commitment to the Roads to Recovery program, extending it for five years, until 2019, with $1.75 billion of funding. This provides local governments with highly necessary funding that can help them maintain the nation's local road infrastructure.
Leichhardt is a vast regional electorate, some 151,000 square kilometres. From the tropical hub of Cairns in the south, it extends via a network of regional roads up the coast to Cooktown and inland through the Mulligan Highway to the iconic Peninsula Developmental Road to Cape York. From the township of Laura onwards the Peninsula Developmental Road is a dusty, red, unsealed road, as are all the feeder roads into the coastal communities east or west, such as Aurukun, Bamaga, Weipa and Lockhart River. In the wet season these roads are not closed for days and they are not closed for weeks; sometimes they are closed for months.
In fact, they have been closed since around Christmas time. I am currently working with the council, who are trying to organise the final arrangements for obtaining Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery funding so that they can actually get out there and reopen those roads after they have been closed for several months. It is vital we do so, because we have all the graziers up there who have not had access for several months now. The cattle are fat after the wet season, and this is the graziers' first opportunity to get them down to the markets and get their first bit of income.
The same is true of people travelling north. You have roadhouses that rely on tourists, and once this road opens it will be the first opportunity for them to start to generate an income for 2014. You can imagine the economic issues that these road closures cause, so it is important we focus on these areas. As I mentioned earlier, it has a huge impact when they are closed. They rely so heavily on these roads for their support. They really do not have any emergency backup. They just have to ensure they are stocked up, unless they live on a coastal community and can be accessed via barge.
I would really like to commend Minister Truss, in particular, for his determination to secure the $210 million the previous government promised before the election—but the previous government forgot one critical thing; they forgot to attach money to that promise. He was able to find that money, and the $210 million is now going to go towards the largest infrastructure spend in Cape York's history. Also, there is an additional $10 million coming from the state government. This is going to see a significant amount of sealing in the Peninsula Developmental Road, and it certainly will reduce isolation periods significantly.
With the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery program, particularly the Betterment program, an additional 20 per cent will allow sections to be sealed and brought back to pre-disaster standard, which is pre-sealing standard. That 20 per cent will allow them to put sealing on that road so that in the next weather event the road will not be washed away. Again, I am hoping that we will see the 400-odd kilometres left in the Peninsula Developmental Road actually sealed in my lifetime. I think that is pretty exciting.
We should also remember that the Roads to Recovery program was an initiative of the Howard government, and I remember when we initially announced it. It has had a profoundly positive impact on these small remote and regional shires. It has made a big difference in improving the road systems there, and I am pleased to see that we have got it for five years. I think that this program should continue indefinitely because it is a massive opportunity for the small remote and regional shires to receive infrastructure that they cannot afford. In the case of the Cook shire, half of the shire is tied up either in Aboriginal lands or in national parks. They receive no rates from that, so the rate base is very small. That is why this is very, very critical funding.
Over the last five years the Roads to Recovery program has enabled councils to make pavement, bridge and drainage improvements at a whole range of locations in my electorate, with a total of more than $14.5 million invested. From Aumuller Street in Cairns to Adelaide Street in Cooktown, from Barneys Road on Masig Island in the Torres Strait to Blady Grass Street at the remote Lockhart River—these are works that have taken place under this program. Floodways have been widened and roads have been sealed, curbed and channelled. Dust problems have been remedied, roads have been widened, gravel roads have been reconstructed, timber bridges have been replaced, causeways have been removed and steel bridges have been built. So the program has been a major benefit for us.
The third focus—and this is another Howard government initiative—is the Black Spot Program. This bill confirms a commitment of $300 million to that Black Spot Program, addressing some specific sites that are at very high risk of serious crashes. Sadly, in many of these programs, a black spot identifies where somebody has actually died. It is sad that, unfortunately, to have a program in place you have to wait for somebody to die to get some of these problems fixed up. Nevertheless, it does show that, if we can move quickly and address it, we will not see those deaths happening continually in these areas. By funding measures such as traffic lights and roundabouts at dangerous locations, the program reduces the risk of crashes and certainly saves many other lives in the community.
In Leichhardt, Black Spot projects have, as I say, saved many lives on the Captain Cook Highway. It is a busy thoroughfare linking Cairns to Mossman and Port Douglas, used by many thousands of residents in the northern beaches commuting to and from work. And, of course, with tourists heading up there, a lot self-drive. It is a very picturesque drive from Cairns to Port Douglas. A lot of those tourists are not quite familiar with Australian roads, so you need to make doubly sure that when they do that travel up there they come back safely. Then they are ambassadors for people to come back. If there is a tragedy, of course, quite the opposite occurs.
The Black Spot funding enables clear markings to be painted on the roads. At bicycle conflict points, bicycle awareness signage has been installed at sites such as Grove Street and Captain Cook Highway intersections. Of course, there is a growing awareness of and a growing need for bicycles. More and more people are using them, so it is more important for us to make sure that we have designated areas and that we are raising awareness in those areas. There are also plans for extensive Black Spot works between Machans Beach and Holloways Beach, and between Yorkeys Knob and Smithfield, to provide physical separation of cyclists on roundabout approaches and through roundabouts with concrete splitter islands or median strips. We have lost too many people through accidents on this road, when a moment's inattention can result in a cyclist being knocked off their bike and being seriously injured or killed.
Further north, on the Mossman to Daintree road, there is a mixture of guardrails and wire ropes that have been installed at specific sections to reduce the incidence and severity of single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes. A lot of these are in the most picturesque areas, and in our World Heritage area people tend to be looking at the view rather than looking at the road. We need to have barriers there to make sure that that moment of distraction does not mean they are plummeting over the side of the range. Of course, there is always more work to do, but we are certainly committed to working with state and territory governments, as well as the private sector, to deliver significant infrastructure projects in northern Australia.
Government is certainly doing great work in making this happen. One of the ways we can do that is to reduce costs and to make sure we get more value for money. Of course, we should be building infrastructure through efficiency and removing red tape to make sure we do it quicker and more cost-effectively. Yesterday in this place we started the introduction of legislation that will see the reduction of that.
There is a lot of other stuff that we need to do. To send a parcel on rail from Cairns to Darwin it has to go down from Brisbane to Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide and then up to Darwin. It is a 1,200 kilometre gap between Mount Isa and Tennant Creek which takes us directly there. This is something in the northern Australia policy that we will be looking at. Another one, of course, is the Hann Highway, which is an alternative to the Bruce Highway, a relatively short area of unsealed road. Again, it is a vital piece of infrastructure that will really make a big difference in our region. As a member of this government, I certainly look forward to continuing to work with local communities, help them develop the way they need and make sure they get the outcomes that we so richly deserve.
Today I rise to speak in support of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. I want to commend the government on this bill, which, among other things, enables the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program, which provides vital funding to local governments for the maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure beyond 30 June 2014. I would like to add my support to the comments from the member for Leichhardt. Whilst not the topic of my speech today, I also want to commend the government for committing $300 million to finalise plans, engineering designs and environmental assessments for the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail freight project. But more about that at another time.
The Roads to Recovery program is an example of good policy. It is being implemented as it was intended to be and makes a real difference to roads throughout our community. I look forward to seeing funding for this program in the next budget. There are eight councils in Indi, and the following section of my speech will outline how each of them has used and plans to use the Roads to Recovery funding. Every one of them has reported to me with a long list of success stories in my local council areas.
I will begin with Alpine Shire. The council has received $2,806,434 from the Roads to Recovery program since 2009. Alpine Shire takes in the major and beautiful towns of Bright, Mount Beauty and Myrtleford and has 630 kilometres of road, of which 395 kilometres are sealed. Alpine Shire is planning for 2014-15 and has an extensive list of priorities for future Roads to Recovery funding, including conducting renewal works for ageing roads and bridge infrastructure, resealing and resheeting roads, replacing bridges, rehabilitating existing sealed roads, replacing kerbs and sealing unsafe, gravel roads. These works will be done in conjunction with $1.5 billion of funding from the Victorian state government. This list of projects is only a start and, needless to say, the Alpine Shire is waiting in anticipation for future funding. Alpine Shire has the requisite funds to match anticipated Roads to Recovery funding and I believe this shows how important this program is for the shire and how committed they are to begin the program.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Alpine Shire surrounds some of Victoria's major ski resorts—for your information: Mount Hotham, Falls Creek and the snowfields at Dinner Plain and Mount Buffalo. Roads to Recovery funding in this area not only benefits us locals but also the thousands of tourists travelling to the snowfields each year. Safe roads, as we have heard today, are essential for all industries in Indi, particularly tourism.
I now turn to Murrindindi Shire. On the outskirts of Melbourne, Murrindindi Shire boasts impressive national parks and state forests and is home to a number of small towns, including Kinglake, Yarck, Yea and Toolangi, to name a few. Like many rural councils, the Murrindindi Shire Council faces significant financial challenges when planning to address the demands of its existing and growing asset base. Infrastructure funding from grants through the Roads to Recovery program allows Murrindindi Shire to undertake works that it would be totally and utterly unable to fund alone. A Murrindindi staff member told my office: 'The R2R funding is critical to undertaking maintenance and renewal for our road networks.' Murrindindi council has responsibility for a very extensive road network. For the information of this House, that network includes 489 kilometres of sealed road, 749 kilometres of unsealed road and the massive number of 244 bridges.
The scale of Murrindindi council's asset renewal obligations is significant, and ongoing support is critical. Priorities for Roads to Recovery funding for the council in 2014-15 have focused on the unsealed road network, which is 749 kilometres. Over the past four years Roads to Recovery funding has enabled council to undertake road rehabilitation on approximately 120 kilometres of the unsealed road network. Clearly, without this funding council would not have been able to undertake this very important work. Murrindindi Shire Council provides an important example of how councils with relatively small populations in Yea, Alexandra, Kinglake and Marysville, spread over a very large area, struggle to finance the maintenance of infrastructure in their communities. Roads to Recovery enables local councils to keep up with infrastructure maintenance demands.
In the north of my electorate, Towong Shire Council has similar challenges to Murrindindi in that it has a small population base and a very large network of roads. Covering 6,500 square kilometres, Towong has many towns and villages which are connected by a network of 392 kilometres of sealed roads and 556 kilometres of unsealed roads. For 2014-15, Towong intends to seal 1.4 kilometres of unsealed road at a cost of $250,000 and to reseal 23.5 kilometres at a cost of $840,000—so still a long way to go.
My own local government area, Indigo Shire, takes in the beautiful towns of Rutherglen, Chiltern, Yackandandah and Beechworth. The council has 1,400 kilometres of roads, of which 430 kilometres are sealed. Major priorities for Indigo Shire in the coming year are the Up River Road, the Gooramadda Road and the Gundowring Road. These projects will include resealing, repairing the pavement base, improving the shoulders of the roads and work on some intersections of those roads. Indigo Shire expects to spend a total of $2 million next year completing these projects: $1 million will be state funding and the remaining $1 million will be mix of council funding and Roads to Recovery.
In Mansfield Shire, Roads to Recovery funding is used to top up the renewal gap in road maintenance. Without this funding, a source in Mansfield said: 'We would be going backwards. In fact, it would be great if the amount of funding we received could be doubled!' One-sixth of the council's capital works budget comes from Roads to Recovery. As a council with a very small rate base, they are highly reliant on R2R funding. A priority in the immediate future is to fix the heavy haulage route which is the town bypass for trucks, and carries timber, gravel and stock as well as tourists.
As an aside, can I say that the issue of road safety for heavy haulage is particularly important as Indi is home to several essential road links between Victoria and New South Wales, including a long stretch of the Hume Highway. In Australia, about 50 per cent of the freight carried will travel by road at some point. Furthermore, the transportation of food mainly occurs by road in Australia. A safe and modern road network is essential for the economy.
In contrast to Murrindindi, Towong, Benalla and Indigo shires, Wodonga has a large population but a much smaller network of roads, with a total of 557 kilometres, of which 413 kilometres are sealed and 144 kilometres are unsealed. Nevertheless, their funding needs are just as pressing and they also are keenly anticipating future Roads to Recovery funding. In 2014-15 they will spend $1.2 million on new roads and $1.7 million renewing existing roads.
Wodonga's increasing population and development of new suburbs means that their road network is constantly expanding. In a city such as Wodonga, where most residents rely on their cars to get around, the need for roads to be safe and reliable is essential. With an average grant of $430,000 per annum to Wodonga, Roads to Recovery is an essential source of funding for this significant rural centre.
In Benalla, the Roads To Recovery priorities are based on improving the safety of their roads, especially black spots where there have been fatalities but not enough deaths to actually qualify for black spot funding. This has already been mentioned in this House. Roads to Recovery funding is saving lives and has enabled Benalla to respond to deadly roads in the region. Future funding will ensure that the program can continue to do so. I commend the government for amending the bill in order to increase the focus on black spots.
In drawing my speech to a close, I would like to finish with a quote from a staff member at Wangaratta council: 'I don't know what council would do without this funding. We use it widely, and we get excellent value from it.' The staff member put it so well. This program is well targeted, it is responding to a common need across Australia and it is providing funding in a responsible way by mandating that the funds be matched in order to make the most of every single dollar.
In conclusion, I am pleased to support this bill. Roads to Recovery is a program that increases safety, helps the economy to grow and ensures that our rural and regional communities are vibrant for the future. I commend the government for establishing a legislative framework for the future of Roads to Recovery, and I look forward to seeing the improvements that future funding will bring.
I rise today to speak to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014will enable the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June, 2014.
Like every member in this parliament I am a very big supporter of the Roads to Recovery program as it is direct funding to local councils, distributed according to a formula based on population and road length. As my electorate of Paterson is spread out, and a very rural electorate, roads are a link for my constituents to all services and business. I have always maintained that good roads are a pathway to prosperity for communities. Each council's Roads to Recovery allocation is fixed for the life of the program, so they are guaranteed a source of funding. In other words they can plan, prepare and initiate works with a guaranteed source of funding.
The government will now provide an additional $1.75 billion to extend the program for another five years. That is $1,750 million of additional road funding going into local community roads. This bill was a 2013 election commitment by the coalition, and it is an important one to implement. The bill will simplify the current system and also ensure that the funding promises that were made for my electorate's deteriorated roads will be fulfilled.
Currently, the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 specifies the Roads to Recovery program funding as ending on 30 June, 2014. When considering these bills, I think about the concerns and funding needs of my electorate of Paterson. One of the most critical issues in my area is funding for local roads. Under Labor's reign, local road funding in my electorate eroded. As I stated previously, I will continue to fight for better services in infrastructure and, in particular, funding for my electorate. One common theme that is communicated to me by my constituents is the condition of their local roads, and that is why I am happy to support this bill.
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Premier of New South Wales, announced a new road project. It is time that rubber should hit the road on the F3-M2 connect. I note that my colleague on the opposite side of the table is agreeing, because it will reduce traffic flow in and around his area. This $3 billion project, the NorthConnex project, will have a contribution of $405 million from this federal government. We want to see this project commence. I drive the F3 to Canberra regularly. On the trip from my home near Thornton I go through one set of traffic lights until I get to the F3, and once I get to the M2 there are no more traffic lights until I get to Canberra. But what I have is a plethora of traffic lights, 21 of them, all the way through as I go down Pennant Hills Road. In fact at times it can be the longest part of the journey.
I welcome this funding, this commitment and this start to these road works. This connection from the M1 to the M2, a nine-kilometre route, has now been revealed. There will be twin tunnels and it will become one of the state's major freight routes. It also has the added benefit of reducing fatigue, creating jobs and improving productivity and cost efficiency for our transport industry.
I always support new projects. That is why when we talk about the rubber hitting the road and work beginning, it was amazing that on the eve of the election we saw the Labor government—the Minister Albanese—announce funding for two projects. Mind you, they had had six years to initiate them, but we saw the announcement of a two-lane bridge to be built at Tourle Street. This was quite a surprise to the state minister because previously it had been rejected by the federal government on their calls.
But can I tell you about the ineptitude of Labor when it comes to roadworks and planning? The Tourle Street bridge was a two-lane bridge, and the former New South Wales Labor government determined that the bridge was unsafe and needed to be replaced. I agreed. So they replaced a two-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge. Had they have had the foresight they would have made it a four-lane bridge for an additional $15 million. Now the cost is $100 million to build the extra two lanes. Ineptitude reigns supreme. But the rubber is hitting the road: the coalition is tipping $51 million into that project and that will be matched by the state government.
The other project on which there has been a lot of rhetoric and talk, particularly by the member for Hunter, is the Scone level crossing. All he had been able to deliver during his six years on the government bench was more money for studies. No rubber hit the road. It was announced on the eve of the election that the Labor government if re-elected after six years would actually spend the money. I am very proud of Minister Truss for picking up the mantle and putting $45 million, our share, in to get the work at Scone underway. The main traffic route going north will no longer be cut off every time a coal train comes through. We want to see more coal trains because they provide prosperity for our nation. This work will begin. We sat down with the state government, we developed a plan, the funding is there and it is going to commence.
So there are these two projects. The former member for Newcastle, Ms Grierson, talked a lot about the Tourle Street Bridge and delivered nothing. I can remember almost all the time I have been in this place that the member for Hunter has talked about the Scone level crossing but done nothing about it. They are two key projects that will commence.
Tomorrow there will be the official opening of the M15. The M15 is known locally as the Hunter Expressway. It is the link road between Seahampton and Branxton. There has been a lot of comment about it, including in a doorstop on 18 March by the former minister for transport, the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese. He was worried that his invite to the opening had not arrived. He said:
Of course you’ll see Coalition Members queuing up to be a part of this. Joel Fitzgibbon was only invited yesterday. I’m sure my invitation’s in the mail, but Joel Fitzgibbon is the local member had to wait until yesterday before he received an invitation to this project.
That is how courteous the coalition is. We have actually invited members of the opposition to openings. I would like to reflect for a minute on two road projects in my electorate. One driven by the coalition, but built by taxpayers, was the Weakleys Drive Interchange. It cost $50 million. It is in my electorate. All of the money was allocated by the coalition government. I read about the opening in the paper and saw all of the Labor members. Did I get an invite? No, I read about it in the newspaper. Not to be outdone, I read about the Bulahdelah bypass in my electorate, which was commenced by the coalition, in the paper too. You hear the former minister bang on about the courtesy of invitations. He wants to take a reality check. The member for Hunter has been invited, and I will welcome him there.
The member for Hunter has some form in relation to the F3. If we listen to his rhetoric in the parliament, we hear that he singularly drove the project. Let us look at the front page of The Maitland Mercuryof 26 November, just days after the election. I will quote some sections because the member for Hunter was then backing away from any funding commitment to build this infrastructure. He said in that article:
It's an ugly mess. When I was elected in 1996 this project was on track and it was worth $285 million.
Member for Hunter, the reason it did not commence was that the state Labor government refused to prioritise it. Then he said:
Eleven-and-a-half years later, we haven't turned a sod of soil and it's apparently worth $1.2 billion.
So we've got a hell of a mess to sort out. The design and treatment was done in 1994/1995. We're in 2007.
Here is the killing part:
Is the F3 link still the best and right solution for our traffic problems? Maybe yes, but we don't know.
The article further states:
He denied he was backing away from statements made during the campaign where he said Labor would "absolutely match" a $780 million Howard government commitment of construction money for the link if it were properly costed and budgeted from the AusLink program.
I don't mean to back away from it because the money and the arrangements are not there. There was never a final costing, there was never an agreement.
That was in 2007. The works and funding did not commence until 2009. More telling is an article on 18 March in the Newcastle Herald written by Greg Ray, who is perhaps one of the most independent writers I have read. He quite often attacks the coalition for its points. He has put a very good precis together of the whole funding arrangement, except there is one mistake in here, which I will correct as I go through. He said:
MONDAY was a great day for flying over the Hunter Valley.
He actually took a plane trip and saw the infrastructure that is laid out. He goes on to say in the article:
Building it was, by all accounts, a pretty challenging exercise in engineering terms.
But getting the money out of the federal and state governments—now that was a once-in-a-generation achievement.
When the thing gets officially opened, everybody and their dog will be scrambling for a bit of credit, and good luck to those who deserve it. Many do.
The article then goes on to say, and quite rightly so, that it was only proceeded with because it was shovel ready and designed to inject stimulus funding into the frightened economy. We all agree with that. Then he said:
The earliest I can remember people promoting this roadway was in the 1990s, when they reckoned it was going to cost about $180 million.
Everybody agreed it was a great project with a lot of benefits, but because it wasn’t in Sydney or in a state with a government that cares about its non-capital cities, it languished.
The state allocated some planning funds pretty early in the piece, but it never looked like chipping in any serious money, arguing instead that it was a federal job.
By 2006, Hunter Labor MP Joel Fitzgibbon, in whose electorate the road lies, was telling the Coalition federal government that he didn’t care if the road had to be a private tollway, just so long as it got built before it got too expensive for anybody to ever contemplate.
The Coalition feds found about $250 million to get it started.
I have to correct the record. It was closer to $50 million that we put up for land acquisitions and planning. The article continues:
But it didn’t start, because the state—
and it was then a state Labor government—
didn’t want to contribute.
It took the Rudd-slide election to put the project on the map. That’s when Paterson MP Bob Baldwin promised that the Coalition would stump up another $780 million if his mob got back in. Fitzy, for his part, said Labor would match that promise.
Until Labor got in, when all bets were suddenly off because, Fitzy said, the money hadn’t really been allocated. Oh, and the NSW government didn’t have its $240 million share to spare anyway.
Enter the financial crisis …
The project has been completed and I congratulate all who have been involved. I acknowledge the financial contribution and commitment by the previous Labor government. I acknowledge the contribution by the former coalition government. I acknowledge the delaying factors by the former state Labor government that would not prioritise it. Even when the former federal Labor government went to build the project there was no prioritisation for the project. It took a $1 billion federal allocation to get more studies and planning done to actually get the project up.
This project has actually been funded by the taxpayers. It has not been funded by the coalition, it has not been funded by the Labor government; it has been funded by the taxpayers of Australia and they deserve the credit. I pay recognition for the contribution to all those who worked on the project, particularly as it became an award-winning project. It has been a great engineering feat. Tomorrow I will be there. I know that the member for Hunter, who is in the chamber, will be there because we have extended an invitation, contrary to the—
That is very generous!
I have to say to the member for Hunter: your side was so arrogant you refused to let me go to the opening of Weakleys Driveand did not even invite me to the opening of the Bulahdelah bypass. So do not bang on too much. We have extended a courtesy to you so you can be there. We acknowledge your efforts and contributions but it is not all yours. I commend this bill to the House.
I will always rise in this place to support a bill such as the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 that extends road funding. There is no more important issue in my electorate than roads. It is a geographically large electorate and therefore has many roads. I suspect no matter how hard any government tries, road funding will always be underdone. It is an economic issue we need to address. I was listening intently to the member for Paterson. I have to say that not the last part of this speech but the part of his speech nearing the end was more sensible and more accurate than the pieces that preceded it. He was talking about the Hunter Expressway. With him, I acknowledge the contributions of all those who have been involved. This was an initiative that started under a Labor government. As a candidate in 1995, I remember very vividly visiting the site with the then Minister for Roads, Laurie Brereton, to confirm Labor's commitment to what is the most important land infrastructure project in the Hunter's history. Alas, Labor lost the 1996 election and then we had 11½ years of nothing except—
That is wrong.
It would be helpful if the member for Paterson was a little more patient and would allow me to finish what I am saying. There was nothing except for around $50 million which was dribbled into the program by the Howard government, which I accept and am happy to say kept the project somewhat alive. That money mainly went to land acquisitions. As we all know, land acquisitions tend to make bodies like the then RTA money along the way if indeed a project does not proceed. The land is bought now. In 10 years time if the project does not proceed, of course the land is sold again, usually at a healthy profit. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with that. But it does not mean there was ever commitment to construction.
The key point here is that in 11½ years not a sod of dirt was turned. I do acknowledge again that the project was kept alive by the then Howard government. I also acknowledge that we did not have an enthusiastic state Labor government. I am happy to acknowledge that. I am always happy to criticise state Labor governments when they get it wrong, as they occasionally do. This is a project worth $1.7 billion. You can understand why a state government would be reluctant to participate. Any contribution by them, even if it is only 10 per cent of the project, is obviously a very large one. It is true that the New South Wales government was reluctant. Indeed, I do not think the member for Grayndler would mind me saying this. As the former Labor government, when we announced that we would undertake this project, the New South Wales government remained very reluctant. The member for Grayndler had to be very persuasive in his approaches to the New South Wales government to get them on board. Eventually they did come on board and they have contributed $200 million to the project. So it was a Labor government that conceived the project, it was a Labor government that planned the project, it was a Labor government that eventually funded and built the project. That is uncontestable.
That is not wrong.
The member for Paterson can create all sorts of excuses as to why they did not undertake the project in 11½ years. He can try as hard and as much as he likes, but the fact is this: in 11½ years they did nothing. That is an uncontestable fact. But I do not want this to be a blue about who takes the credit. I just want the thing opened, as do Hunter residents. I do need to make this point. The first thing we did in Senate estimates after the 2007 election was to make a few inquiries about that $780 million the member for Paterson was just talking about. I remember this very vividly too. John Howard, the then Prime Minister, flew into Williamtown on his VIP—possibly weeks, but I think it was days, before the election. The member for Paterson will remember it well—
It was Jim Lloyd, the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads.
Oh, it was Jim Lloyd, the roads minister. I thank the member for Paterson for clarifying that point and for the confirming the story I am about to tell. So it was Jim Lloyd; I am sorry. He flew in to the Hunter region to announce, just days before—well, he did not criticise 'days before the election' so I presume that was right.
That is not contested.
Correct. I thank the member for Paterson for confirming. So after 11½ years, and concern about the future by the member for Paterson, who of course was not a lay down misere to return to this place at that time—and I think by his smile he is acknowledging that too—then days before the election, the minister flies in and says, 'There is $780 million for the Hunter Expressway'. Well, who believed that—no-one. So we went to Senate estimates after the election just to find out what was the process and where was the money. Guess what? The cookie jar was bare. There was no $780 million at all.
So, after 11½ years but days before an election, they come into my region, our region, and mislead the local people. They mislead them into believing that finally after 11½ years there they were with $780 million. By the way, I ask the member for Paterson, where is the balance? Where was the rest of the $1.7 billion going to come from?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Hunter has just asked me a question and I would like to answer it on intervention.
There is no point of order.
There is, Deputy Speaker, if you read the standing orders. He has asked a question and I can answer it.
No. Read the standing order. Actually the person speaking is the one who asks the question. The book is here, the House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders. I am sure that you are well acquainted with it. You might want to read it. Member for Hunter, please continue.
There is another point I need to touch upon. I did not hear everything that the member for Paterson said. I think he was reflecting on a review that was done on this project post the 2007 election. Let me tell you another story. I started on the Hunter Expressway path in Easter of 1988, when I was a young, handsome counsellor on Cessnock City Council. On the eve of Easter 1988, the next section of the F3 Freeway, now called the M1 Pacific Motorway, opened to a place called Freemans Waterhole, just short of Newcastle. What was the result? Suddenly we had traffic from both the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway spilling onto the roads through to the Cessnock local government area. This was a disaster and the council needed to respond. That was when I started advocating for what we then called the Kurri Kurri Corridor, which has become the Hunter Expressway. So it has been a long time for me.
Finally, we started to get the Kurri Kurri Corridor route option in place and the design of the road progressing, but then, as I said, nothing happened for 11½ years. When we were elected in 2007, we had an ageing response to a very serious problem. We also had, as I acknowledged, on the back of what the member for Paterson had to say, a reluctant New South Wales government. We had to persuade the New South Wales government that this was a project worth contributing to. So we had to review the project. As I said, 11½ years had elapsed. The question was: was it still the right corridor? Was it still the best response? Was it still economically viable—in other words, did it give people the required return? So we did the very responsible thing: we had an independent consultant review the project. At the time I said yes, it was the right thing to be doing. If we were going to spend $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money, we needed to make sure we spent it in a way which gave us the best result. And guess what? No-one was more pleased than I.
I was a very nervous local member at the time because I was concerned that so much time had elapsed that the independent consultants might have said that this was not the right response. But thankfully, they confirmed the advocacy, the efficiency and the economic return. They confirmed that this was the right project to address the Hunter's problems, and the rest is history.
Some time after that, the then Prime Minister and I, and I think Mr Albanese, flew to the Hunter and announced that we would fund the construction of the Hunter Expressway. Again, I thank the coalition government for their $50 million in those 11½years. I thank them for acknowledging Labor's primary role in all this work. I, too, am disappointed that the New South Wales government was so reluctant to come to the table, but it was a Labor federal government that dragged them to the table in the end. I am also happy to acknowledge that the global financial crisis perversely helped us in this process because the government of the day was looking for money to create jobs in the economy and this project created a lot of jobs—hundreds of jobs—with many flow-on benefits to local contractors et cetera. I remind the House that the member for Paterson opposed the stimulus package.
It could have been funded out of consolidated revenue.
The member for Paterson has just acknowledged that he opposed the stimulus package. Does that mean that he also opposed the funding of the Hunter Expressway? I will let him answer for himself. But I also note that the Liberals continued to criticise the stimulus package. Day in, day out they were in here saying, 'Labor wasted all this money, they racked up all this debt.'
It did. That is a statement of fact.
And he is acknowledging it again now. So I ask the member for Paterson: which project should we not have done? Should we not have built the Hunter Expressway? Should we not have built the new school facilities, which so disparagingly are called the 'school halls program'? I often visit schools which are still so grateful for the opportunity that the Labor government gave them, creating school infrastructure they could only have dreamt of previously. I will leave it to him to nominate at a later date which infrastructure projects he would not have rubber stamped had he been part of the government of the day.
I want to close by going back to where I began—roads infrastructure in my electorate. The Hunter Expressway is not the end of it. We need to address the traffic problems through Singleton. We need to address the traffic problems through Muswellbrook. The Muswellbrook bypass is pretty much shovel-ready. The Labor government continued to progress it and allocated $10 million last year to get it shovel-ready. It is an important economic project. The ball is in your court now, Member for Paterson. I have spoken to Deputy Prime Minister Truss about it. I want to take a bipartisan approach to it. I want the government to acknowledge the economic importance of this project and the adverse effect on the amenity of the township by not having a bypass.
We in the Hunter Valley are the engine room of New South Wales. We produce all the coal and generate most of the power and we deserve to have more of that money coming back to our community. That was what the mining tax was about: taking the economic rent from mines to return to local infrastructure.
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
I am glad the member for Paterson mentions the Scone overpass, because that is where I am going next. Labor committed money to the Scone overpass; it was in the budget. We are still waiting for the community to decide whether they want an overpass or a bypass of the town. Eventually, we will need both. There is a ridiculous situation at the moment where a substantial township, sitting on one of the country's primary highways, is cut in half for up to eight minutes at a time by coal trains at the railway level crossing. It is unheard of and there are all sorts of safety implications. We need to go over that railway line but the township will still need a bypass in the not too distant future. I appeal to the government to take the issue very seriously. It is a project that must be done.
I proudly boast that the Hunter wine country forms part of my electorate. It is a wonderful thing. We make the world's best wines and we hold the world's best concerts, but an area like that has to be supported by economic infrastructure. The roads around the vineyards have been a disgrace for too long. I acknowledge the New South Wales conservative government is now doing something about it and I welcome that. But, to get the job done properly, we will also need federal assistance. Maybe this bill will provide that opportunity, through the Roads to Recovery program. On that basis I support the bill, I support the ongoing Roads to Recovery program and I make an appeal to the government and the minister to very seriously consider directing some of that money into Hunter wine country. It is an investment from which they will gain very significant economic returns and an investment which will be widely welcomed by the local community and businesses.
I rise in support of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. This bill allows for the ongoing and future investment into critical local road projects through the highly successful Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery program is on top of the recent coalition commitments to upgrading the Pacific Highway to a dual carriageway road from where it ceases at the moment—at the connection with the Oxley Highway—all the way to the Queensland border. There is also the recently announced commitment to road infrastructure in the form of NorthConnex, in the city, which will also deliver benefits.
The Roads to Recovery program, which is so vital for regional and rural communities, is a signature policy achievement of the Liberals and Nationals in government. In understanding the significant challenges faced by local governments of building and maintaining local roads and bridges, particularly in regional and outer metropolitan Australia, the coalition established the Roads to Recovery program in 2000. The program was an important initiative, in that it helped build a long-term local roads funding stream into the federal budget framework. Since that time, the four councils in my electorate—Greater Taree City Council, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, Gloucester Shire Council and Kempsey Shire Council, have shared in over $42 million in additional roads funding thanks to the Roads to Recovery program. This funding is in addition to the federal Financial Assistance Grants program, which delivers general purpose and local roads funding to our local councils as well. The Deputy Prime Minister must be congratulated on reforming and adopting sensible changes to this program. The bill delivers further scope for greater investment in infrastructure projects across the nation and ensures that federal government investment in important local road projects continues.
My electorate of Lyne is almost 12,000 square kilometres in area, with thousands of kilometres of roads and hundreds of old timber bridges to maintain. Unlike smaller metropolitan councils, which have a very strong rate base from which they can deliver local infrastructure and services, councils in my electorate have the responsibility and burden of delivering much greater infrastructure with a much smaller rating base. It is for this reason that the Roads to Recovery program is so important. It must continue so that the strategic and local priorities of roads within our regions can be maintained and roads can continue to be built. This bill will ensure that these funds will continue to flow. But, over time, I would like to see a better and fairer formula to determine the distribution of funds allocated from the Roads to Recovery program and the Financial Assistance Grants program, recognising the significant difference between a regional council and its demands—including the road distances and, most importantly, the amount of bridge infrastructure that has to be maintained—and the demands of inner metropolitan councils, which do not have to face the issue of maintaining bridge infrastructure at all. Recently, Sydney City Council had the luxury of spending $110,000 in funds on a rainbow-coloured pedestrian crossing. Then, they had luxury of spending $30,000 to remove it, after much outcry. Our regional councils simply do not have the luxury of thought bubble symbolic projects. They have to deal with hard infrastructure problems like decaying roads and bridges.
In my electorate some critical transport linkages are crumbling. The Dyers Crossing Bridge on the Wallanbah Road in the Manning Valley is in a critical condition; it is a connection that caters for milk tankers, timber trucks and fresh produce transport. Unfortunately, because of its very poor state, it has had a load limit applied to it. That means tankers, cattle trucks, cars with people travelling to work and school buses have to divert many kilometres, increasing the cost of transport to the businesses and the individuals who use this link.
Unfortunately for all of us, these roads, which are the arteries of commerce, result in bigger transport costs, which are then passed on to the processor, the retailer and, ultimately, the consumer. The consumer is all of us, not just people in our electorate but people in the city as well. It is the consumer who relies on the milk in their cappuccino or the steak, sausages and chops on their barbecue. It all comes from primary producers in regional areas, who create wealth for the nation through their production. The transport cost is part of the end cost that the consumer pays.
These local and regional roads are critical to our national economy. The production chain from paddock to plate relies on them. Meat, fruit and vegetables—all eaten at the kitchen table—get there via a country road. Whether we live in the city or the country, these roads are critical. As the roads are failing, the only solution for councils under stress is this program: the Roads to Recovery funding. That is why our investment in infrastructure is so important.
Federal financial assistance grants are important. These funds are precious. Because of a shortage of funds faced by regional councils, their investment in road infrastructure and bridges has to be done in the most cost-effective manner possible. Councils do not have the luxury of simply saying, 'Our council has got the ability to do it.' Sometimes it is a case of swallowing your pride and putting the work out to open and competitive tender processes so that you get road builders with the full suite of expertise, who have civil engineers that can design the best-value build for the precious Roads to Recovery dollar. The same principle applies to bridges. There are standard costs involved. Infrastructure is expensive, but if a local council is doing works at 2½ times the quoted rate for either a sheeted rural road or an unsealed rural road then that is saying something. That is saying that that particular council should open up more of their provision of infrastructure to external contractors. External contractors are out there and putting in tenders which are more cost-effective, and that should be encouraged. We need to get the maximum benefit for every dollar. Whether it is the Hunter Expressway or a local regional road, there is a finite amount of infrastructure money available. It should not be wasted at any opportunity; it should be used wisely.
So when we consider how we allocate Roads to Recovery and financial assistance grants to councils from the federal government, it is not up to us to micromanage councils. We are relying on our councils. They have a very important role in using that money wisely. In the financial assistance grants process, these funds are untied for the most part. There is a formula that works out how much funding councils get. The biggest variable in the formula is population count, but the situation in our electorate is that the distances covered are much vaster. For instance, within the city of Sydney, there are some council electorates that I could travel around in a car in under an hour, even allowing for traffic jams. However, one council has 1,200 kilometres of unsealed road and 72 bridges. If someone can show me a metropolitan council in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or Adelaide that has that kind of infrastructure burden then I will change my opinion, but I cannot find one. So, there is a different situation. There is a complex formula and it needs adjustment. The state government needs to be involved, because in our system of government, they eventually deliver this. My colleagues in state government are aware of my opinions on this issue and I am sure that they are coming to the same conclusion. At the federal level, where we can have some input, it is so important that this is analysed closely and changed.
There are some things in the bill that we need to quickly go through. Is there an impact on industry? The short answer is no. Is there an impact on human rights? No. Are there impacts on the state governments? Hopefully, it will simplify things for state governments. It will allow new funding streams for research and new funding streams for these infrastructure projects. It will simplify a couple of the parts into one—parts 3 and 6 will be streamlined. This bill does more than just change the names of acts; it makes them much more efficient. If we do not pass this bill, the Roads to Recovery funding program, which will change in July this year, will come to an end. So it is very important that this bill goes through. It allows the minister to determine a Roads to Recovery list, which is essential for the program to function well. This power was removed from the act when it was amended back in 2009. The current bill will give the minister this ability again.
The name of the act is being changed, as you have no doubt noted. This is to remove the link between the name of the act and the name of the land transport infrastructure funding program. It simplifies an act that was first introduced as the Auslink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 and renamed in 2009 as the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act. It will remove the technical requirement to change the act if the name of land transport infrastructure funding program changes in the future so that we will not have to go through this rigmarole all over again. So there are some long-term benefits of a technical legislative nature, and the bill provides the material ability to continue the program.
Infrastructure in the regions is critical for business, tourism, access to education and commerce and for our regional primary producers to get their goods to market cheaply and effectively. Some of the decaying infrastructure will only be fixed if this program continues, so I commend the bill to the House; it must pass. It is a vital bit of legislation that will simplify things and deliver good outcomes, particularly if the local governments that receive these funds apply common sense, have an open and transparent tender process to get the most competitive price and make sure the people tendering have all the skills. They need to have a civil engineer who specialises in roads, resheeting and building bridges so that the government body—whatever it might be—does not have to revisit these projects three years later and do them all over again.
Technical proficiency is the most important thing when it comes to service delivery, and there are so many people out there in the industry who would love to tender for these processes and get these projects going so that we have stronger regions. I commend the bill to the House.
It is interesting to look at some of the reasons why this legislation is before us. One that I find really interesting is that we are going to rename the primary legislation, because, apparently, it is important to rename it from the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 to the National Land Transport Act. Given the current policy settings of the government, I think that this is a misnomer and that the government is in fact engaging in deceptive and misleading conduct by renaming the act as the National Land Road Transport Act.
Very clear statements have been made by the government that they have no intention of contemplating urban rail projects and that urban rail, for some reason or another, is not considered to fall within the ambit of the concept of land transport. That, of course, is an incredibly curious decision to have made. There is an enormous amount of commentary building around the nation about the decision to decide arbitrarily that one part of the land transport agenda is to be removed and isolated from consideration by the federal government. It really is quite an extraordinary decision to have made.
Things had evolved, and there has long been a campaign to get serious federal government engagement in rail, particularly in public transport delivery. In this day and age, one cannot sensibly talk about the land transport task, particularly in a metropolitan setting, without considering the role of public transport and the role of rail as part of the public transport product. It is a decision that has been taken by the federal government that defies all rationality. You cannot possibly be in a situation where you are engaging in strategic planning for a metropolitan area without considering public transport and rail.
There is an idea that we can continue to just expand our roads to provide a solution for congestion problems. As someone at a recent light rail convention said, 'Building more roads to deal with congestion is like loosening your belt to deal with obesity.' It is not actually going to work and it is not an intelligent way to address the problem. There was an interesting article this morning by Ross Gittens, a respected economist, which said:
For reasons that I don't understand, the present crop of Coalition governments—federal and state—seem biased against public transport as the answer to traffic congestion and have reverted to the 1960s notion that more tollways will fix everything.
They are certainly not going to fix everything. I think the figures are that about 80 per cent of Australians live in cities. That is not to in any way undervalue the people who do not live in cities or recognise their needs, but, if we do not accept that this is an issue that affects the vast majority of Australians, it is a great shortfall in the thinking of the government. As I said, it defies logic. You cannot possibly be planning to deal with congestion or developing a coherent model for dealing with the traffic problems within a metropolitan area without a deep engagement in public transport issues and the need to provide an expansion of the rail network as a very important part of that public transport response.
Clearly, that is where the state governments are needing an enhanced federal government contribution. The Prime Minister has said, 'We're sticking to our knitting; we don't know anything about that.' Over the last six years, the federal government has, through its Major Cities Unit, acquired a very considerable capacity to understand these things. The Major Cities Unit was set up to come to terms with these issues of planning land transport within a metropolitan setting. I acknowledge Dorte Ekelund, who was the principal of the Major Cities Unit and who, just this week, was part of a group that received a very prestigious award from Planning Institute Australia for the work that had been done by the Major Cities Unit.
The idea that there was not the capacity within the federal government to do this and that it is not within their palate or their suite of expertise is quite profoundly wrong. It takes us to the Prime Minister, who seems to have a fascination with the world of the past and sees anything like rail as something that is a bit left-wing. Public transport is obviously far too left-wing for him to want to engage in. Why we need federal government involvement here is the recognition that the whole basis of funding within the Commonwealth has changed over the last 100 years, in case the Prime Minister has not noticed.
During the great rail-building era that took place between the 1890s and the 1930s, which was when a lot of the backbone of urban rail around Australia was built, the states had income tax collection powers and they had very extensive excise powers. As a consequence of the Second World War the states surrendered to the Commonwealth some of their powers, such as collecting income tax, and as a result of some of the landmark High Court cases over the years, particularly during the 1990s, the states lost a great deal of their power to levy excise. The trajectory and the relativity of funding has very much moved from the states to the Commonwealth. Hence, it is not acceptable now, given that move of financial capacity from the states to the federal government, for the federal government to say, 'This is a critical area of infrastructure development that we are not going to take part in and we are going to say to the states, "You do that yourself."' The size and cost of these projects are really getting to a point where it is outside the capacity of the states to deliver these upgrades by themselves. We do need to get the federal government engaged in it.
We need to have a discussion. There needs to be some intellectual engagement by the Prime Minister rather than a reliance on 'we're sticking to our knitting' to describe why it is that they will not countenance an engagement with the funding of urban rail projects. We have the Prime Minister jumping up and down and rabbiting on about the carbon tax and the cost to householders, although we know that the vast majority of householders are fully compensated for any impact of the carbon tax. A much greater impost on people is the cost of transport. The cost of transport is very much related to the availability of public transport. Indeed, the average Western Australian is spending more than 15 per cent of their total household expenditure on transport. That is an enormous percentage of the overall income that is spent by a household on transport. That is $192 per week or 15 per cent of total household income.
The impact that traffic congestion and commute times are having on family life is becoming a very real issue in Western Australia. A recent survey of businesses by the Royal Automobile Club of WA showed that 84 per cent of respondents believe that traffic congestion is having a negative impact on their business. The majority of businesses related this as being 'negative to extremely negative'. The overwhelming majority of businesses said that their exposure to traffic congestion has increased.
About 100,000 new vehicles are added onto Perth roads each year. Examining some of the data that is coming out about traffic congestion and the impact of those vehicles, we see average commuter travel speeds have decreased by about 15 kilometres per hour over the last 10 years. The TomTom Traffic Index recently showed that in peak period a one-hour trip will now take an extra 31 minutes. The congestion level between the period of free flow to non-free flow right across the city is around 30 per cent. More people are having to travel longer periods of time in their cars or on public transport because of this congestion. We are not going to deal with this sensibly just by attempting to expand the road network. In places like the Kwinana Freeway and the Mitchell Freeway, we really have to appoint where the capacity for expansion, particularly in the five kilometres either side of the city, is not there. The roads are now up against a point where continued expansion is just not possible.
So we do need to have a land transport act. We should have a piece of legislation that genuinely is a land transport act. But what we have in reality is a road transport program that shows that the Prime Minister, his cabinet and his transport minister are very much fixed in the 1960s and 1970s and that they have simply been unable to adjust and adapt to the 21st century realities of our cities.
I rise to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. In doing so I would firstly like to pick up on some of the comments made by the member for Grayndler and infrastructure minister under the previous government, Mr Albanese, in his contribution to this debate. In his speech he said that the government needs to invest wisely in infrastructure—and I could not agree more with that. He went on to say:
… by its very nature, infrastructure planning and delivery is a long-term business requiring long lead times, careful planning …
That is exactly right. In his speech he also went on to talk about the Moorebank intermodal project:
Sydney's transport system is, of course, the Moorebank Intermodal project. It was initially opposed by the coalition, including the member for Hughes. The member for Hughes campaigned very strongly against it …
and I thank him for that compliment. He goes on to say that that was:
… a position which is now rejected by his party, who understand how important the Moorebank Intermodal project is for Sydney in taking trucks off the road and providing a productivity benefit.
This debate has become very partisan. I could easily attack the former minister for infrastructure for his promotion of the Moorebank intermodal project as a party-political issue, but I do not want to do that, because I believe he made the decision to promote the Moorebank intermodal facility in the right spirit. But he did so on flawed assumptions and a hugely mistaken plan. I say that not just as a member standing up against a project in his local area that is going to adversely affect his local area, which it will. I argue against the Moorebank intermodal project from a truly national perspective. To build such an intermodal transport facility at Moorebank, on the site of the old School of Military Engineering, would be a multibillion dollar mistake—not multimillion or multi-hundred-million dollar—that this nation simply cannot afford.
I come to this debate with what I believe are good qualifications and background to argue the case against this. Before I came to this place I had for 30 years been involved in coordinating the transportation of goods around Sydney. I have driven trucks around Sydney to deliver goods. For many decades I have arranged the import and export of goods from and through Port Botany, and I have coordinated the movement of containers of Australian export goods across the USA and Canada. So I come to this issue not from looking down over Sydney Harbour from an ivory tower somewhere in Sydney and saying, 'That's in Sydney's west'. I come to it from a local perspective, a national perspective and an international perspective. Firstly, what is the problem that the Moorebank intermodal project is attempting to solve? Well, theoretically the problem is the congestion at Port Botany. But the congestion is not actually at the port itself. We have a third container terminal nearing completion at the moment, and we have no problems bringing ships into the port and unloading them, nor any problems with loading them from Port Botany. The problem is the congestion on the local road networks and how the increased projections in freight may not be able to cope with those local road networks.
However, when this has been looked at, it has been looked at under projections of what the growth in those container movements from Port Botany would be. And as with many projections, we see a bit of an up-pick in something over a period of time, and it is very easy to forecast that that growth will continue up and ever onwards. But we have seen that that is not happening. We have seen that the growth in the number of containers at Port Botany has come off the boil. So the panic that there was a couple of years ago—that we would have this eight per cent or 10 per cent year-on-year growth of container movement through Port Botany, and therefore there was some rush to deal with the issue—is simply not there. We have time to plan this. We have time to plan it and to make sure that we get it right. We cannot rush and then make multi-billion-dollar mistakes. And that is where I fear we are heading at the moment.
If the problem is congestion on the roads, and we are unable to move all of those containers from Port Botany throughout Sydney, what are the solutions? The first solution is that we could move a lot of that freight at night, out of peak hours. That does not happen at the moment because of penalty rates. I agree that if someone is working later hours and working at night they deserve to be paid at a higher rate. But at the moment our roads network is often empty at night, when we could be moving a lot of freight from our port. That is one possible solution.
Another solution is to upgrade the existing roads, and that is exactly what we are doing with the WestConnex project. In fact, it is quite possible that what we are doing on that WestConnex project will make the Moorebank intermodal completely redundant. Another option is to put in additional container terminals at Port Kembla or Newcastle. And of course the other option, which is behind the assumption of the Moorebank intermodal, is that we actually move freight from the port by rail.
Just quickly touching on the intermodal concept: when a ship arrives at Port Botany, the containers are unloaded and put on the deck, then they are taken from the deck and put on a stack, and from the stack they are either put on a truck to be transported to where they need to go or put on a train. This is where the first faulty assumption about the Moorebank intermodal comes. We often hear, and we heard it in the former minister's speech, that the idea is to take freight off the road and put it on rail. This is a seductively simple statement, and a flawed assumption, because it does not look at the entire distribution chain—from the port to the warehouse to distribution, to the unpacking of those containers, and to those goods getting to the end user. You may be putting it on rail, but ultimately that container has to go on road to get to its destination. Then once those goods are unpacked from that container, unless they are consumed at that location, they need to be distributed further by rail. So, the whole concept is simply flawed from the start.
What intermodal actually does is add another link to the distribution chain. It adds time, and time is money, and it adds cost. To quote Michael Bell, Professor of Ports and Maritime Logistics at Sydney University: 'If you are just introducing another leg into the supply chain, so that you still have the truck leg at the end with the container, then you have the tricky business of trying to argue that you are actually going to make some savings.' And he is exactly right, because there is no other city anywhere in the world that anyone has been able to identify that actually has an intracity intermodal to distribute goods from their port.
Where the intermodal concept works is in places such as Los Angeles, where they have the port at Long Beach. There the containers arrive at Long Beach, then go on a train across to the central parts of the USA—to Denver and Dallas and beyond—and that makes sense because of the long freight journey. The same is true in Canada, where the containers are unloaded at the port of Vancouver, put on the train, and then railed all the way across the country to Calgary, Montreal and Toronto. That makes sense because of the distance.
So, there is a real question mark about whether intermodals can actually work on an intracity basis. This should set alarm bells ringing. There is a very important quote the House should be aware of, from a report on the New South Wales state infrastructure plan called First things first, state infrastructure strategy 2012-2032. It warns, and I would like to quote this exactly, that the short-haul freight market, which is the intermodal concept:
…is essentially unproven in Sydney. At present, most intermodal demand in Sydney is for longer-haul export freight, and there is significant capacity available at a number of existing intermodal sites.
It goes on:
Sydney Ports and Hutchison are currently developing a 300,000 TEU per annum intermodal facility at Enfield.
I understand that is due to open at any time. Enfield provides the test case for larger scale short-haul intermodal freight in Sydney, and the report warns, with a recommendation highlighted in a box:
Infrastructure NSW recommends that state public funding for additional intermodal terminal capacity in Sydney (including in relation to supporting infrastructure) be minimised until there is greater clarity on whether the short-haul rail freight market is viable.
The alarm bells should be ringing. This is not an economically proven concept, and we should not be putting billions of dollars of taxpayers funds into a concept that is not even proven, and may not even be commercially viable.
But, let us just assume that we should have intermodals in Sydney. Where should they go? Ideally, where should they be located? This is where we have a completely failed analysis so far. If you look at where the containers are currently going, there is a big block of containers around the Enfield area. There are currently 474,000 TEU movements out at Enfield, therefore an Enfield intermodal could possibly work, due to its proximity to the current market. There is also a big location up at Eastern Creek, where an intermodal has been proposed in the future. There is also a small block down at Minto, Campbelltown, and in the Ingleburn area, which is serviced by an intermodal at the moment. But if we look around Moorebank, or if we look around Liverpool and the Chipping Norton area, there is simply no current demand whatsoever there for intermodal freight. The market has rejected the Moorebank area as a location to distribute containers from, and yet here we are wanting to put billions of dollars into building an intermodal in a location that the market has rejected. The alarm bells should be ringing very loudly.
Secondly, if we look into the future at the decades to come, if we had a crystal ball, where would we say an intermodal should be located? Well, if we look at Sydney's planning, we have very large growth areas. We have a south-west growth sector, and we have a north-west growth sector. In that area we expect to have 500,000 people living. In fact, the area from Parramatta to Penrith, and Campbelltown to Richmond—that Western Sydney area—by 2030 will have a population of nearly 2,000,000 people. Smack-bang in the middle of that area, in the planning, we have an area called the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area. That is the area where the future container growth will be. That is the ideal location. To set it up at Moorebank and then to have to transport it 20 kilometres further west is simply poor planning, but that is exactly what we are doing.
When I have raised these real concerns with certain people, saying that Moorebank is not an ideal location, the comments I have gotten back are that it is okay because Moorebank could be one of several intermodals that we need, so if it is not exactly right that is okay, because we will build other intermodals later. This is deeply flawed. To get the containers out to Sydney's west by rail, we have only one rail line, which is the Southern Sydney Freight Line. That rail line has a maximum capacity of about 1.9 million containers. So, if we build Moorebank intermodal, and we add on the Enfield intermodal with another 300,000 containers, plus the Minto intermodal, then there is simply no more capacity left on that freight line.
We in government who are planning infrastructure have one shot in the locker to get this right, and Moorebank is completely the wrong location for this. The other concern is that there has been no alternative economic analysis or cost-benefit analysis of alternative locations. Look at the planning and the thought that have gone into Sydney's second airport. How many locations have been looked at? Economic analysis has been done for Badgerys Creek as a site. This has not been done at Moorebank; Moorebank is the worst possible location. We would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, upgrading the local roads.
I could go on all day, but one of the real concerns we have at Moorebank is what it could potentially do to Liverpool Hospital. This is our largest hospital in Australia and the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere; it is in the Liverpool CBD. Building that intermodal at Moorebank, with the 20,000 extra trucks a day that it will bring, will create all these rat runs through the Liverpool CBD. That would jeopardise effectiveness of ambulances and emergency services getting to Liverpool Hospital.
I am very pleased to participate in this debate around the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. I come to this dispatch box as someone who has observed and experienced the vicissitudes of various governments over a long time in this place. One of the most significant experiences I can recall was, from my perspective, not a happy one—when the Keating government was defeated in 1996. Sadly, for me, I lost my job. I did return, as you have yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent. An important measure of the Keating government prior to that time was the introduction of a strategic roads program for the Northern Territory. This strategic roads program was about looking at road infrastructure across remote parts of the Northern Territory and coming to an agreement with the then Northern Territory government, road transport users and local Aboriginal organisations and communities about the strategic priorities for roads. A sum of money was made available—I forget the sum, but it was $15 million or $20 million—for this program. It was not a lot of money, but it did make a difference.
So you can imagine how sad I was, in addition to the fact that I lost my seat, to see that one of the first acts of the then Howard government was to axe that program. I say that because what it demonstrated to me was a clear lack of understanding of the importance of road infrastructure for remote Australia. Anyone who comes to regional and remote Australia, but particularly remote Australia, would understand the need to have good road infrastructure.
In my electorate of Lingiari, we are talking about an electorate of 1.3 million square kilometres, or one-sixth of the Australian landmass. It covers all of the Northern Territory, except for Darwin and Palmerston. It also includes, incidentally, for interest's sake, the Christmas and Cocos islands, which are, of course, not served by road—or they cannot be accessed by road. I was consumed by why the then Howard government should take this course of action. I understand the need and importance of safety on Highway 1 et cetera, but the people who most needed road infrastructure improvements in this country—people whose lives depended upon access by road to remote communities—were being forgotten. As a direct result of decisions taken by the Howard government, they were put to the bottom of the pile.
Subsequently, of course, we know the Howard government lasted for a number of years. Then, in 2007, we saw the election of the Rudd Labor government. What was significant about the period between 2007 and 2013 was the difference that the Labor governments made over that period to expenditure on infrastructure, and road infrastructure in particular, across this great country of ours. If you compare the 2011-12 budget with the 2006-07 budget, there was an increase of over 250 per cent in that infrastructure expenditure—from $1.6 billion to $4.12 billion. Almost two-thirds of that expenditure went to non-urban projects. That is very significant because it highlighted an understanding by the Labor government of the need to invest in this infrastructure of such great importance to communities across Australia. When we talk about the sort of expenditure this represented, in the case of the Northern Territory infrastructure expenditure increased from $275 per head to $458 per head across five Labor budgets. That is a significant increase. Twenty eight million dollars went to the Territory local governments over that period just for the Roads to Recovery program alone.
If I mentioned these rivers, the Goyder and the Donydji, I would imagine that, apart from me, very few members in this chamber would even know whether they existed, let alone where they are, what communities might lie beyond them and why it is important to have road infrastructure—in this case, bridges—built over these rivers to allow access to communities. In many parts of northern Australia, communities are inaccessible by road for up to six months per year. That creates tremendous pressure and cost on those communities, so this sort of road infrastructure expenditure is vitally important, as is, of course, the normal obligation of the Commonwealth government to invest in highways, such as the Stuart Highway or the Arnhem Highway to Jabiru.
The investments made by government are vitally important in determining how communities can operate, and in the context of the Northern Territory that means not only for the liveability in communities but for the provision of fundamental goods and services that everyone in this chamber, including those in the gallery, would take for granted but which do not exist for many communities because of their location. They cannot get fresh fruit and vegetables on a regular basis because of their location and the lack of infrastructure or the poor nature of infrastructure that leads to these communities. So roads are vitally important. It is therefore important that we appreciate our obligation here in this parliament, representing the interests of all Australians, to make sure these investments are made and that they go to those people most in need. Sadly, though, it appears that most investments being made currently are being made on the basis of political priorities, not necessarily on the basis of need.
The more recent of the commitments that were made by Labor in government, before being defeated last year, understood the importance and centrality of roads to social and economic wellbeing and effective service delivery across communities. Our successive budgets demonstrated that very clearly. The infrastructure investments made by Labor in government included those announced on 3 August 2012, when the then minister, Mr Albanese, put out a press release announcing $90 million towards a new regional roads program in the Northern Territory, with a $16 million contribution from the Northern Territory government. Remember, this announcement was made on 3 August 2012. Its purpose, as the heading of the press release said, was 'Encouraging productivity by investing in Territory bush roads'. The road projects for which the money was made available were: the Roper Highway, for causeways and associated works; the Port Keats Road—to Wadeye, for those who might not be familiar with it—for targeted sealing and flood immunity improvements, which are fundamentally important; the Santa Teresa Way, for upgrading the gravel condition of priority sections—this is an absolutely murderous road that requires significant improvement, and this money must be spent; the Central Arnhem Road, for constructing a new bridge over Rocky Bottom Creek; the Buntine Highway, for targeted strengthening, widening and sealing works; and the Arnhem Link Road, for upgrading the gravel condition of priority sections.
These priorities were agreed, these investments were announced and the money made available. You can imagine my consternation, then, when on 5 March this year I saw a joint media release from the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Truss, and the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Adam Giles, making this announcement: 'NT's economy to be boosted through upgrades to six remote roads'. That piqued my interest. What did I find? What I found was a re-announcement of the announcement made by Labor and the commitment made by Labor in 2012. They identified $90 million from the Commonwealth, $16 million from the Northern Territory government—just as had been done in 2012—and, oddly, picked exactly the same roads: the Roper Highway, the Port Keats Road, the Arnhem Link Road, the Buntine Highway, the Central Arnhem Road and the Santa Teresa Road.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. It seems to me that that is precisely what the government was trying to do. They must think we are mad, that we do not have any memory of investments previously made and announced by a former government. Here we have, writ large, another example of this government making announcements for investments which were already committed by the previous Labor government. What it tells us, of course, is that they don't have any ideas of their own. What it tells us is that they haven't got a damn clue. What it also tells us is they are not prepared to sit down with communities and try to find out what their priorities are. There is no doubt this $90 million with the $16 million from the Northern Territory government are absolutely required, but we do not need a re-announcement by this government in 2014 of an investment made by the Labor government in 2012. We are not fools and I do not think the community will be fooled by these re-announcements.
Yet it is not the only example. What we are seeing from this government—and I am talking about my own electorate of Lingiari here—is a real lack of interest in making sure that communities have their services properly dealt with and their needs recognised and addressed. I will mention just one. In Gove an announcement was made at the end of November last year by Rio Tinto that they would put their refinery at Gove in curtailment—in other words, effectively close it down over a six-month period so that, by July this year, it will be just in care and maintenance; there will be no refining of bauxite. It will mean the loss of 1,200 jobs.
Yet neither this government nor the Northern Territory government has had the wit or wisdom to do a socioeconomic impact assessment of what this closure will mean to those communities and what further investments might need to be made to provide opportunities for jobs and small business in those communities into the future. Not one red cent has been spent by the Abbott government on mediating and mitigating the impacts of this closure on this community.
Understand what this means. For those of you here in the gallery and those who might be listening, we will see a town of 4,000 people drop to 1,200. You can imagine the impact this will have, and is having, on small businesses across the community. We demand that this government take an interest. One thing they could do is stump up $350 million for the Central Arnhem Highway to give these people all-year-round road access, which would provide an incentive for further investment, business and employment opportunities for the region.
I am pleased to speak on this bill, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, because it gives me an opportunity to say a number of things about the bill generally; then, secondly, to speak about some of the impacts it will have on Western Australia; and, thirdly, to speak about some of the impacts and the future program for the electorate of Canning that I have been elected to represent five times now.
We are committed to delivering critical infrastructure to all of Australia to meet the future needs as this nation does grow. The bill will rename the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 as the National Land Transport Act 2014. This amendment of the act is a coalition election promise, evidence that the coalition is committed to developing a stronger Australia by building the roads of the 21st century. It was an election promise and we are going to deliver on our promises.
Further, the amendment is part of the government's broader commitment of $35.5 billion to national infrastructure. This money will be used over six years to build roads and rail projects that are vital to Australia to improve efficiency, boost productivity and drive Australia's economy forward. Again, this is further evidence that the coalition is set to develop a stronger Australia by delivering the biggest infrastructure agenda in Australia's history.
For Western Australia, the $35.5 billion committed under the Infrastructure Investment Program will provide $686 million to complete the Gateway WA Project and $615 million to build the Swan Valley Bypass on the Perth to Darwin Highway. I must say, we are confirming this money in the bill. The previous Rudd-Gillard government promised to do this as long as the money came from the mining tax. The mining tax did not happen. There has been a trickle of money from this ill-constructed mining tax done with a few mates, the three major companies—Rio, BHP and Xstrata—done in the eye of the mid caps and the juniors, and it did not deliver any money of any significance. This government is ensuring that this money is going to flow. The previous government had to borrow the money because they did not get it from the mining tax. We were borrowing $100 million a day from China, largely, to fund these projects and, quite disingenuously, the Labor Party said that this would come from the mining tax, and it has not.
In terms of the bill—and I am sure that most other people have spoken on this—it, firstly, repeals Labor's Nation Building Program so we have a more efficient infrastructure policy. Secondly, the government's motivation to repeal these acts is simply to repeal that legislation which is no longer in use. The bill aims to streamline and enhance the operation of the act in a number of ways, which I am sure has been mentioned.
Another positive aspect of the enhanced operation of this bill is to expand the definition of the phrase 'eligible funding recipient'. It is proposed that 'eligible funding recipients' will now include partnerships and non-corporate Commonwealth entities. Again, this is to streamline the operations of the delivery and the outcomes for this investment. There is very little in this change and it is going to be negative for states and territories. In fact, it will ensure and enshrine the ongoing nature of the delivery from the Commonwealth.
Let us not forget, however, the most important aspect of this bill. This bill will enable the continuation of the Roads to Recovery Program beyond 30 June 2014. Before I go on to the Roads to Recovery program, I reiterate that Western Australia, like the rest of Australia, is in need of not only upgraded and enhanced road projects, but also new road programs. People have trouble getting their minds around some of this. For example, Roy Hill is starting up shortly. That road to the coast may only take a handful of vehicles a day, probably fewer than 100, and to expend millions of dollars on a road that will only take a handful of vehicles is hard to justify when a similar road in Sydney would potentially take 50,000 to 100,000 vehicles a day. But you have got to look at what that one road may do: it will provide access from the mine site to the port for their support vehicles and the contractors to deliver billions of dollars of export income to this country. That is the context you have to put it in—not how many people use the road but what benefit the road will actually deliver in terms of its investment.
The Roads to Recovery program—what a marvellous program—was initiated by the Howard government and, to give credit to the Labor Party, they continued this but made some changes which I will respond to in a moment. The beauty of the Roads to Recovery program is what is called a 'bottoms-up' funding program—not top down where everyone gets a little bit on the way through and the state governments help themselves to a proportion of the funding for handling the moneys as they go through and then skimming some off for themselves, with all the inefficiencies that causes. Local government is on the ground. They know the roads that need repair and enhancement. They are the ones best placed to spend the taxpayers' money most efficiently in their local areas. Without the Commonwealth Roads to Recovery program, many shires and cities in this country would have to struggle to raise the moneys to have these roads in these conditions and to grow the road network.
It is much sought after, but what may or may not have been mentioned in this debate is the fact that the Labor Party, going to the last election, made much of having a constitutional referendum on local government so that they could deliver this money, because there is a constitutional question as to the delivery of Roads to Recovery directly to local government. This has been pointed out in one case that I am aware of, and maybe more, but there is an understanding that, until there is a recognition of local government in the Constitution, we are going to have to deal with this in the way it has been dealt with for a number of years. But what happened to that much vaunted referendum about the recognition of local government that was being led by the then member for Hotham, Simon Crean? It died on the vine, like many of the other initiatives that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government were taking to all their elections.
So we are left with a certain amount of uncertainty, but not enough to mean that this program will not work effectively as it has done in the past. The constitutional question is one issue, but it is not one that concentrates the mind too much, because you cannot get in between a local government authority and this money, because they need it so desperately. In the electorate of Canning, which I represent, this has been a highly successful program throughout the six local government authorities: the City of Armadale, the City of Mandurah, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, the Shire of Murray, the Shire of Waroona and the Shire of Boddington. They all benefit from this marvellous program, which they then add value to by adding much of their ratepayers' money to expand the road network in their area. So I will spend a little bit of the time that I have left outlining where some of these moneys have gone.
Until recently there was a little bit of flexibility in the program. For example, in the City of Armadale, where they wanted to do some major roadworks but the quantum of money from Roads to Recovery in that year was not sufficient to do it in that financial year, they were given the flexibility of cobbling it together—providing a bridge and doing the roadworks—by allowing it to happen over a two- to three-year period. That is a sensible outcome. It is common sense in terms of the way the Commonwealth should be able to negotiate with local government authorities to see this money best used in the local areas.
Knowing that I was going to be making this speech, we contacted the local government authorities in my area that I have just mentioned. All got back to me except, unfortunately, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, which probably needs this money more than anyone else because it is the second largest shire by area in Western Australia and has some roads that are desperately in need of help. They are dangerous gravel roads, heading off to Alcoa's mine sites and through areas that are receiving more traffic, like Gobby Road. I have been pushing for Gobby Road with the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale for years. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, as federal members we cannot tell the councils how to spend their money, but as elected representatives we can certainly indicate where the people think the money should be spent. Gobby Road in the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale in my electorate is certainly one such road, and so is Lightbody Road. But no; the S-J shire has seen fit to spend the money elsewhere, which is a little bit of a disappointment to me. But, as I said, that is an independent process and those elected at a federal level can only make suggestions and try to negotiate with the local government authorities.
The City of Mandurah is a hypergrowth region and is at the end of its borrowing, so this money is like manna from heaven to it. The Roads to Recovery program meant that Mandurah was able to do things like build a two-kilometre road connecting the Mandurah Transit Station to the City of Mandurah. Mandurah was strangled by old roads that stopped the traffic flow, so creatively, when rail arrived in Mandurah from Perth, it needed to find a quick transit to the city. This Roads to Recovery program allowed it to realign some old roads, remove the bowling club that was in the way at the time, do some land acquisitions and acquire some houses that were on the route. The project included the upgrading of the intersection of Scott Street and Anstruther Road. Part of Allnutt Street had to be expanded into four lanes, with the inclusion of traffic lights and street lights at the Allnutt Street-Dower Street intersection. As I said, there was completion of the link through the sections right into Mandurah Terrace. That was a fantastic outcome, because it allowed better access to the train station for those catching the train from Mandurah to Perth, and it has really made getting to work a much better and more seamless journey for the people of Mandurah.
Another project completed in Mandurah under the Roads to Recovery program was the upgrade of both pedestrian and vehicle pathways along Mandurah Terrace, the city's primary thoroughfare along the Mandurah Foreshore. They just had the Mandurah Crab Fest last weekend, and something like 15,000 people turned up on the foreshore that day. Mandurah is the home of the blue manna crab in Western Australia. The crabs are beautiful to eat but do attract a crowd on that weekend. People have just marvelled, because people go to Monkey Mia and places like that to see dolphins but you can sit on the foreshore in Mandurah and see a whole range of dolphins performing in front of you. It is a beautiful part of the Mandurah estuary, and we provided Roads to Recovery moneys so that people can get better access and upgrade the whole experience in the city centre of Mandurah. It is a great tourist destination and, if it did not have this infrastructure development from the Commonwealth in areas such as the foreshore reserve, it would not benefit from tourism in the way it is doing.
There are projects throughout the electorate. The Shire of Murray has used the moneys to link the Coolup region to the Perth-Bunbury highway, and this is to provide safe and reliable access to what could have been considered one of the highest traffic highways in the region. Without this funding provided by Roads to Recovery, it is arguable that the Shire of Murray would have found it difficult to construct this link, so that is another shire that has benefited. This type of strategic road planning which the Roads to Recovery program affords to the likes of the City of Mandurah and the Shire of Murray provides examples of why I support the continued funding of the program under the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill, which we are talking about today.
Briefly, I want to mention a couple of other shires. Out in Boddington, the Chalkbrook Road is a very small project. For those not aware, Boddington is another Western Australian success story. Potentially the largest goldmine in Australia, the Newmont mine at Boddington is producing something like 800,000 ounces of gold a year. This road is helping build the infrastructure in that area so that the local residents can make great use of it. In the Shire of Waroona, Coronation Road has been upgraded through this program. There are so many things that I could continue to talk about with this program. I am out of time, but this ensures the flow of the funds, through these changes to the legislation, and guarantees security for local governments, the state of Western Australia and, dare I say, the rest of Australia into the future.
I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate regarding the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 because this bill seeks to build on Labor's strong record of investment, particularly in road infrastructure but also in rail infrastructure, through a number of nation-building projects that were conceived and begun under the previous Labor government. Their construction continues as we speak, adding to the productivity of our nation's land transport.
This particular bill seeks to amend the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act to: continue funding indefinitely for the Roads to Recovery program, something that is supported by the opposition; allow the minister an ongoing power to determine a Roads to Recovery list; eliminate the distinction between national network and off-network projects, and retitle the same as 'investment projects'; widen transport research funding criteria; allow partnerships and non-corporate Commonwealth entities to apply for research funding; repeal some of the acts that are no longer relevant, including the railway standardisation agreement act of 1958; and rename the act and remove any reference to 'nation building'.
In the minister's speech on 27 February this year, when he introduced this bill and made a speech to the parliament, he said:
Through the Infrastructure Investment Program, the government has committed $35.5 billion over six years to road and rail projects, including:
and—
Hear, hear!
I am glad that the assistant minister agrees that these are good projects, because of course these were all projects conceived and delivered by the Labor government. They were re-announced by the new government once they occupied the treasury bench; they are seeking to claim credit for projects that were put in place by the former Labor government. It is typical of this government, seeking to claim accomplishments that the previous government put in place and to try to pass them off as their own.
Just last weekend we saw the Prime Minister with the assistant minister for re-announcements here, the member for Mayo, and Barry O'Farrell, the New South Wales Premier, re-announce the $3 billion NorthConnex link—the F3 to M2 link. This was originally announced sometime last year by Barry O'Farrell and by the then roads and infrastructure minister, Anthony Albanese. So it is probably more appropriate to say that this is a recycling or a re-announcement of a project that was put in place by the Labor government.
I am a former senator; I was proud to represent New South Wales. One of the great joys of being a senator is that I had the opportunity to travel around New South Wales. I saw firsthand the investment that the then Labor government was making in the New South Wales roads infrastructure. During its period in government, the former Labor government doubled the investment in roads infrastructure throughout Australia to $46½ billion and it upgraded 7½ thousand kilometres of roads throughout the country. It lifted the local government road grants program by 20 per cent.
If you drive up the Pacific Highway now, from Sydney to Brisbane, you will go past a number of projects. You will go past the Bulahdelah bypass being built. You will travel onto one of the best road projects in Australia's history, the Kempsey bypass, with the longest pylon bridge in the world—built under a Labor government. You will pass the Woolgoolga bypass, and you will go past the excellent new piece of road that bypasses Ballina. These are four major road projects worth billions of dollars that will cut about 1½ to two hours off the trip between Sydney and Brisbane—invested in and built by a Labor government, contributing to our nation's productivity. Over the six years of our nation-building program, from 2008 to 2014, we increased federal spending on the nation's road, rail and public transport infrastructure from $132 per Australian to $225 per head of population.
Labor also made sure that rural and regional communities got their fair share, with almost two-thirds of our infrastructure funding earmarked for projects in regional Australia. We doubled the roads budget and initiated the biggest road construction program since the creation of the National Highway network 40 years ago. Australia-wide, that $46.5 billion program went about building and upgrading 7½ kilometres of road, as I have said, with a key aim of complete duplication of the Hume and Pacific highways connecting the nation's three biggest cities—Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.
In August last year Labor had already completed 137 major projects, with work underway on a further 67. Some of those I have already mentioned are being claimed by the government as their own. We fixed 1,944 notorious black spots on local suburban streets and country roads, and it is pleasing to see that in this bill the Black Spot Programme is being continued. We installed 95 new and refurbished rest stops as well as 46 new and upgraded parking and decoupling bays, providing truck drivers with more places to pull over, take a break, catch up on sleep or check and reconfigure their vehicles. We assisted councils around the country with maintaining and upgrading their local roads, with 17,200 projects being funded by the federal government at the time.
Labor also worked to roll out the largest investment in interstate rail since the Fisher government built the transcontinental railway almost a century ago, with $3.4 billion over the life of our six-year nation-building program. Compared to the former Howard government, we invested more than twice as much in about half the time.
Labor's record on infrastructure in government, particularly in my state of New South Wales, is something that I am quite proud of. We committed $5.5 billion over six years to road and rail transport projects servicing Sydney. These included $840 million for the northern Sydney freight line upgrade and $800 million for the Moorebank intermodal terminal. This is a particularly important project for my community because the expanding port at Port Botany is seeing more and more container trucks on our local roads. The philosophy and aim of the Moorebank intermodal project was to upgrade the rail freight line that comes out of Port Botany terminal to put most of that freight onto trains. That train line goes to Moorebank with that freight, which is there transferred to trucks for the trip west. The majority of that freight would go north or west, and the approach was to ensure that that freight was not being transported around local roads in the Sydney metropolitan area on trucks. It was to be done on rail, reducing the disturbance for local communities, particularly in my area, and also improving the productivity of logistics and transport around the Sydney Basin.
We invested $980 million for the southern Sydney freight line; $405 million for the F3-to-M2 missing link, which was again re-announced on the weekend; $300 million to upgrade the Great Western Highway; $172 million for the Port Botany rail improvements; $98 million to widen the F5 at Campbelltown; $75 million for the upgrade of the Port Botany rail line; and $40 million for the Port Botany upgrade program. They are important projects for my community which tie into the Moorebank intermodal project and ensure we are not only upgrading important rail infrastructure but that it is an integrated transport system that works and complements other aspects of the flow, particularly for logistical traffic throughout the Sydney Basin. There was also an investment of $1.8 billion to deliver the M4 and M5 extensions in partnership with the New South Wales government.
Labor came to government as a party that wanted to build the nation, wanted to invest in infrastructure and ensure that we were improving the productivity of our nation by ensuring that our transport network was one that was integrated, that worked well, was efficient and also met the needs of an ever-expanding population, particularly around metropolitan Sydney communities. The doubling of the road budget and the increased investment in rail transport, particularly for freight, were all part of a nation-building project.
It is a shame to see the words 'nation building' removed from that important legislation by this bill, because that is what conceiving, planning, developing and building road and rail transport networks is all about. It is about building a nation. Economies grow and productivity improves when interconnectedness between communities and cities is set up and delivered. Under Labor our approach was one of nation building. It is a shame to see those provisions go from this aspect of the bill, but Labor will always be a party that supports nation building, a party that supports an integrated transport system. I am pleased to say that some of those aspects are met by this bill and commend it to the House.
I rise to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. Following on from the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, I have to ask: where do I start? There is plenty of disinformation to rebut. My goodness—to stand up here and, of all things, complain about the fact that the words 'nation building' are being taken out of the exercise just goes to show what the last government was all about. It was all about spin. It was all about the names. It was all about the titles. It was all about the razzamatazz but not about the delivery. 'Nation building'—for goodness sake, it is like we have just walked into Communist China and have the banners up there: 'We are building the nation'; 'Please be proud of your government, people!' This is ridiculous stuff. We are getting rid of the semantics and getting on with the job. That is what the new government is all about.
The previous member talked about stuff being delivered to the regions and how the regions got their fair share. If you come to a region like mine, which is based up in north and central Queensland, people will tell you that there was underdelivery from the last government. But there is a reason they can put their hand on their heart and say, 'We delivered for the regions.' Do you now why? I will tell you why. Because the last government considered everywhere a region. Sydney was a region! All those cockies walking about in Sydney with their akubras talking about the price of beef and all the rest of it! This was the ridiculous nature of the last government. Everywhere in Australia was a region. So the member for Kingsford Smith can actually get up here, hand on his heart, along with the member for Grayndler and all the rest of them, and say, 'We delivered for the regions.' Of course you are delivering for the regions when Sydney is a region, Perth is a region, Brisbane is a region, Melbourne is a region. But get real—rural and regional Australia is not capital city Australia.
The member for Kingsford Smith also talked about how all of these projects that are outlined in this bill and that the new government is going to deliver were projects of the last government. He actually mentioned at the start of his speech our $6.7 billion commitment to the Bruce Highway, a highway that has been underfunded and underinvested in for so, so long. What the previous member said is very much incorrect. I cannot bring myself to say the 'L' word, because I know the Speaker will pull me up, but it was. The last government had committed some funds to the Bruce Highway but it was about $2.6 billion short of what the Liberal-National coalition is actually investing in the Bruce Highway. The previous member got up and said that all of these commitments were stuff that the last government had. That is incorrect; it was not. The last government's approach was very much, like the member for Kingsford Smith, Mr Thistlethwaite, a case of 'this'll wait'. We are sick of waiting; we are going to deliver on these projects.
It is necessary to make amendments to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 to facilitate the ambitious agenda that the Abbott Liberal-National government actually has set for land transport infrastructure. This government has committed $35½ billion to road and rail projects, as I said before, including $6.7 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway—an increase in funding beyond what the previous government had allocated of $2.6 billion.
Many members know, and certainly the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development knows, my passion for the Bruce Highway, as I have spoken about it on many occasions in this place. It is a critical arterial link for the Queensland economy, especially North Queensland communities. It is the logistical lifeblood of our economy. It is the worst highway in Australia but it has been listed through data obtained from the World Health Organization as one of the worst 22 roads in the world—would you believe it, in the world? Of all the Third World and developing countries, the Bruce Highway makes the list of 22 of the world's worst roads because of the deaths and the accidents that have occurred on that road. That is certainly not a record to be proud of. It is something that should spark a government into action and I am proud to say that this Liberal-National coalition government has made a strong commitment to that Bruce Highway. Again, I will repeat—$6.7 billion, $2.6 billion more than the previous government intended to invest. That is going to be matched by about $1.8 billion from the Newman Liberal-National government, bringing a total investment from the Liberal-National coalition of $8.5 billion in the Bruce Highway, the largest investment that we have seen, and hopefully we are going to see more of it. We are getting on with doing what we said we would do in terms of delivering infrastructure. The amendment bill we are talking about today is a crucial part of that so we can continue to fund vital road infrastructure projects.
Since the election the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister have reaffirmed their commitments to our infrastructure agenda, including the Bruce Highway, and the vital road infrastructure projects that need to happen on it. That means that important projects are going to be done, like replacing the dangerous Haughton River bridge in the Burdekin in my electorate. That project—a project supported not only by me but by the member for Herbert, whose constituents also traverse that bridge fairly regularly—is going to go ahead. It is a dangerous bridge and we will fix it. That was not on Labor's agenda.
It also means important flood-proofing works will go ahead at places like Yellow Gin Creek near Townsville and at Sandy Gully near Bowen. There is also some preliminary planning work to be done on the Goorganga Plains, which is a huge issue. It is very sad that not even planning work has actually been done on that yet, because it is an area which cuts off the Whitsunday Coast Airport from the Whitsundays itself. Can you imagine? It is a world-class tourist destination, you get to the airport, there is a bit of rain and the road is flooded. Actually this has happened. They have had to take people back down to Brisbane. They have had to land the plane there, cannot actually get the people to the Whitsundays, so they have flown back to Brisbane. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that the last government had not addressed that issue when it was put on the agenda by the state government. We are now getting on with the job of sorting out what is going to happen to fix that problem.
This bill also means getting on with the Mackay ring road, which is desperately needed to get rid of the traffic congestion in my home city, to get the heavy trucks off the local roads, to actually get rid of the logjam and the bottlenecks that are impacting on freight and movements to and from the port to our industrial area. This project will actually deliver all of that. I am very proud to say that we made a commitment at the last election, that commitment has been restated by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and that will happen under the Abbott Liberal-National government.
The Gillard-Rudd government spent $10 million—I have to give them that—for a feasibility study of the Mackay ring road and then they did nothing. They did absolutely nothing after that. They had an opportunity in the last budget to continue funds for that project; in fact, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard came to Mackay and told people it would be in the budget. Well, the budget came and the budget went and we did not see any further money earmarked in that financial year, the current financial year, for the Mackay ring road. We needed that money to ensure that this project would happen in a timely fashion, because by 2018, the local engineers tell me, traffic volumes will be exceeded in Mackay. The fact that we have had a year with no further funding going to that project means that none of the money has been forthcoming to do all of the resumptions and the compensation that need to flow from there, the very detailed design work that needs to happen before construction and the relocation of services—even though former Prime Minister Julia Gillard flew into Mackay and told us that it was going to be in the budget.
It was not in the budget but we are going to put it back in the budget. Not only are we going to deliver all of that pre-construction work that needs to happen but we are going to get on with the job, do the construction work and, as soon as it is done, we have got a clear commitment on the table for the people of Mackay and it will be the Abbott Liberal-National government—the infrastructure Prime Minister standing alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development—who see this project through. And if there is one thing that I will definitely be able to point to in my time as a local MP and as a strong advocate for infrastructure projects in my area, it will be that. I will be able to say, 'This is it, delivered, only because we pushed it. Labor did not deliver this.' You cannot say, member for Kingsford-Smith, that you had anything to do with pushing that Mackay ring road, because the only thing that Labor has had to do with it has been to delay it.
This bill also makes significant changes to the Roads to Recovery program, which was originally established by the Liberal-National coalition under then Prime Minister John Howard in 2005. That program has paid huge dividends for local communities. We had local roads that had been in a shoddy state for a long time because councils' budgets are stretched to the limit already; they cannot find the extra coin to do the necessary local infrastructure projects that are needed, and this money helps those councils tackle road problems that they would not otherwise have the coin to cover. I have got to say that, being a former local government councillor, I share the pain of those local councils who deal with the fact that there are always competing priorities and a lack of money to do the jobs. The continuation of this program is good news for local government and hopefully into the future, as the finances of the nation improve, we can look to increasing the investment that we provide to local councils for Roads to Recovery.
This bill enables that good work to continue. It removes the specification of a funding period and includes in it the Roads to Recovery list, which will effectively remove the need to amend the act every time that funding period changes. So it is an ongoing program, we can say now. The continuation of funding will avoid the situation we are now in, where vital funding for local government to support the maintenance of local road infrastructure is not guaranteed beyond 30 June this year. We are guaranteeing it and we are guaranteeing it forever and a day. This amendment bill will give local governments the certainty they need to schedule effective programs of local road maintenance. To ensure them of this certainty, the bill will also insert a power for the minister to determine a Roads to Recovery list, which will be exempt from disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act.
The Liberal-National government is committed to getting this country back on track, and to do that we need to be more efficient with taxpayer dollars. It has been pointed out to me that the draft Productivity Commission report into infrastructure spend that came out in the last week actually showed that $1 billion had been wasted around the country on either bad priorities or bad delivery. That is a legacy of the last government. They talk about what they spent but they never talk about how they spent it. The Productivity Commission has belled the cat and said that $1 billion was wasted. That is the track record of the last government. The track record of this government will be delivering infrastructure, such as the projects that are needed on the Bruce Highway, in a timely, efficient and productive way. We will get on with the job of delivering that infrastructure. The former infrastructure minister, the member for Grayndler, likes to come in and say, 'That's ours, that's ours'—but it is not theirs because they did not deliver it. We will deliver it. We will deliver it efficiently and we will see it through. They can be all about slogans like 'nation building'; we will be all about the bitumen on the ground, not the paperwork.
The Liberal government's biggest piece of land transport infrastructure is the proposed freeway through Royal Park in Melbourne, which it calls the East West Link. In fact, it does not link the east and west at all. Nor does it have the support of most Victorians, who know perfectly well that if it proceeds it will come with a massive opportunity cost and put paid to their hopes for a rail line to Doncaster, a rail line to Melbourne Airport, rail to Mernda or public transport to Monash University. In particular, it does not have the support of local residents, who are appalled by its impact on Royal Park, the Moonee Ponds Creek and the Melbourne Zoo. I commend Julianne Bell, the tireless secretary of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria and committee member of Royal Park Protection Group, and all the community groups who are working incredibly hard to stop this project happening: David Muir and the Kensington Association, Kaye Oddie and the Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek, the Carlton Association and many others.
For a Liberal government that grandstands about fiscal rectitude, this $8 billion project is being put forward without passing any serious cost-benefit analysis. The government claims that the benefits of the $6 billion to $8 billion freeway outweigh the cost but refuses to provide details, claiming that this would compromise commercial negotiations.
The government's business case relies totally on the assumption of what economists call an 'agglomeration effect', in which population and economic clusters in cities lead to efficiencies and add to business productivity. The Linking Melbourne Authority, which provides information on road infrastructure projects conducted on behalf of the Victorian government, has referred to a book by the American writer, Edward L. Glaeser, called Triumph of the City. Its main thesis is the agglomeration benefits that create cities. But the Linking Melbourne Authority does not appear to have read the book, because the book does not argue that freeways are the path to these benefits, in fact it argues quite the opposite. Mr Glaeser argues that 'driving creates negative externalities that hamper urban economies'. He warns against highway building, calling it 'antiurban'. I quote:
For decades we have tried to solve the problem of too many cars on too few lanes by building more roads, but each new highway or bridge then attracts more traffic.
The Age commentator Kenneth Davidson has accurately pointed out in relation to the Royal Park freeway:
It will cripple the state's fiscal position for many years through massive payments to the public-private partnership consortium that will finance it.
The financial burden on the Victorian taxpayer will be so big that it will ''crowd out'' the state's core responsibilities for funding schools, hospitals, rail transport and even other roads for at least a generation.
An email recently obtained through FOI illustrates that the Victorian government's own economic consultant, Chris Tehan of Evans & Peck, told the government that the business case had dramatically overestimated the wider economic benefits to get an artificial figure of a $1.40 return. According to The Age:
… the methodology ''has not been used in any of [the Transport Department's] other public transport projects or program modelling to date''.
… … …
The financial case for the east-west link hinges on a prediction that toll road use will jump over the next 30 years because of rising wealth and shrinking petrol and CBD parking price rises.
The business case for the link makes the controversial assumption that: firstly, a driver's willingness to use toll roads will increase by 1.4 per cent per annum due to rising incomes; secondly, the rate of increase in the cost of running a car will fall from the current two per cent per annum in real terms to half a per cent per annum by 2041; and, thirdly, that the rate of increase in the cost of inner-city parking, which is currently increasing at four per cent per annum in real terms, will fall to 0.5 per cent by 2041.
The Victorian government has been caught out manipulating modelling to produce a favourable result.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
I listened to you in silence; you ease up.
Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I rise on a point of order. This is a bill about changing the name and making some amendments to, the land transport act. It is not an opportunity to slag off at the Victorian government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the member's contribution is directly relevant to the bill that is being discussed. It is about road safety.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is making false claims about modelling in Victoria related to anything to do with the change of the name of the fund? The member opposite should get back to subject of the bill. I know the member is embarrassed about Labor's infrastructure record, but he should get back to the bill—
The member for Wills will be directly relevant.
And I have been, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the minister at the table well knows, this is the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The East West Link is this government's prime piece of proposed land transport infrastructure, and I am detailing to the House why I am opposed to this piece of land transport infrastructure.
The former Infrastructure Australia head, Michael Deegan, told a Senate committee that the government's unpublished business case provided an alternative estimate showing a benefit-cost ratio of just 0.8. Under this scenario, the project would return just 80 cents for every one dollar spent, suggesting an economic loss if the stock-standard analysis preferred by Infrastructure Australia is used.
According to The Age, in a submission to a federal infrastructure inquiry, Infrastructure Australia outed Victoria for failing to submit a robust business case for the East West Link, singling out:
… the controversial $6 billion to $8 billion road as a key example of why the public are cynical about ''big-ticket'' infrastructure announcements.
Infrastructure Australia's 11-member council, which includes the transport experts, Sir Rod Eddington, and the federal Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, is understood to broadly recommend only those projects with benefit-cost ratios of more than 1.5. And Michael Deegan warns that big-spending promises are being made without proper scrutiny. The Age quotes him as saying:
This is a particular problem during election periods where commitments are often made although robust business cases have not been prepared, let alone independently reviewed.
The Age continues, saying that Infrastructure Australia:
… is particularly concerned about changes proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, which will give the federal government discretion to ring-fence some projects from independent scrutiny.
Mr Deegan warned that any such change would ''exacerbate'' the problem of projects being presented to Infrastructure Australia ''with limited or questionable business cases''.
The freeway through Royal Park is a classic example of economic 'mutton dressed up as lamb'.
The article continues:
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is opposed to Commonwealth funding for public transport projects, has pledged $1.5 billion for the east-west project, with the rest coming from the state government, which will collect toll revenue, and the private sector.
According to the traffic expert, Stephen Pelosi, the traffic on the East-West Link in the morning peak is expected to have slowed to 20 to 30 kilometres per hour by 2031 as worsening congestion pushes the road close to capacity just 12 years after it is due to open. The East West Link is forecast to carry 80,000 vehicles a day on opening in 2019, increasing to between 100,000 and 120,000 a day by 2031 according to his modelling. He is quoted in The Age:
''If it's reaching 120,000 we're at a position where we're reaching capacity,'' Mr Pelosi said. ''Unless you intervene in some manner and manage the toll rate to influence demand, you get a situation where you're near capacity."
It is not much use to commuters.
When the Prime Minister is challenged about all the manufacturing jobs that are being lost in Melbourne with the impending closure of Ford, Holden and Toyota, and the job cuts at Qantas, he says, 'It will be alright, we are going to build the East West Link'. But will those construction jobs actually go to Australian workers—to Victorian workers, to Melbourne workers? In fact there are no guarantees—there are no guarantees!—that Australian workers will get the jobs created on the project from design through to actual construction work. This is because government policies at the federal and state level favour foreign companies and foreign workers over Australian workers and companies.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the assistant minister's interjection then was uncalled for and he should withdraw it.
What is to be withdrawn? What was uncalled for about it? He did; he wrote a reference for Tony Mokbel. That is on the record.
It would assist the chair if you would withdraw.
I will withdraw and while I am on my feet I would ask that the member return to the subject of the bill.
The member will be directly relevant.
I am pleased to support your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am being directly relevant to the bill, which concerns land transport infrastructure in this country. The federal government's $1.5 billion of proposed expenditure on the East West Link is a prime example and is one of the key issues this country needs to debate.
At the end of September 2013 there were 13,440 temporary foreign workers on 457 visas in the Australian construction industry, an increase of five per cent in just 12 months. At the end of January 2014 a total of 110,000 457 visa workers were in Australia, four per cent more than at the end of January 2013. The nature of the construction industry is such that any number of these 457 visa workers could be deployed to work on the Royal Park freeway, from engineering to trades like carpentry and other blue-collar jobs. The slowdown in resource sector construction means that many firms employing 457 construction workers are desperately looking for infrastructure projects to fill the gap in their orders.
On top of that, the Liberal government has shown that its agenda is to reduce protections for Australian workers and young people in the 457 visa program in the name of deregulation and removing what it calls 'unnecessary red tape'. Let us consider exactly what the Liberal government considers unnecessary red tape. First, it has removed or watered down the key protections for Australian workers that Labor introduced in its June 2013 legislation, the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Act 2013—
Relevance! How about you be relevant?
The member for Wills has the call.
specifically, the labour market testing provisions. In November last year the coalition issued regulations under that legislation which make it much easier for employers to hire temporary foreign workers on 457 visas even when qualified Australian workers are readily available and willing to do the work. The figures from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection say that, for 65 per cent of all of the 457 visa nominations—
Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I rise on a point of order. This is not relevant to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. This bill is about land transport; it is about infrastructure. I ask you to draw the member back to being relevant to the bill.
The member will be directly relevant.
I am not the one who made the claim that the East West Link is a solution for the unemployed manufacturing workers in Melbourne; it was the Prime Minister who made that claim. I am pointing out why that claim is flawed.
Figures from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection indicate that, for 65 per cent of all 457 visa nominations, they have exempted employers from any legal obligation to labour market test—that is, to even look for Australian workers, let alone show that none were available, before 457 visas could be approved for temporary foreign workers. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU, pointed out in a recent submission to the Productivity Commission that, even in the minority of cases where 457 labour market testing is required, the protections for Australian workers looking for jobs on projects like the East West Tunnel are 'virtually nonexistent'. They state:
The CFMEU propose there be a 28-day advertising period, and I agree with them. They also state:
The government regards requirements like this as red tape holding back employers. I say that, without such requirements, a project like the East West Link, if it proceeds, will not employ many Victorian workers at all.
The East West Link is a white elephant that risks undermining Melbourne's productive capacity and living standards. The tunnel is not a solution. It does not provide value for money. Generations of Victorians will be burdened by an $8 billion debt for a tunnel that will have long passed its use-by date. It is regrettable that this government is seeking to amend the Infrastructure Australia legislation to give the minister heightened discretion rather than going through the proper independent, transparent processes that Australians expect when it comes to large spending on infrastructure projects.
I rise today in support of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. This legislation is critical in furthering the agenda and commitment of the Abbott government to build the roads of the 21st century. Land transport infrastructure provides the arteries that link our regions, our suburbs, our workforce, our friends and families, our goods to market and our service providers to their customers. In my region of Western Sydney two-thirds of the Lindsay workforce must commute every day to work. This is a worrying trend and it is unsustainable. It creates strain on our already inadequate road and rail infrastructure.
It gives me great pleasure to see the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development here today. He has been a very big champion of Western Sydney. He has been very generous with his time when I knock on his door to talk about the challenges of the people of Western Sydney and finding opportunities for them. The time my people of Western Sydney waste in overcrowded trains every day affects the productivity of the region and is a handbrake on our economy. The people of Western Sydney deserve the opportunity to compete economically that only land infrastructure can provide. The timely delivery of key infrastructure in Western Sydney will lead to housing, employment, continued investment in education and training, health, social, recreational and cultural services for the entire region.Commitment is essential. As identified by the Deputy Prime Minister when introducing this bill to the House, collaboration between the Australian government, states and territory governments and the private sector will enable the successful delivery of the infrastructure Australia so desperately needs. Our infrastructure Prime Minister and this coalition government is getting on with the job with delivering just that. Through the Infrastructure Investment Program, we have committed $35.5 billion over six years to road and rail projects across Australia.
I would like to take this opportunity to draw the House's attention to two significant infrastructure projects that will benefit the people in Western Sydney. These are projects that have been committed to by the Abbott government and are clear examples of how we are delivering for the people of Western Sydney. I have spoken about WestConnex many times before in this parliament. The federal coalition government has committed $1.5 billion dollars to the WestConnex project, which will be the largest road transport project in Australia. It will provide a new way of travelling across Sydney, ensuring quick trips for commuters to the airport and Port Botany from Western Sydney. WestConnex will allow our local residents to bypass 52 sets of traffic lights and save 40 minutes on their trip to the city. It will finally connect the M5and M4 corridors. WestConnex will enable the people of Lindsay to spend more time with their families and less time on the road. It will save businesses time and money, allowing deliveries to be received and sent more efficiently.
Just last week, the infrastructure Prime Minister with the New South Wales Premier announced yet another piece of critical linking infrastructure, NorthConnex. The Australian government will invest $405 million in the $3 billion NorthConnex project to build the missing link between the M1 and M2 motorways, creating around 2,000 jobs. This nine-kilometre link will significantly reduce congestion and decrease travel times, particularly along Pennant Hills Road, and enable commuters and freight trucks to bypass up to 21 sets of traffic lights and reduce travel time by up to 15 minutes. These two pieces of infrastructure are long overdue and NorthConnex will commence construction next year. The tunnel is expected to open in 2019. Yes, I know the opposition will tell you this money was invested under the former Labor government, but they could not and did not deliver it. As the Prime Minister said in question time last week, if this government needs to choose between being a 'gonna' and 'doer', we would rather be a doer.
Locally, we have committed $35 million to Jane Street. The Jane Street bypass will link Penrith and will decongest some of the critical infrastructure that we need to put together. Once again, the state government has also stepped up to the plate with another $35 billion. This will also release the river precinct in Penrith. I look forward to working with the infrastructure Prime Minister not only in the master planning process that is essential to providing roads and rail demanded by the people of Western Sydney but also in providing an infrastructure pipeline crucial to meeting the future needs in connecting the surrounding key regions.
These projects are just a few examples of how this government is delivering critical land transport infrastructure to all of Australia. The Abbott government has clearly demonstrated that tiers of government can work together and deliver better infrastructure to the people of Sydney. I think we can all agree WestConnex and NorthConnex are proof of this. This is why I am extremely pleased this government has secured the future of Roads to Recovery by investing a further $1.75 billion for an additional five years. Roads to Recovery provides vital funding to local governments for the maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure. Since the introduction of this program, Penrith City Council has received more than $13 million to upgrade more than 74.4 kilometres of local roads. Over the last 12 months alone this has included works on Andromeda Drive in Cranebrook; Francis Street in Cambridge Park; lkin Street in Jamisontown; York Road and Tukara Avenue in South Penrith; Derby Street in Penrith; and Sixth and Seventh avenues in Llandilo. Since the introduction of the Roads to Recovery program in 2001, some 128 local road projects have been undertaken across Penrith LGA.
I seek leave to table the documents from Penrith City Council.
Leave is granted.
Thank you. This is a remarkable contribution to my local community, and I look forward to seeing the evolution of this and others for many years to come. I also note this bill supports the continuation of the Black Spot Program, which is a noble initiative to reduce crashes on Penrith roads. Even today, I received a note from a constituent on Twitter, highlighting concerns in a local intersection in one of our key industrial and commercial precincts in South Penrith. That just goes to show how much our communities demand more black spots projects. By funding measures such as traffic signals and roundabouts at dangerous locations, the program reduces the risk of crashes. It makes an important contribution in reducing the national road toll under the National Road Safety Strategy action plan. The Abbott government has committed $300 million to the Black Spot Program, addressing roadsides and high-risk areas for serious crashes.
Therefore, I am extremely pleased to bring to the attention of the House some projects under the Black Spot Program that have benefited the people of Lindsay and ensured a safer driving network. Projects include the installation of two raised thresholds at pedestrian crossings in Queen Street, St Marys, ensuring cars slow down and that local families can cross the road safely, therefore ensuring they enjoy the shopping experience. Also, the installation of a roundabout in Doonmore Street, Penrith, will ensure smoother traffic flows and fewer accidents. There are many examples of where this funding has benefited my electorate and I am extremely pleased we will continue to support these projects across Australia. As you can see by these amendments attached, it is an important step in delivering the infrastructure for the 21st century. But it also ensures the continuation of a range of important programs that have a direct impact on our local road networks, ensuring our roads are safer and of the high standard that our local communities deserve. It is worth noting that projects such as Black Spot and Roads for Recovery have been around for many years. A key aspect of this amendment, introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister, is that it streamlines the initiatives into one bill and removes a series of others, therefore removing duplication and improving the efficiency of the government—government departments, in effect, reducing red tape.
Projects that directly impact our local communities, such as upgrading roads, should be streamlined, so that governments can get on with the job of delivering. This will be a hallmark of the Abbott government as we dedicate our time to reducing red tape and efficiency while allocating resources to improve local communities and our infrastructure. I would like to reiterate the words of the Deputy Prime Minister upon introducing this legislation to the House:
Australia's future growth will be significantly influenced by our capacity to deliver more appropriate, efficient and effective infrastructure. The amendments in this bill will help to better deliver the infrastructure Australia critically needs.
This is great news for Australia.
As I have mentioned at length, the great news for the people I represent in Lindsay and for the people of Greater Western Sydney is that the time has come to get our city moving. Western Sydney is a key region for the Australian economy. It is important that, with this growth and opportunity, we provide the right infrastructure to support the growing needs of this expanding and vocal community. I am confident this government will continue to deliver an infrastructure plan that will support this region. That is why I am today extremely pleased to commend the bill to the House.
I am happy if coalition members do not want to use all their time. I will gladly take up their time as well as mine. The bill before the House, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, is really important. Infrastructure is one of the most important things that we could be discussing—about how we move an economy, move people, move freight, and how we build this country. The government claims they have an infrastructure Prime Minister, but they barely have anything to say—they finished early. I find that extraordinary.
The Nation Building Program is very important. I am glad to see that the Liberals and Nationals actually have a skerrick of decency and will keep it. I am surprised we are not in here discussing why they are not getting rid of it—perhaps to save money. It seems the only purpose of governments these days is to save money—their own money, not necessarily someone else's money.
The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 will maintain basically the things that were in place under Labor, which is a good thing. I certainly welcome the belated interest of the Liberals and Nationals in nation-building programs and even in infrastructure. So much is it belated that they have tried to make a really big point by calling the Prime Minister 'the infrastructure Prime Minister'. He is so far removed from it that they somehow need to associate him and infrastructure. So they thought, 'Why don't we just combine the two'! That is not going to fool anyone because, when they were last in government, they just could not be bothered.
I remember their very famous words—whether they were from Tony Abbott or John Howard—that they would stick to their knitting, that it was not the responsibility of the federal government, that it is always someone else's responsibility. But actions speak louder than words. What they did in response to get back to their knitting was to slash $2 billion from infrastructure, from the federal roads budget. How can you put any faith in the Liberal Party, and particularly in the National Party, which should be about roads and infrastructure, when last time they had the opportunity to deal with these matters they slashed $2 billion from the budget?
The ministers and a number of coalition members in this place have mentioned a dozen major projects that were either announced or funded by the federal Labor government. We are happy for the government to talk about our projects, no matter what they do to try to claim them or rename them. Labor put $6.7 billion towards the upgrade of the Bruce Highway. We did more on that in our short six years than the Howard government ever did in their 12 years, including when Warren Truss was the transport minister.
In terms of spending, we did more in our short six years than the previous coalition government did in their very long 12 years. We put in $5.6 billion to finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway, a billion dollars to continue the Gateway Motorway North upgrade in Brisbane—deliverables which have been completed. I am driving on some of the new roads which we built. We spent $686 million to finish the Gateway WA project in Perth. This mob here claim that they love the west, but no, they are not going to fund the west. When we visited the west, we turned up with some hard, cold cash. We got on the with the job to finish the Gateway WA. We spent $615 million to build the Swan Valley bypass on the Perth to Darwin Highway, $500 million for the upgrade of the South Road in Adelaide, $405 million for F3 to M2 link project in Sydney, and $400 million to continue the Midland Highway upgrade in Tasmania—in total, Labor committed $500 million to that project. Labor also spent $300 million to finalise the plans and engineering design.
Mr Chester interjecting—
It was taxpayers' money but it was Labor that committed it to the project to serve the taxpayer; you are cutting it out. You are taking it from the taxpayer but not spending it on infrastructure. That is the big point of difference. I thank you for the interjection.
Labor also allocated $1.8 billion to the WestConnex project in Sydney, subject to conditions of course, including a proper business case. Federal Labor's record on infrastructure is admirable, it is enviable. It is a track record proven by the projects we actually did. We worked alongside state governments and local governments. We worked in partnership with Liberal governments and with Labor governments—it did not matter because the job of nation-building is not about the colour of your party logo; it is about what you can do to build the nation. We had an objective for far-reaching reforms that we implemented—unprecedented capital works programs. Under Labor, Australia went to second in the international league table which ranks OECD countries by the scale of their investment in fixed capital. When we left office, our nation was investing more than any other major advanced economy, with the exception of South Korea. We were leading the world. Total annual investment in our nation's roads, ports, railways, energy generators, water supply facilities and telecommunication networks hit a record $58.5 billion. We did that in the tough years. We did that during the global financial crisis. When other economies were shrinking we were growing. We invested in capital infrastructure and in the capacity for our economy to grow so as to create jobs. We made sure that we invested in all the things that could help business and could help ordinary Australians.
When the Howard government was in office, in the heady days when rivers of gold used to flow into Canberra, they did the total opposite. There was no investment in our national economy and no investment in infrastructure. Labor's annual average infrastructure spending, in real terms, was up 59 per cent when compared to the last full year of the former Howard government, 2006-07. Total public and private sector infrastructure spending over federal Labor's last five years in office was almost $250 billion, which was almost 70 per cent more, in real terms, than the $150 billion spent during the last five years of the Howard government. Annual infrastructure spending by the public sector alone was greater than two per cent of GDP for the first time in a quarter of a century. This is good stuff. This is good news. This is what we actually did. This is history, not something you are going to do in the never-never.
Federal Labor restored national leadership in infrastructure through the appointment of Australia's first ever federal infrastructure minister and the creation of a federal infrastructure department. We did that because we understood it was important. In order to deliver on infrastructure, you have to have a minister responsible for it and a department that works on it. We established Infrastructure Australia to overhaul things and drive lasting improvements. It was a body removed from the political process benefiting Liberal Party and National Party held seats; it was without discrimination. This was done because it was important. Over two-thirds of all infrastructure spending, went to country—rural and regional areas—but that did not matter; it went to where the need was greatest. That is why we established Infrastructure Australia and the Building Australia Fund. We worked on these things for many years in opposition to make sure that we could do them well when we did get into government—the wheel turns; we all know that. Those who have been here long enough will know that you ain't here forever. We developed the National Public Private Partnership Policy and Guidelines to make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to get involved in large infrastructure projects. We also published long-term blueprints for a truly national integrated multimodal transport system because, again, it was important to move the national economy.
I am always happy to welcome and support anything done by the Liberals and Nationals, regardless of how much money they rip out of the system. If they do only one good thing, however small, I will say 'Well done, boys, welcome to the club'. I will say 'Welcome to the infrastructure spending club'. It is a club in which you understand that in order to move, particularly in the regions, you need to spend some money. Federal Labor committed $60 billion, as part of our national building programs, to build a modern, well-planned transport infrastructure to help make the lives of working people and business people easier, to make our economy more competitive and productive. We made sure rural and regional communities got their fair share, with almost two-thirds of our infrastructure funding going to projects located outside major cities. We called them Nation Building projects, not National Party building projects. We were about building a nation. Federal Labor doubled the roads budget to $46.5 billion and upgraded 7,500 kilometres of road. We lifted local government road grants by 20 per cent.
In contrast, the present Liberal and National government committed to Melbourne's East West Link and Sydney's WestConnex project without completing a cost-benefit analysis, in defiance of their own election promises. They have shamelessly re-announced Labor projects such as the Gateway Upgrade North project in Brisbane. They have also claimed the planned upgrade of the Bruce and the Pacific Highway as coalition projects; in the last six months, they have only just woken up to the fact that the Bruce Highway existed, even though it ran through the electorate of one of their own National Party ministers responsible for it at the time—he never said too much about it then.
It has been a long time between drinks for investment in rail infrastructure. When the Liberals were previously in government it never got much of a look in, I can tell you that. On the other hand, federal Labor invested $3.4 billion in rail freight networks over their six years in office. This means that by 2016, the average trip from Brisbane to Melbourne will be seven hours shorter than it was before the previous Labor government took office. The average trip from the east to the west coast of Australia will be reduced by nine hours. That is what you call productivity; that is what you call efficiency. That is what you call investing in our national economy. We committed more investment into urban rail infrastructure than all of our predecessors combined, since Federation. I throw the challenge out there, beat that! That is it, just beat that! Show your colours, go out and do more than we did.
Our colours are on the signs.
Your colours are on the signs, true! By contrast, the Liberals and the Nationals scrapped billions in Labor funding for Perth's public transport and Brisbane's Cross River Rail project—what a shame. The Brisbane project was good project, proposed by Campbell Newman. I am not a big fan of Campbell Newman, but if a project that he puts forward does something good for the city we will back it. That is the newsflash for the day. The federal government have also scrapped billions of dollars, part of that being for the Melbourne Metro and Adelaide's Tonsley Park public transport project. Shame; shame on them for that. They were great projects. We do not care who is in government; we will support good infrastructure. The Liberals and Nationals are not proceeding with a whole range of really good Labor projects, including inland rail, and when they do continue with something that has already been delivered, done, paid for—people are already driving on the roads—they are just putting up a new sign, a new badge, saying they did it. I will look to my colleagues for guidance because I am not sure if all governments do that, but this new government take it up to a new level. Everything is re-badged—it is a little bit Orwellian. It is all a bit rich.
As we move forward, they do have a second chance. This is a bunch of Liberals and a bunch of Nats who get a second go at it—a second go at the public purse, a second chance to invest in our national economy and invest in infrastructure, a second chance to get the job done right, a second chance to continue the good work that Labor did. Apart from the six years of good Labor government, and we did a lot in infrastructure, when was the other time that major spending approached something even close to the equivalent of what we did? You have to go back to Whitlam. There was not too much in between, and there was not too much before. In between, we had John Howard and his view that it was not just the responsibility of the federal government; it was for the states to do. We did not agree, we thought that a little bit of the lifting could be done by the Commonwealth. It appears now that the Liberals would agree with us. The Nationals may have always agreed with us, but maybe not publicly. Now they have got a second chance.
We need to have a very close look under this cloak of cover, this cloak of darkness that has been put over all of this getting rid of red tape and regulations. We all support getting rid of red tape and we all support getting rid of regulations. In fact, Labor did lots and lots of that, and the more research I did into this the more I realised that we did more than what these guys are proposing to do. The reality is we just did not do the big stunts; we did not have these regulations repeal days, as if they are something special.
The reality is that this is the normal course of business of any government. You should be repealing red tape; you should be getting rid of redundant acts. These guys are so smart they repealing the Flags Act 1953! They are so smart they probably have not picked it up yet! They are going to repeal an amendment act from 1953 which stipulated the minimum size of the star on the flag. They feel that when they are burning those 50,000 redundant pages of regulation they are burning an amendment which has been around for 60 years on our flag. It is just unbelievable. They expect people to believe that somehow this is going to save money for consumers or small business. I have not had too many consumers or small businesses ring me up and say, 'My No. 1 priority is to get rid of that 1953 flags act amendment.'
My favourite piece of infrastructure is, of course, the Ipswich Motorway, because it goes through my electorate and it goes through Blair. It goes from Brisbane and Ipswich to Toowoomba. I would dare to say that there is no greater piece of infrastructure, except perhaps the Snowy Hydro. However, if you compare it to the Snowy Hydro, it was actually a bigger project. It was a bigger project in all senses of the word, by any measure that you take. We delivered it under budget and under time. It was a successful partnership between federal government, state government, local government and the private sector. It was a true example of what could be done when you are committed to infrastructure, to depoliticising, to working with your state partners and to working with everybody. We delivered something for the Western corridor that has meant that since the upgrade we have not had a death on the road. I think people should ponder that for a little while.
There is a lot to say on this, but I emphasise: Labor has a proven track record. We deliver on roads and infrastructure, whereas the LNP just talk about it.
It gives me great pleasure to join the debate on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 and to follow my good friend the member for Oxley. I fear he may need some counselling; he seems to be in denial. He seems to be despairing over the fact that the Australian people felt so strongly about the Labor government—the six years of allegedly good Labor government—that they kicked them out of office. If the Labor Party was quite as good as the member for Oxley likes to pretend they were, then the Australian people would not have needed to boot them out of office at the last election. One reason why the Australian people removed the Labor Party was that they failed to manage the Australian economy. There are a vast number of other reasons, but they failed to manage the Australian economy and the Australian budget. Over Labor's years in government we saw accumulated deficits in the order of $123 billion, with deficit budget after deficit budget. We were on track for $660 billion worth of debt. It might come as a newsflash to the member for Oxley, but the Australian people care about issues relating to value for money and making sure that the Australian taxpayer's money is spent in an appropriate way.
If you listened to the member for Oxley, you would believe the fairytale that the only governments that are any good for Australia in terms of building infrastructure are Labor Party governments. It is simply not the case. The coalition has a strong and proud record of supporting infrastructure development in our nation. As a regional member of parliament, like many others in this place, I have a strong interest in land transport infrastructure. I am sure that most regional MPs, as they travel through their electorates, receive feedback from their constituents on a daily basis that the state of the road and rail networks is one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue, in our communities. In our cities, the roads are obviously in better condition but they are heavily congested. So it is important that the federal government works in partnership with both state and local governments on improving the road network for very good reasons, such as economic productivity and social connectedness.
I welcome today's debate, because the coalition are committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century which our nation needs to help meet the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. We are certainly committed to making sure that regional Australia gets a fair share of the road and rail infrastructure budget, which is being made available under the current government. Australia's future growth will be significantly influenced by our capacity to deliver more appropriate, efficient and effective infrastructure. Regional Australia in particular needs good transport links. It is critical to the social life of our communities, but also for the economic prosperity of our region. In particular, the roads in many communities are the arteries of community life. Without good road networks, our communities simply struggle to connect with markets and to connect with their neighbours. It is critical that the federal government plays a role in supporting both local and state government in that regard.
I am pleased to see that the new government is working hard with both the state and territory governments to deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects that will help to grow Australia's productivity and improve our living standards. The new government is also working in partnership with the private sector to maximise some private capital investment in infrastructure, to leverage off the public funding that is available for important infrastructure projects throughout our nation.
Importantly, this bill continues the successful Roads to Recovery program, which was established under the Howard government in 2005. The member for Oxley talked about the habit of incoming governments to rebrand or change programs. It is interesting to note that the Roads to Recovery program, which started in 2005, has survived through changes of government, firstly to the Labor Party and now back to the coalition. It is a good program. It is a program that local governments throughout Australia greatly appreciate, because it gives local government the flexibility to decide and to set the priorities that they want to set within their own communities. It trusts local communities, using the money provided by the federal government, to make the decisions to address local concerns. As the former shadow parliamentary secretary for roads and regional transport, I had the opportunity last year to travel extensively throughout regional Australia. I visited many councils, including the council in the member for Bendigo's electorate, where councillors, the mayor and the executives are very keen for Roads to Recovery to continue into the future.
They are.
I note the member for Bendigo's agreement in that regard. I think members on all sides realise the value of the Roads to Recovery program and, I trust, will continue to work towards increasing the opportunities for local government to improve the road network throughout Australia.
One of the key things about the Roads to Recovery program is that it helps take some of the pressure off the rate base for some of our smaller regional councils. Many regional councils have a very limited capacity to raise funds. The resources provided through the federal government help those small councils to deliver services in their communities, the funds for which would otherwise be absorbed by their road budget.
In saying that, it is important to note that in some of these small rural and regional councils the road budget, as a proportion of the total expenses for those local government areas, is far bigger as a percentage than it is for some of the metropolitan areas. So it is disproportionate to how important the road infrastructure funding is for these communities.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable parliamentary secretary will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is continued.
I extend an invitation to the health minister to visit the GP Plus Super Clinic at Modbury, a facility that is improving access to doctors and health services for residents in Makin. This superclinic provides bulk billing services to local patients as part of the previous government's support for universal access to health care—something that will end under this government as it goes about destroying Medicare.
The clinic provides a range of health services, including GP services; modern public dental services for adults and children; chronic disease management; and specialist clinical services for diabetes, wounds, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management, heart failure and respiratory and orthopaedic health issues. The clinic also provides allied health services, including exercise physiology, physiotherapy, podiatry, social work, psychology, diabetes nurse education and dietetics.
These services were previously not available under one roof and have been making a tangible benefit to the health of patients for several years now. The superclinic is removing demand and pressure on the nearby Modbury hospital and easing demand on the hospital's emergency department, which is precisely what GP superclinics were intended to do. If the health minister wants to see firsthand evidence of the benefit of Labor's GP superclinic program, he is welcome to visit the GP Plus Super Clinic at Modbury.
While we celebrate Harmony Day tomorrow, I want to bring the House's attention to the fact that tomorrow is also the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence. The seat of Reid has some 50 schools across the electorate and a body of students from a diverse range of cultures and backgrounds who are great representatives of their communities. Unfortunately, Australian research suggests that up to one in four of these students has experienced some level of bullying. Bullying affects everyone involved and can have serious and long-term emotional or psychological consequences, as well as the immediate and harmful effects. Bullying undermines the key values that the schools of Reid aim to promote in students—respect, trust and honesty.
I would like to emphasise to the students the important role they play in combating bullying and violent behaviour. I urge them to embrace the motto 'Bullying. No way!' As the next generation, the actions they take tomorrow are important in forming the community and society that they will live in as they continue their schooling career.
I applaud any effort to stamp out bullying. It is not to be tolerated. The children of the schools of Reid, and children of every electorate, are the future of this country, and anything that can be done, including this wonderful initiative tomorrow, should be applauded. To the kids of Reid I say: 'Bullying. No Way!'
I join my colleague, the member for Makin, and extend an invitation to the health minister to visit the GP superclinic in Bendigo. The GP superclinic in Bendigo commenced operation on 20 October 2011. Since its opening, it has paved the way for better access for GPs, nurses and allied health professionals to support the health needs of the local Bendigo community. It is an amazing facility and an excellent example of how governments can spend their dollars wisely.
The former Labor government funded the project to the tune of $5 million—an investment in health in my community that would not have happened if Labor had not been in government. The then Labor Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, and the former local Labor federal member for the area, Steve Gibbons, were at the official opening of the new clinic at 123 Arnold Street.
This new clinic was part of Labor's commitment to make it easier for families to see doctors closer to home. Our local Bendigo GP superclinic is looking after the community now and will continue to in the future. It has a partnership with the Monash University Rural Clinical School and also has a partnership with the La Trobe University clinical school, which is training the next generation of doctors and allied health professionals.
The Bendigo GP superclinic provides rapid clinic service, same-day appointments for— (Time expired)
Last Friday, I had the honour of attending the official opening of the extended facility of the Moorditj Mia Day Centre at Centenary House, Koongamia, in my electorate of Hasluck. My colleague and friend, the Hon. Alyssa Hayden MLC, member for the East Metropolitan Region, officiated the opening, and the event was very well attended by members of our local community.
The Rise Network has offered a community-based HACC funded program for the local Aboriginal community in the City of Swan for the past nine years. At Moorditj Mia, local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from the Shire of Mundaring and City of Swan come together for a yarn and spend time together in an informal setting. People are able to share and celebrate stories and make connections with services and people in the region.
This initiative of Rise complements their existing service delivery areas in aged care, mental health, youth, care givers and people with a disability. Rise has been in the local Midland region for 30 years now as a result of a community meeting of 92 people on the 12 July 1983 at the Brown Park Community Centre in Swan View.
I congratulate everyone involved in Rise Network's growth and effective service and everyone involved in the successful delivery and opening of the expanded Moorditj Mia Day Centre in Koongamia.
I too would like to invite the Minister for Health to visit Western Australia and see the fantastic work that is being done by the Midland GP superclinic. It is fully operational and has been providing critical services for its local community for almost two years.
The Midland area is a high-growth area on the edge of metropolitan Perth. The community previously had very poor access to GP services. In line with much of the eastern metropolitan area of Perth, it has proven very difficult to attract GPs to that area. The GP superclinic is meeting these needs. GP services are bulk-billed until 4 pm each day, and bulk-billing is of course available at all times to those aged under 16, those entitled to Centrelink and pensioner services or DVA card holders. The clinic also provides access to a pharmacy, physiotherapy, Aboriginal health and pathology services.
It is certainly the case that the Midland superclinic is ensuring that this community has access to affordable health care. There are two more GP clinics at Wanneroo and Cockburn that are currently under construction, and we have early services being delivered from Karratha and Northam. We want to know in advance of the election whether or not the funding for these clinics is going to continue. (Time expired)
I rise to commend the work of the G21 Geelong Region Alliance. G21 brings together five councils located in my electorate of Corangamite—led by mayors Darryn Lyons in Greater Geelong; Rose Hodge in Surf Coast; Lyn Russell in Colac Otway; Helene Cameron in Queenscliffe; and Jenny Blake in Golden Plains. G21's CEO is Elaine Carbines, who is also a great advocate for our region. The G21 mayors and board are working very hard to champion some great projects, and for the past two days have been in Canberra meeting with the Prime Minister and a range of other ministers.
At the top of their list is a new Yarra Street Pier and cruise shipping terminal to be constructed in Corio Bay on Geelong's magnificent waterfront. Twenty years ago, the Liberal state government—including my mother, Ann, as the local member—transformed the waterfront, triggering many millions of dollars in private investment. The Yarra Street Pier would be a huge boost for jobs, tourism and our local economy. What a wonderful way to visit our jewel in the crown, the Great Ocean Road. I am a strong advocate for this project and am working closely with Councillor Lyons and G21 to lobby our government to turn their dream into a reality.
Today, I join the Liberal mayor of Blacktown council to condemn the latest cuts to services in Western Sydney by the New South Wales state Liberal government. As Barry O'Farrell spends millions to bring major league baseball to the Sydney Cricket Ground, he has ripped $736,000 in annual funding from Sydney's premier baseball facility at Blacktown International Sportspark, jeopardising the future of baseball in New South Wales and leaving the ratepayers of Blacktown to foot the bill.
Recently, the New South Wales Minister for Sport and Recreation, Gabrielle Upton, the member for Vaucluse, who obviously has as much commitment to service provision in Western Sydney as her federal counterpart, met with Blacktown City Council and told them they were going to slash this funding. This is a world-class facility, purpose built for the Sydney 2000 Olympics, and now home to the New South Wales Blues, the New South Wales Breakers, the Greater Western Sydney Giants Academy, the Sydney Blue Sox, New South Wales softball and hundreds of junior athletics carnivals. 'But who cares?' say Minister Upton and Premier O'Farrell—the Minister for Western Sydney, no less—as they rip $736,000 from this facility, tearing up an agreement for this contribution that has operated since 2000.
True to form, this decision has been met with silence by local Western Sydney Liberal MPs, including the members for Riverstone, Penrith and Londonderry, whose communities utilise these facilities. While Premier O'Farrell heralds the arrival of baseball, he is ripping money out of grassroots sport in Sydney's west. Shame on the Premier, his minister and those pathetic local Liberal state MPs.
I rise to speak on the importance of Harmony Day, which is to be observed this Friday, 21 March. I would like to start by paying tribute to the member for Berowra, who initiated Harmony Day back in 1999, when he was the minister for immigration. The mantra of 'everyone belongs' is intrinsic to Australia's developing cultural identity. Within my electorate of Ryan, I have seen the many pockets of different cultures and national identities slowly merge and grow in mutual acceptance and understanding of one another. Harmony within Australia is by no means confined to one day each year.
There is harmony in my electorate when local community groups and individuals link together to support refugees and new Australians, to immerse themselves in the community, and to make new friends with new traditions. I see harmony when students at the University of Queensland, who come from all over the world, embrace their differences to work, play and laugh together while growing and learning from each other's experience. Harmony is when children go to playgroup with children of all backgrounds—immigrant, refugee, Indigenous Australian, Catholic, Muslim; the list goes on. Harmony is a consistently evolving foundation of our society. I look forward to seeing Australia grow as we learn from other cultures and others learn from us.
I would like to commend Kerrin Benson and her dedicated team at the Multicultural Development Association—including Sally Isles and Fraser Power—who epitomise what Harmony Day is all about.
There was moving and shaking from the young and the young at heart this week, when the Uniting Care hostel, in Garden Suburb, played host to the Big Move dance event. Residents were joined by students of Garden Suburb Public School, and they danced the morning away together as part of this inaugural event.
Launched by Uniting Care this year, the Big Move aims to bring people together through dance, to have fun and to celebrate seniors in the community. Coinciding with Seniors Week in New South Wales, the event aims to raise awareness and funds for dementia and to highlight the challenges that sufferers and carers face. As we celebrate Seniors Week across the state, there are a variety of events taking place to recognise the role seniors play and to celebrate their contribution to our communities. I will be attending the 2014 Seniors Week Expo at the Toronto Workers Club tomorrow, which will bring together over 40 local businesses who will provide demonstrations and hold display stalls offering a variety of information specifically for seniors.
The electorate of Charlton has a significant ageing population, with a quarter of people over the age of 60. Seniors Week is an important initiative in our area, and I congratulate Garden Suburb Public School, Garden Suburb Aged Care Facility and Toronto Workers Club—in particular, Anne Morriss and CEO Mark Singleton—for their work in preparing and supporting these events. Your efforts are appreciated by all of us, and, in an era when our population is ageing, I hope to see more of these events.
Small and large business operations are the backbone of our regions' economies, providing jobs, investment and growth opportunities. I rise to inform the House of a significant event underway in the city of Rockhampton this week that highlights such opportunities. The Central Queensland Industry and Resources Expo showcases new innovations from mining and agriculture to health, transport and tourism. This event supports the business industry and resource sectors of Rockhampton, Gladstone and the Southern Bowen and Galilee Basins.
The expo at the Rockhampton Showgrounds is in its third year. Organisers say it highlights extraordinary opportunities that are developing as a result of Central Queensland's industry and resource sector. I take this moment to acknowledge the huge contribution this sector makes to Capricornia. Companies like BMA, BHP Billiton, Anglo coal and many other resource players have invested heavily in our region, and have changed the face of economic prosperity for not only Queensland but the nation. They invest in local infrastructure and pour money into our local towns, and I look forward to new opportunities where they allow local people to access more local jobs in the future.
Melbourne was very quiet last weekend, as most locals sought to avoid the annual Grand Prix disruption to the south of Melbourne. It is one of the characteristics of this event that it is constantly inflating claims of the value of this event to our city. The Victorian Premier, Denis Napthine, claimed that 450 million people tuned into watch Melbourne's race. But—dare I dare say—not for the first time, the Premier has uttered something that is not believable. The ABC's Fact Check blog has reviewed the Premier's claim and labelled it as 'unsubstantiated'. In truth, the actual number of people tuning in to the event across the globe is less than 10 per cent—that is, 20 to 40 million at best, not the 450 million who watch all grands prix over an entire year.
To make matters worse, only recently the supremo of the Grand Prix, who is on the front page of all European newspapers for charges of corruption in Germany and paying bribes to German bankers, came out and said he 'completely agrees' with Vladimir Putin's anti-gay legislation—hardly the type of character who deserves more than $30 million of taxpayers' money annually for his undisclosed fee to justify the false claim of 450 million people tuning in to the Grand Prix around the world.
On 9 March the champion racehorse Dulcify was the latest equine champion to enter the Australian Racing Hall of Fame here at the ceremony in Canberra. It was only by chance that his part-owner, my friend Alan Maller, came to be involved with this great horse. Unknowingly, Alan was sitting next to legendary trainer Colin Hayes, and made the industry faux pas of asking, 'Who are you?' This simple question would lead Alan to a strong friendship with Colin Hayes and the resultant offer of part share in this horse—Dulcify.
Foaled in 1975 in New Zealand, Dulcify was the offspring of Decies—a British-bred sire who was a champion in his own right—and Sweet Candy, another Hall of Fame inductee. Dulcify was relatively cheap due to his parrot mouth. He won the South Australian Derby, the VRC Derby, the Rosehill Guineas, the Tancred Stakes, the Craiglee Stakes, the Turnbull Stakes, and the Underwood and Mackinnon Stakes. Dulcify won 10 of his 21 starts, with the first win being at the outstanding odds of 330 to one. He won the Cox Plate by seven lengths and was ridden by jockey Brent Thomson. This was to be his crowning achievement. Dulcify ran at Flemington seven times and won six group races. Unfortunately, during his Melbourne Cup race, for which he was favourite, he was injured by the eventual winner, Hyperno, who galloped on Dulcify, and he had to be put down.
Dulcify had an outstanding career and it was very upsetting for the owners when he was put down. It is a fitting gesture for a truly loved and great champion to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. According to Colin Hayes, Dulcify was the best horse he had ever trained. I congratulate Alan Maller, Billy Rigg and the Hayes family on an outstanding champion.
Canberra is a wonderful example of how the GP superclinic program is not a one-size-fits-all service delivery model. Those of you who know Canberra know very well that Canberrans tend not to cross the lake all that often—in Canberra you are either a northsider or a southsider. So if we had a superclinic on one side of the lake only, it would have served only half of the population. Labor's GP superclinic program allowed for this. It allowed for the ACT superclinic to be designed so that it best suits the needs of the Canberra community. The ACT GP superclinic, which is run by Ochre Health, operates in a hub-and-spokes model. While a brand new superclinic—the hub—opened its doors at the University of Canberra on 17 February this year, in my electorate the spoke superclinic has been operating at Calwell, in Tuggeranong, since July 2011.
The Calwell practice has eight GPs, with room to increase to ten; two registered nurses; and a number of visiting allied health services, such as dieticians, speech pathologists and audiologists. The practice serves individuals and families in the Tuggeranong community. Pensioners, Health Care Card holders and children under 16 years of age are offered a bulk billing service. Those opposite have spent every question time this week criticising the GP superclinic model. Well, it is operating beautifully right here in Canberra; all you need to do is step outside this building and ask someone. If Minister Dutton still does not believe this, I invite him to come with me to Calwell to see its success firsthand.
I would like to do something odd and join with the member for Canberra—and I think today we have also had the member for Perth, the member for Makin and the member for Bendigo—and invite the health minister to come and visit GP superclinics. So I am going to join with the members opposite and invite the Minister for Health to come and visit the GP superclinic in my electorate, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might want to come and visit, too. But of course we would just be visiting an empty field, because the clinic has been promised in two elections, but never delivered. Land has not really been allocated, and it cannot receive a patient. So as it seems our Labor members are standing up and talking up the GP superclinic program, I would invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the health minister to come and visit and see how many patients are actually being seen in this empty field.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
I notice the member for Herbert is interjecting. I think that in Herbert there is actually a GP superclinic that cost $6 million. It has been built, it has a very fancy sign outside, but it has not actually seen a patient.
Ms Landry interjecting—
I think the member for Capricornia has also had a superclinic promised at one point, but it has not been delivered.
Ms Price interjecting—
And we have another one over here—the member for Durack—have you got patients being seen in yours?
No.
No—no patients yet; just promise. I love the Labor Party's hypocrisy—they are happy to stand up and make announcements and have photo opportunities, but when it comes to actually putting taxpayers' money into service delivery and improving healthcare outcomes for patients, they are not so good on that side. So I am proud to be part of a team that is delivering better healthcare outcomes.
I want to celebrate and pay tribute to the life of Jane Hodson, who first came to Alice Springs in 1992, working as a technician for Imparja Television and later working for 19 years at the Central Land Council in Alice Springs. She was recognised both within and beyond the CLC for her professionalism, dedication and optimism. She epitomised the values of the Land Council. She was hardworking, resolute, loyal, resilient and inspirational and encouraged and supported her work colleagues. Jane was dedicated to ensuring that the history of the traditional owners of Central Australia—and of the Central Land Council itself—was not forgotten. In her 19 years at the CLC, Jane played a pivotal role in organising and publicising events and activities for the Land Council. She had a great capacity for fun, a wicked sense of humour and a bold and lively wit. Her home, which she shared with her partner, Angie, and their much loved son, Michael, was open to their wide circle of friends. She cherished her family—her late father, Chris; mother, Joyce; and sisters, Sally, Sue, Jill and Sarah, and their families. Jane loved her gadgets. She was a wonderful person—a really, really wonderful person, and she loved the Northern Territory and the people who lived within it. Most of all, though, Jane loved life, and she loved it joyously. Her resilience and fortitude, her sense of humour and her unwavering generosity of spirit were an inspiration. She is much loved, and a never to be forgotten colleague and dear friend.
Community Vision is a not-for-profit community service organisation that provides in-home community support to seniors, people with disabilities, children, families and migrants from culturally diverse and linguistically diverse backgrounds. They have over 1,000 clients and provide over 78,000 service hours annually within my electorate of Moore. Community Vision operates its head office in leased premises within the City of Joondalup's administration building, where I recently had the privilege of presenting a cheque for $101,553 on behalf of the government to the CEO Jenni Werne and other dedicated members of staff.
The Home and Community Care funding will be used to provide domestic assistance, a new bus and equipment for centre based day care. The Commonwealth government funds Community Vision through programs such as Home and Community Care, Commonwealth Aged Care Packages, and through the former Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The City of Joondalup has an ageing demographic, with 10.8 per cent of residents aged over 65. Continued support by the federal government is vital to ensure that the organisation expands to meet the increased demand for aged care services and facilities in my community.
I rise today to speak about the National Rental Affordability Scheme. What we have seen over the last two weeks is a softening-up exercise from the government, which wishes to cut this highly successful scheme. This is a scheme that is designed to deliver low-income housing right across Australia, and that is exactly what it is doing. It has helped with 14,000 homes so far, and there are another 24,000 in the pipeline. One of the members opposite talked about international students. On the minister's own figures, international students make up less than eight per cent of the people who are housed in this accommodation. Those international students would otherwise be in the private rental market, pushing up private rents. The whole idea of the National Rental Affordability Scheme is to increase the availability of affordable rental property. It is to ensure there is extra investment coming in from the private sector and from community housing to increase the stock of affordable rental housing. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
The minister claims this is not delivering for low-income workers, but 92 per cent of people—sole parents, families, kids, low-income workers and key workers housed in our inner city areas—use the National Rental Affordability Scheme. But we know what this is about. It is a softening-up exercise to cut further funding from homelessness and housing programs in the budget.
On Friday, 7 March I was pleased to be able to invite a delegation from Holsworthy High School to a meeting of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Glenn Stevens. Holsworthy High is one of those great schools in my electorate which, through the stewardship of their principal, Mr John Frew, and thanks to the great work of its teachers, has a proud history and a special place in our local community.
The Holsworthy High School delegation included the principal, Mr Frew, and teachers Mr George Amerikanos and Mr Christopher Lukins, along with students Mikaela Costa, Alexander Helou, Rachel Hembrow, Clayton Hopper, Matthew Mortimer, Hayley Thomas, Robert Wilkinson and Andrew Woods. The school captain, Rachel Hembrow, was given the opportunity to ask a question of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, and her question was: 'We hear about governments borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars. Does this mean that today's generation has been spending in an unsustainable manner, which will result in my generation having to pay it off through higher taxes, fewer services or both?'
Rachel's question was very well received by Governor Stevens and also by the chair of the committee—the redoubtable member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer. It was great to see the youth in my electorate taking such a keen interest in the economic wellbeing of our country and the importance of prudent fiscal management. I would especially like to thank the principal, Mr John Frew, for his efforts in organising the delegation and the impressive way that they represented both their school and the electorate of Hughes.
Unfortunately, this Saturday will be the last Saturday that our local Medicare office in Eastgardens will deliver services to our community. Earlier this week I was informed by the Minister for Human Services that our local Medicare office will no longer be open on a Saturday—a disgraceful decision for working families in our community.
One of the biggest issues in my area is cost-of-living pressures. Consequently, most families have parents who both work during the week. They need to be able to access affordable healthcare services on a weekend. Our local Medicare office was well used by the local community, and it has been closed down on Saturdays, when it will no longer be available to our community. There was very little consultation and less than a week's notice by this government about the closure of healthcare services in our community. It is a complete disgrace.
This comes on top of them floating the idea of a $6 co-payment for Medicare, a co-payment that will hurt those on fixed incomes like pensioners or low-income earners. Those who rely on adequate healthcare services will be affected by this government, not only by the closure of Medicare services in local communities like mine but also by there being a co-payment for Medicare into the future. It is a disgraceful decision.
On 7 March I had the honour of joining with local Indigenous artists in the Port Hedland community, which is in my electorate of Durack, to celebrate the opening of the Spinifex Hills studios. It was a pleasure to not only officially open the first dedicated, professional Indigenous art centre in Port Hedland but to represent the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss, on this significant occasion.
These studios are a fantastic example of what can be achieved with private and public funding, with the federal government committing almost half a million dollars to this project under the Regional Development Australia Fund and almost $2 million committed by BHP. I am sure future projects out of these studios will inspire the Port Hedland community and its visitors, as I was inspired.
The studios have been professionally designed to incorporate room for painting, 3-D work, exhibitions and visiting artists' residencies. Supporting Australia's regions and enhancing the economic development of communities is a top priority of the Abbott led government. I look forward to playing my part in gaining more funding for these important community focused projects, both in Port Hedland and across the Durack electorate, through the new Community Development Grants Program.
Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
on indulgence—I wish to note that this is the first anniversary of the parliament's apology for forced adoptions. On 21 March last year the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and I led the national apology for forced adoptions. It was a heartfelt occasion that meant much to many across our country. We rightly apologised to the women, the children and the families who were victims of forced adoption. For too long, too many had believed that they knew what was for the best for young unwed mothers and their babies. But the people who claimed it should have known better. If they had known better, terrible and avoidable pain that was inflicted on hundreds of thousands of people would have been avoided.
There is no stronger bond than between a mother and her child, and it should never have been presumed that these young women were incapable of raising their children. It was a tragedy for them and for our nation, and last year we did do our best to atone. We said that we were sorry for being hard-hearted and judgemental. We said we were sorry for turning what should have been the wonderful experience of new life into something filled with shame.
A year ago, as a nation, we accepted responsibility for the pain, the suffering and the grief. I want to assure all those who were hurt—the mothers, the children and the fathers—that you are not forgotten. Our hope last year was that the apology would be part of a healing process. My hope today is that the apology has played, and is playing, its part in transforming reproach into reassurance and anger into peace.
A year ago, the Australian parliament came together to face a hard truth to right an old wrong. I pay tribute to the leadership and compassion of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who delivered the national apology on forced adoption. I acknowledge the words of the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, too. It was an apology to thousands of young mothers who had their special, unique, beautiful, precious babies taken away from them. It did hurt fathers, too—largely women, but men, too, suffered. It was an apology to thousands of children who grew up deprived of their mother's love. It was an apology for decades of indifference—callous indifference—from governments, bureaucracies, churches, charities and hospitals.
As Prime Minister Gillard did a year ago, I, too, now pay my tribute to the strength and bravery of the thousands of Australians who came forward to tell their stories and make their difficult submissions to the Senate committee—the mothers, the fathers, the sons and the daughters who found the courage to publicly draw upon their strength to tell their difficult personal stories, who found the strength to demand the identity and the respect which they had been so long denied. It was this intensely individual, deeply personal determination that drew back a veil of shame and a veil of silence that has been cast over the lives of thousands of our fellow Australians.
Perhaps more inspiring still, they found it in themselves to accept the apology in the generous spirit that it was given. The 42nd and the 43rd parliaments delivered three national apologies—each one of them stands as a powerful reminder that there is nothing to fear or to lose in facing up to historical truth. Indeed, every time Australians come together to acknowledge the wrongs of our past, our country becomes a better and more decent place. Let all of us in this place recall that lesson again today. Let all of us in this place draw some inspiration from that well of the never-give-up spirit of those who were wrongly forcibly adopted. Let us all in this place declare that never again should any of our fellow Australians undergo pain and invisibility alone, as those affected by forced adoption endured.
Further on indulgence, if I may, I would like to inform the House that new and credible information has come to light in relation to the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has received information based on satellite imagery of objects possibly related to the search. Following specialist analysis of this satellite imagery, two possible objects related to the search have been identified. I can inform the House that a Royal Australian Air Force Orion has been diverted to attempt to locate the objects. This Orion is expected to arrive in the area at about this time. Three more aircraft will follow this Orion. They are tasked with a more intensive follow-up search. I have spoken to my Malaysian counterpart, Prime Minister Najib Razak, and informed him of these developments. I should tell the House, and we must keep this in mind, the task of locating these objects will be extremely difficult and it may turn out that they are not related to the search for flight MH370. Nevertheless, I did want to update the House on this potentially important development.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's failure to answer questions about why the former Assistant Treasurer stood aside yesterday. What does the Prime Minister know about Senator Sinodinos's involvement with Australia Water Holdings, and when did you know it?
Let me repeat what I said to the House yesterday, that Senator Sinodinos has done the right and the honourable thing. That is what we would expect from someone who has given our country such long and faithful public service. The question of who knew what when will be dealt with by the ICAC inquiry, as it should be.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: it cannot be before ICAC as to what the knowledge of the Prime Minister was. That is a matter for this parliament and this question time.
What is the point of order you are drawing?
104(a), direct relevance, Madam Speaker, and on ministerial responsibility. ICAC is not responsible—
You have made your point of order.
for the knowledge of the Prime Minister.
The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has completed his answer.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Senate has today voted against the government's carbon tax repeal bill? What is the government's reaction to the Senate's decision?
I am aware that, this day, members opposite's colleagues in the Senate, and the Greens, have voted to keep the carbon tax. That is what they have done. They have voted to keep the carbon tax that they told the Australian people before the last election they had terminated. They said before the last election that they had terminated the carbon tax and yet today they voted in the Senate to keep that selfsame carbon tax. All of us would remember the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, running around the countryside saying the carbon tax was terminated. Hundreds of thousands of Australians got these brochures saying that the carbon tax—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: you have repeatedly informed members, including the Prime Minister, that props are not to be used in question time. That is what the Prime Minister is doing.
There is no point of order. I inform the member for Isaacs that if the Prime Minister proposing to use the piece of paper as a prop and holding it up has been objected to, as distinct from reading it—
He was holding it up.
You will resume your seat.
Why?
There is no point of order.
I haven't raised it yet.
Because I have anticipated. The Prime Minister has the call. He may read from his aide-memoire but not use it as a prop.
I am very happy to read from this document: 'Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon tax'. Well, the carbon tax was so removed that they supported it—they voted to keep it in the Senate earlier today. But it is not just the deception pre the election; the deception continues to this very moment. Remember, Madam Speaker, just an hour or so ago, members opposite—the Labor Party—voted in the Senate to keep the carbon tax. This would come as a shock to the people of Western Australia who opened up their West Australian newspaper this morning, 20 March. What do they read? Answers from Joe Bullock, who I understand is the Labor Party Senate candidate: 'Labor is scrapping the carbon tax.' Well, they are so scrapping the carbon tax that they voted today in the Senate to keep the carbon tax.
The truth is you just cannot trust members opposite to tell the truth and you cannot trust them anywhere near an economy. The carbon tax is an act of economic vandalism that this government will remove and that members opposite will keep defending while there is political breath in their bodies because, whatever they say to the people, when it comes to this parliament they support the Greens. The unholy alliance between the Labor Party and the Greens: it is disowned in public but it is adhered to in this parliament. We are keeping our commitments and the Labor Party cannot help themselves—they are breaking theirs.
My question is to the Prime Minister, referring to the Prime Minister's reference in his last answer about truthfulness. When did the Prime Minister become aware that Senator Sinodinos stood to make $20 million for facilitating a deal involving Australian Water Holdings and the New South Wales government? When did he, the Prime Minister, become aware?
What counts is that the highest standards of this parliament are upheld, that people can be confident that there is integrity in our public life. Senator Sinodinos upheld those principles—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order under 104(a), if the Prime Minister has decided he is not going to answer questions today he should let us know.
I am fully aware of what 104(a) is. The member will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
Yes.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline how the carbon tax has increased the cost of doing business and how the repeal of the carbon tax will help build infrastructure and further regional development in Western Australia?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The people of Pearce, and all Western Australians, know that the carbon tax is having an ongoing, significant impact on Western Australians and their cost of living. It impacts on pensioners and small business and on the biggest miners. It is a drag on our economy that we simply cannot afford. So I am sure the member for Pearce, like me, was pleasantly surprised to read in the newspaper in Western Australia this morning that the No. 1 candidate on the Western Australian Labor Senate ticket declared boldly, for all the voters of Western Australia to see: 'Labor is scrapping the carbon tax.'
Unfortunately for the lead member of the Senate team in Western Australia, the very same day, just hours after it appeared in TheWest Australian newspaper, the Western Australian senators voted to keep the carbon tax. So the candidate aspiring to be elected says, 'We will get rid of the carbon tax,' while those who have actually been elected vote against it. That is Labor's strategy; they do one thing in Perth and Western Australia and do a different thing when they get to Canberra—they do the opposite. If Labor is serious about scrapping the tax they could have given credibility to Mr Bullock's claims this very day.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Order! The member for Grayndler will desist or leave! It is your choice.
They had the opportunity to vote out the carbon tax and they did not take it. Labor says one thing and does the opposite. Of course the longer Labor persists with this kind of deception and dishonesty we will have Western Australian people paying more than $600 million a year in carbon tax costs—costs for families, costs for doing business in Western Australia, costs they cannot afford and costs our economy cannot afford but which Western Australian Labor senators are obviously dedicated to keeping.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
The coalition was elected with a mandate to get rid of the carbon tax. The voters have spoken! They want the carbon tax axed. They want to get rid of it. Labor has the opportunity now to make sure that that mandate can be delivered. Save the people of Western Australia, the struggling families, this unnecessary cost. Don't talk about doing it when you are seeking election and then do the opposite when you have the opportunity.
My question is to the Prime Minister. At 8 am yesterday morning, Senator Sinodinos told a journalist from The Wall Street Journalthat he was 'batting on'. What changed between yesterday morning, when the Prime Minister supported the former Assistant Treasurer's decision to bat on, and yesterday afternoon, when the Prime Minister supported Senator Sinodinos's decision to stand aside?
I am happy to have question after question on this subject from the Leader of the Opposition.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! We will have quiet on my left and my right.
I am happy to have question after question on this subject from the Leader of the Opposition, because what is on display in the parliament today is the difference between—
Because you are unwilling to answer!
The member for Isaacs will desist.
this government and its predecessor. When these sorts of issues arose—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the old standing order 104, which only referred to relevance, this answer would already be out of order. Under direct relevance, the word 'direct' needs to mean something and he should be brought to the question.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his point of order. I have indeed used it myself—it was treated the same way. However, the Prime Minister has the call.
When issues of this nature arise, this government does the right and the honourable thing, as Senator Sinodinos did yesterday. He did the right and the honourable thing. That is not just my judgement. It is also the judgement of Kelvin Thomson—I cannot remember his seat—
Wills.
The member for Wills. But it is also the judgement of the member for Wills.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 91(c), the Prime Minister is persistently refusing to abide by the standing orders. Question time is here for him to respond to questions, he—
The member will resume his seat. Points of order may not be points of debate.
What is the ruling on my point of order?
There is no point of order.
Plainly, Senator Sinodinos has done the right and the honourable thing, and that is not just my judgement but also that is the judgement of the member for Wills, who said this morning at the doors, 'Stepping aside in the face of an inquiry like the ICAC inquiry is the right thing to do'. And he added—good on the member for Wills—'And there is plenty of precedent for it'. Not too much precedent on that side of the House, I hasten to add.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Glencore's decision to terminate Mount Isa's copper production abolishes one-fifth of the north-west's economy. The abolition of Queensland's reserved resources policy, corporatisation of rail and electricity, and Queensland's decision to impose crippling ALP environmental laws unleashed skyrocketing cost structures. Could the PM restore cheap electricity by reintroducing the 1980s reserve resources policy and rescue the north west by barring embarrassingly ridiculous laws in an outback town 1,300 kilometres from the nearest city?
I thank the member for Kennedy for his question and I appreciate his concern. I appreciate the concerns of many members of this House, such as the member for Dawson sitting in front of him. I appreciate the concerns of all members on this side of the chamber and, indeed, people on the crossbench, like the member for Kennedy.
I appreciate his concern, and our concern, to try to ensure that the workers of Mount Isa continue to have jobs—to try to ensure that those mines and plants in Mount Isa continue to operate. I do share the member's concern to try to ensure that nothing is done by government to make that harder and that whatever possible to make that easier is done by government. The best thing we could do in this House right now, and in the Senate right now, to help reduce the price of power is pass the carbon tax repeal legislation—get rid of the carbon tax. Even on the members opposite's own figures that would reduce the price of power by 10 per cent. That would be a material benefit not just for every household in our country, which would be $550 a year better off; but it would also be a material benefit to the industries of places like Mount Isa.
I do appreciate the question from the member for Kennedy. There is a measure before the parliament right now—right now—that could help the workers of Mount Isa, and that is scrapping the carbon tax. It is long overdue and members opposite should stop misleading the Australian public on this matter. They should stop saying one thing in Perth and doing the opposite here in Canberra. They should start to tell the Australian people the truth and they should start acting with honour to help the workers and the households of our country.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the state of the budget inherited by the government? How will managing the budget responsibly build growth and jobs, particularly in Western Australia?
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
Order! The member for Perth will desist or leave—one or the other. She is warned!
An opposition member interjecting—
I am coming to you. I will get there. I thank the member for Moore for the question. I recognise that he believes that what you say before the election should be consistent with what you say after the election. Today we have heard that the Labor Party said in Western Australia this morning before the Senate election that they were opposed to the carbon tax and today they voted to keep the carbon tax. That should come as no surprise. Before the 2010 election they said there would be no carbon tax and after the 2010 election they introduced, in partnership with the Greens, the carbon tax.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question, in case the Treasurer has forgotten, was not about the carbon price regime—
We do not debate the standing order. What is the standing order?
It was about the state of the budget. None of what the Treasurer has said has anything to do with the question.
There is no point of order.
The Leader of the Opposition goes to Perth and says, 'No, we don't like that mining tax,' then comes back here and votes to keep the mining tax. So consistency is not an endearing principle for the Labor Party. When it comes to the budget it is vitally important that you be consistent. Of course the Labor Party, after having delivered some of the biggest budget deficits in Australian history, have left behind the fastest growth in government spending of any economy in the top 17 of the IMF—what a great legacy that is from Labor! What is more, they were so concerned before the election about the state of the budget that the old, well-tanned member for Lilley said before the last election that the Labor Party was introducing a $1.1 billion saving in relation to R&D for companies with a turnover of more than $20 billion. They said they were introducing that saving because it was a down payment on the repair that the budget needs.
Well, he would know. He created the problem. He was so outraged about the problem he actually suggested that they have part of a solution—a $1.1 billion change to R&D. The problem is that they never legislated it. They announced it, but never legislated it. So we come in here and say: 'Yes, we agree with you, Labor. You screwed up the budget. We have a collective interest to try to fix it.' But the Labor Party now say that they are so concerned about the budget deficit that they now are going to vote in the Senate against the savings they announced on R&D before the election. What are you thinking? What could you over there be possibly thinking? Before the election you say one thing and after the election you say other things. You are inconsistent.
The member for Isaacs—on a point of order that is not on relevance.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer I do not think is addressing his comments to you, Madam Speaker. He appears to be addressing the—
He does not have to address them to me but merely through me. The member will resume his seat. That is getting pretty near vexatious use of the standing orders.
The only consistency from Labor before an election and after an election is the partnership with the Greens. That is the consistent theme all the way along.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Senator Sinodinos's statement to the Senate in February 2013 that he played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to Australian Water Holdings by Sydney Water. Was the Prime Minister aware that Senator Sinodinos had in fact arranged for a letter from Premier O'Farrell to help secure the contract? When did the Prime Minister become aware of this?
These are all matters that will quite properly be canvassed by the ICAC inquiry.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Has the Prime Minister finished his answer?
Yes.
He has finished his answer. Do you have a point of order?
Yes, under standing order 104(a), Madam Speaker.
The Prime Minister has finished his answer.
Madam Speaker, it cannot be the case that the moment—
You were very quick on your feet.
I am given the call. You then, instead of hearing the point of order, turn to the Prime Minister for advice.
I point out to the Manager of Opposition Business that that is coming close to a reflection on the Chair.
Well—
Resume your seat! The member would also know that, under the standing orders, ministers are not obliged to answer questions.
Mr Burke interjecting—
No, they are not, as you well know. Merely because you do not get the answer you wish does not make it outside the standing orders.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of repealing the mining tax? What would repealing the mining tax mean for jobs and growth in Western Australia?
I thank the member for Cowan for the question. He cares about the economy, and that is why he asked a question on the economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left!
He is absolutely right because the mining tax represents a huge sovereign risk impost on the Australian economy. Western Australia exported $83 billion of resources last year. The carbon tax and the mining tax have a very real negative impact on the people of Western Australia. The coalition are absolutely determined to get rid of the carbon tax. We said that before the election and we mean to do it after the election, and we are trying to do it after the election. We are entirely consistent. With the mining tax, we said before the election we wanted to get rid of it. So we are trying to get rid of it after the election. The problem is the Labor Party are being inconsistent. The only consistent thing about the Labor Party is their partnership with the Greens. They keep saying to the Australian people, 'We're two different parties.' I went back to my little book.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would appear that the Treasurer was on the point of using a prop, but more to the point—
The member will resume his seat, and he is getting very close to being vexatious. There was no point of order. I would advise the member that if he is not going to raise points of order correctly then I do not have to acknowledge them either.
I know what a prop is. This is no prop. We have played prop; this is not a prop.
The Treasurer will not try my patience.
This is fantastic. This is Chris Bowen's Hearts and Minds: A Blueprint for Modern Labor. As I said, the only consistent thing from the Labor Party is its partnership with the Greens. So I quote from the book:
Labor and the Greens are not different shades on the same continuum; we are different parties that believe in different things. People need to be very clear in their understanding: if you vote Labor, you will not get Greens policies.
I want to pay tribute to the member for Perth. I want to pay tribute to the member for Perth, the shadow parliamentary secretary for Western Australia. She said today, 'I think there is a perception that the mining tax was not a good tax for Western Australia. I think that is true.' Come over, come over to the coalition. We might just have you on this side. Come over, come over to the coalition, because at least there is one person in the Labor Party who is prepared to be fair dinkum with the people of Western Australia—except the problem is that the Labor Party and the Greens work against the interests of the people of Western Australia, and no-one does that more than the member for Perth.
Madam Speaker, could I ask the Treasurer to table the very well written book he was quoting, which is available at all good book stores.
This belongs to the Parliamentary Library. If I table it, I may be in danger of doubling its distribution.
We will have silence. This is a serious business we have here.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to revelations in today's The Australian Financial Review that Senator Sinodinos was given the task of negotiating an informal $1 million success fee, a $1 million success fee for Liberal lobbyist Michael Photios, just months before this practice was outlawed by the O'Farrell government. When did the Prime Minister first become aware of this fact?
Again, all of the issues referred to by the Leader of the Opposition will quite properly be canvassed by the New South Wales investigation.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment. I refer the minister to the report in the Herald Sun on 17 March revealing that the building industry whistleblower Andrew Zaf was stabbed outside his home. I also refer him to a separate incident reported in The West Australian in which the CFMEU's Joe McDonald put a worker in a headlock and threatened to hit him. How do these instances underline the importance of the government's plan to protect workers?
I can confirm to the member for Fisher that both these incidents did occur. Both these incidents referred to by the member for Fisher are obviously very unfortunate ones.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler thinks it is hilarious, apparently. He thinks it is hilarious that Andrew Zaf was stabbed—
The member for Grayndler!
in his home and hit with a piece of wood last weekend.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no doubt in my mind that the Minister for Education has just impugned one of our members. He should withdraw that. No-one finds that stuff hilarious.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member will resume his seat. If you are offended, you can deal with it later, not now. Resume your seat or leave under 94(a). Resume your seat!
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Leave immediately under 94(a), forthwith.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member has withdrawn, but the member for Grayndler will leave.
The member for Grayndler then left the chamber.
The microphone was not on, Madam Speaker.
The minister has the call.
So that it is on the record, I withdraw, if the member for Grayndler is offended. But the fact remains—
Opposition members interjecting—
I withdraw unreservedly.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Grayndler said he was offended. The member has withdrawn what he said. There is no need for the member for Parramatta to add her voice, or she may leave too.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To add any conditions to a withdrawal is contrary to practice.
That is exactly what your side is trying to do. The minister has the call.
I am happy to withdraw unreservedly—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta will desist or leave under 94(a).
My advice to the opposition would be that when someone is discussing the stabbing—
Ms Owens interjecting—
That sounds remarkably like a reflection on the chair. You will resume your seat.
of a whistleblower, general laughter in the chamber and from particular people can be misinterpreted.
Before the member leaves, she will withdraw what she said.
I withdraw.
Now she may leave.
The member for Parramatta then left the chamber.
The minister has the call.
I was reporting that Andrew Zaf, a whistleblower who has exposed union corruption, was stabbed on the weekend outside his home and that Joe McDonald, the assistant secretary of the CFMEU in Western Australia, has been banned from Multiplex sites in Western Australia for three years—one of the reasons for which, reported in The West Australian, was that he put a particular worker in a headlock and threatened to hit him. Now, both of these incidents highlight why it is important for the government's legislative agenda to be agreed to by the Senate, rather than be blocked by the opposition. Both of these incidents show why union thuggery and corruption need to be stamped out in Australia. They show why the government's Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation should be passed in the Senate, not blocked by the Leader of the Opposition. They show why the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill, which sits in the Senate, should be passed by the Labor Party rather than be blocked in the Senate. They show why the proposed royal commission to be headed by Dyson Hayden should be supported by the opposition rather than opposed at the time.
The government is taking firm action. We are introducing the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the Registered Organisations Commission and a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition's response has been to say that bikie members who turn up to work sites should not wear their colours. We think a much firmer response is required. We want to put a tough industrial cop on the beat, not the fashion police on the beat. The problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he is a union leader protecting the union leaders. He is running a protection racket for a protection racket and he needs to rise above his background.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Has Senator Sinodinos resigned his commission as the Assistant Treasurer and a minister in this government?
As I indicated yesterday, he has stepped aside from the assistant treasurership. While he has stepped aside, he will forfeit ministerial salary and ministerial entitlements.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister update the House on the NBN's wireless services in Western Australia, particularly in my electorate of Canning, where we had been unable to receive an NBN response until there was a change of government?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I well remember the broadband forums in his electorate and how concerned his constituents were about the availability of wireless services. We have seen some very interesting examples of Conrovianism in the rollout of the NBN. We have seen the claim where thousands of premises have been passed with fibre, but where no connection could be made.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister should be asked to be directly relevant. This is a point of order under 104(a).
There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat.
Conrovianism is absolutely at the centre of this multibillion dollar bungle—that is the heart and soul of the problem. I have mentioned the way in which the fixed rollout had been misleading. I have mentioned the satellite—how a quarter of a million people were told that they were eligible for the satellite, where slots were purchased to cater for only 48,000 and now they can only get dial-up. But, with the NBN's fixed wireless rollout in Western Australia, Conrovianism entered into a new surreal stage, hitherto unrecognised for its immenseness, its bizarre nature. Think about this: there are 51 fixed wireless locations on the NBN plan around Perth—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned!
including in the honourable member's electorate—covering Kelmscott, Carinyah, Armadale, Byford and Serpentine—for which the NBN had no spectrum whatsoever. Those towers, if built, could not transmit anything. What could they be used for? Were they perches for carrier pigeons to use? Seriously, with the latest developments in Conrovian science, was there to be found a new part of the electromagnetic spectrum, perhaps consisting of the magnetic personality of the former minister? Could charisma and charm make up the difference? Was that enough to deliver a service? There are 16,000 premises on the outskirts of Perth—to the north, the east and the south—where 51 wireless base stations were planned, with no capacity whatsoever to send or receive. The NBN Co set out to the Australian people a wireless plan for which, for at least a quarter of the footprint, we believe, they had no capacity at all to deliver. This is Conrovianism at its most surreal.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that ministerial salaries must continue to be paid until a minister resigns or is sacked?
I can confirm that the stood-aside Assistant Treasurer is forfeiting his salary and is not accessing his entitlements.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I remind the minister of the importance of the live export trade in my electorate of O'Connor and to the economy of Western Australia. What is the government doing to support Western Australian livestock producers and to reduce excessive regulation?
I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. Member for O'Connor, correct me if I am wrong: you are a fourth-generation farmer, and O'Connor, being a seat 9,008 square kilometres, is the third-largest seat in Australia. It is also extremely important that the people in that area who are in the live sheep trade and in the live cattle trade understand that we are taking fundamental steps towards getting more money back to the mums and dads and back to the kitchen tables of O'Connor and Durack, and to all the people across Australia, by opening up the trade again. The Labor Party today might not have scrapped the carbon tax, but in the past they did scrap the live cattle trade. Remember that they could scrap the live cattle trade; they could do that. They are very good at stopping things. It is important to understand that as we open up the trade into Egypt we are giving more opportunity, more market space and more potential for more money to come back to the good people of Western Australia. I can see a whole range of Western Australians here who are going to be standing behind their candidates at the Senate election reminding them that it is the coalition that stands behind the live cattle trade and got it going again.
It is also important that we understand something else—today the Labor Party and the Greens, who are back together joined at the hip, have decided that from 1 July the people of O'Connor and Durack are going to have to start paying the carbon tax on diesel. That equates to 7c a litre on diesel. If someone picks up a truck at Warburton and goes down to Mount Barker, around 1,660 kilometres, that person is going to be paying the carbon tax because of the people in the Senate who apparently can change the temperature of the globe single-handedly. We will have to see how they are going, because they have reinvested in the carbon tax. Bucko, go outside and check out how the weather is going—because they can change it! If they can change the weather, why don't they make it rain!
It is good to see that Labor has put itself back on the hook—back with the Greens and back with the carbon tax. The member for Blair is back to tell his meat workers that he believes he can change the temperature of the globe. It is all there. We thought they had got rid of their previous Prime Minister. But, no, she is back. They are back. They are back where they belong—back with the carbon tax!
I seek leave to table the comments of Western Australian agriculture minister Ken Baston, who yesterday said that Western Australian farmers will wait months for drought assistance.
Leave is not granted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that Senator Sinodinos has not resigned his commission, his name is still on his ministerial office, he still has ministerial staff and he still appears on the government ministerial website, is Senator Sinodinos still receiving ministerial superannuation?
Let me stress that Senator Sinodinos has done the right and honourable thing by stepping aside.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Manager of Opposition Business, the Prime Minister has spoken for just a few seconds. You can listen to what is said.
If I get up any later I will be frustrated, Madam Speaker.
You may be frustrated. What is the point of order?
The point of order is under standing order 104(a). This question goes to the heart of whether the Prime Minister misled this parliament yesterday.
You may not debate this standing order. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
But, Madam Speaker—
The member will resume his seat.
I wish to raise a different point of order under standing order 86.
That is merely to do with having the right to make a point of order, which I have allowed you to do. If I see that it is only to interrupt the business of the answer, then I may not take note of it.
Madam Speaker, in terms of the role of this House there is no principle more important and referred to more thoroughly in Practice
You are now arguing.
No, I am referring to Practice, Madam Speaker. I can quote from it.
You will resume your seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
I will tell members opposite what they need to understand, which is that Senator Sinodinos has done the right and honourable thing.
You misled the House yesterday.
If the Manager of Opposition Business wishes to make that allegation, there are proper forms in the House, so he will withdraw that comment.
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will not deny that he misled the House yesterday. We have given him that opportunity.
The Manager of Opposition Business is out of order and acting in a disorderly manner. He knows the proper form of the House with which to deal with that is by substantive motion. He will either withdraw the comment or leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
Madam Speaker, to the point of order: on all issues in the past you know that I have immediately withdrawn when you have asked me to. This is an important principle.
I am sorry; the member will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Watson then left the cha mber.
For the period for which Senator Sinodinos stands aside, he will be allocated a backbench senator's office in the Senate wing, he will not receive his ministerial salary and his staff will be directed to work for the person acting in his stead, namely the Minister for Finance.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House on Australia's international reputation as a good place to do business? Why is this important for the mining sector in Western Australia?
I thank the member for Tangney for his question and I thank him for his campaign to vote 1 for the Liberal Senate team at the election on 5 April. The coalition's foreign policy is designed in part to project and protect Australia's reputation as an open, export-oriented market economy. At the heart of our foreign policy is economic diplomacy. Just as the aim of traditional diplomacy was peace, the aim of economic diplomacy is peace and prosperity.
The Australian government is working hard to find new markets for our exporters and is promoting Australia as an attractive place to do business and an attractive place to invest. That is why the Treasurer and the team on this side of the House are putting the government's finances back in order. That is why we are restoring our reputation as good financial managers. That is why we are cutting the unnecessary red tape and regulations imposed by Labor. That is why we are streamlining approvals for projects. That is why we are lifting the dead weight imposed by the carbon tax and the mining tax, which affects our international competitiveness. It is important for Western Australia, as the member knows, because the mining sector is vital to our overall economy—it is worth about $114 billion, it employs about 100,000 Western Australians directly and hundreds of thousands more Western Australians indirectly.
Policy consistency is also vital. From day one the coalition has opposed the mining tax as being bad for Western Australia, bad for the Australian economy and bad for jobs. The Labor Party, in government and in opposition, is all over the shop. The member for Perth, when she was a candidate in 2010, was saddened, apparently, by Labor's failure to promote the mining tax. She said:
I would have loved to have gone out and sold it. But the central command had the view that this was something you're not allowed to talk about and I just think that's crazy.
Well, member for Perth, here is your moment. The member for Perth, the shadow parliamentary secretary for Western Australia, can go out each and every day—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This latest launch into irrelevance has nothing to do with the question—
You will state the point of order. This is not a place for argument.
The question to the foreign minister was about foreign policy, not about the member for Perth or about the mining tax.
It was concerning Australia's reputation. The minister has the call.
The shadow parliamentary secretary for Western Australia has her chance to sell this mining tax that she loves so much, the tax that, back in 2010, she wanted to sell to the Western Australian people. Now, as a member of parliament, she says the ALP should change its mining tax policy. 'Yesterday, Western Australian Labor MP,' according to the ABC news, 'said that the opposition should go back to the drawing board on the mining tax.' She is clearly sipping from the same cup of policy courage as the Leader of the Opposition: say one thing in Western Australia and another in Canberra.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! We will have silence on my left.
But leading the charge is the No. 1 ticket-holder for the Labor Party, Joe Bullock—
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order under 91(c), which says that the member should be considered disorderly if she—
That is about disorderly conduct, but it is not disorderly. There is no point of order. Most of us are familiar with 91(c). The minister has the call.
But leading the charge is Joe Bullock. When asked to say something negative about Tony Abbott, he could not. He has a list for the Leader of the Opposition, though— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday that Senator Sinodinos will draw no ministerial salary and have no access to ministerial entitlements. I refer to the Prime Minister's refusal to confirm all the details of ministerial entitlements being withdrawn today. Is it not now clear that the Prime Minister has misled the parliament?
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. That question is out of order. If he wants to make such an allegation, he has to do so through a substantive motion.
The Leader of the House is quite right. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to rephrase his question, he may, understanding that if he wishes to make that allegation he must do so as a matter of substance at a different time on the agenda.
I refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday that Senator Sinodinos will draw no ministerial salary and have no access to ministerial entitlements. I refer to the Prime Minister's refusal to confirm all the details of the withdrawal of ministerial entitlements from Senator Sinodinos. Prime Minister, how is this possible under the legislation which you are obliged to implement?
The Leader of the Opposition is desperate to insinuate that there has been some wrongdoing here. Let me repeat for his benefit—and I know it is difficult for members opposite to appreciate—that Senator Sinodinos has done the right and the honourable thing.
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left.
I have here a letter from Senator Sinodinos to the Special Minister of State—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
indicating that he will forgo his ministerial entitlements. I table this letter. I have a letter from Senator Sinodinos to the Secretary of the Treasury, saying that his staff will be working to Senator Cormann. I table the letter. I have here a letter from Senator Sinodinos to the President of the Senate saying that he will not be drawing his salary. So he will not get his salary, he will not get his entitlements and he does not have his staff.
My question is addressed to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is providing certainty to my community in Durack by delivering real funding to upgrade the Great Northern Highway and North West Coastal Highway. How is the government delivering long-term improvements in economic infrastructure to communities across Western Australia without a mining tax?
I thank the member for Durack for his question. We had a terrific couple of days up in the Pilbara earlier this year looking at the importance of the mining industry. It is terrific to have the new member for Durack, like the previous member for Durack, so committed to making the most out of Australia's mining industry and not committed to finding ways to injure it, like the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley. While we were there, we committed, along with the Minister for Finance, to ensure that the funding went ahead for two very important projects in Western Australia: the Great Northern Highway project and the North West Coastal project, two projects that were left unfunded by the Labor Party when we got to government. We know they were unfunded, because they were being paid for by the mining tax revenue.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth knows very well that this was a problem that they had left to the new government. We got to government, and the infrastructure Prime Minister said, 'This is unacceptable; these two projects must go ahead.' So we found a way to fund these projects.
We know that there was no money there because we referred to the oracle himself—the designer of the mining tax and the genius behind the tax that raised no revenue—the member for Lilley, the former Treasurer. He said on radio in Perth in 2011:
If we don't have the revenue from the tax then we can't make the investments.
So there was no revenue and no money, and there were no projects.
In fact, it was not just the member for Lilley, the former Treasurer, but also the member for Grayndler, who, unfortunately, is not here to hear this. When he was the infrastructure minister in this place in 2011, he answered a question in this place from the member for Throsby about the importance of the mining tax and said:
But they are only possible if you have revenue from somewhere—
the mining tax. The issue here is that there was no revenue from the mining tax when we got to government. There were no projects that would have gone ahead, so we have funded them and are actually pushing the Western Australian government to get it done quicker.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
I know it burns the member for Perth up!
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Those on my left will desist, particularly the member for Perth.
She left such a legacy up in Karratha that they remember the member for Perth up there; they remember you well and truly up there! So these projects that will raise productivity—
Opposition members interjecting—
They are very excited today, Madam Speaker; there is something in the water over there?
These are projects which will ensure that we get higher productivity, more jobs and a better and stronger Australia. They will be delivered—
Mr Danby interjecting—
Order! The member for Melbourne Ports is warned!
But what would make them easier to deliver is getting rid of the mining tax—getting away from the Greens and backing the coalition to get rid of the mining tax. That is what the Australian people voted for on 7 September. We will keep delivering infrastructure and we will have the infrastructure Prime Minister stand there proudly and deliver it for Australia.
Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to advise that we have in the gallery today the former member for Hindmarsh, Mr Georganas, and I am reminded by the member for Hunter that he was a member of the Speaker's panel. We make him most welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Charlton is warned!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Upon announcing his ministry on 16 September last year, the Prime Minister unequivocally said:
Well, I want to absolutely scotch any suggestion that there is a cloud over Arthur Sinodinos. There is not. I wouldn’t be appointing Arthur to the incoming ministry if I thought there was any cloud over him.
What has changed materially since then, or did the Prime Minister knowingly appoint Arthur Sinodinos to a key economic portfolio when in fact he believed there was a cloud?
A government member: Are you judge and jury now, Bill?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! There will be silence on my right as well as on my left!
As just about every member of this House knows, including members opposite, Senator Sinodinos is a fundamentally decent man. He is an extremely competent man. He was an absolutely worthy and appropriate appointment to the incoming ministry, and I have to say his actions yesterday entirely vindicate his decency and his honour.
My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the Port Macquarie GP superclinic in my electorate that was promised over three years ago, is yet to open and has not yet seen a single patient. How have the delays to this clinic affected the delivery of health in my electorate of Lyne?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Before the minister begins, we will have silence in the House.
I congratulate Dr Gillespie, the member for Lyne, on a lifetime of service to medicine and patients in his local community. He is very keen to see additional health services delivered into the electorate of Lyne, but, of course, it is made more difficult because Labor wasted billions of dollars. They set up what they claimed at the time to be the signature health policy of the Rudd-Gillard years—the so-called GP superclinics. That saw $650 million of borrowed money going into a program, including this one at Port Macquarie, but the problem is that not many patients have been seen.
I thought we were running out of examples of the success of the GP superclinic, but this one at Port Macquarie is pretty special! It is pretty special because the taxpayers of Australia have paid $5.6 million to this particular superclinic in Port Macquarie that was promised in 2010, but not a single patient has been seen at this clinic. So people rightly had an expectation that, when the Labor Party promised that a clinic would be set up, doctors would actually be employed and that patients would be seen.
I do not think it gets much more basic than that.
This is the clinic that is meant to be opening in six months time.
The member for Ballarat will desist.
People who build a house pay progress payments to the builder and pay a payment on completion. The problem is that Labor gave all of the money up-front. They devised some great schemes. As we know, the member for Sydney—who is now looking through press clips and all sorts of other issues but not concentrating on this area—after the success of the superclinic program, moved on to the housing affordability scheme that put money into housing that ended up sinking into the earth.
The Minister for Health will resume his seat. The member for Ballarat on a point of order, and it must not be argument; it is a point of order.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The minister was asked a question about the Port Macquarie superclinic that is opening in mid-2014. He should stick to that opening and not try and divert from that.
The member is now debating and the member will resume her seat. The member knows full well that she must not debate the standing order. The Minister for Health has the call.
I welcome that interjection from the member for Ballarat, because, let me assure you, these promises from Labor have been coming since 2007. The original proposal from Labor was that these superclinics would be set up and that people would be diverted away from emergency departments, but quickly they retreated from that statement because there has not been one shred of evidence in the last six years that any patient has been diverted away from an emergency department. At the same time, the Labor Party created 12 great big new health bureaucracies in Canberra. There are now 21 bureaucracies in addition to the Department of Health—and we do not run a single hospital. We do not employ a doctor, a nurse or a pharmacist that sees a patient. Yet Labor diverted money away from these communities into these bureaucracies in Canberra. It is an absolute disgrace. I can tell you one thing: this government will not make the same mistakes that Labor did. We will put money back into frontline services and we will clean up Labor's mess in health.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that the Prime Minister:
(a) committed to the Australian people that he would lead a Government that is 'transparent and open' and would 'restore accountability and improve transparency measures';
(b) is accountable to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament; and
(c) has been asked on numerous occasions to explain to the House what he knew about Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings and when he knew it;
(2) requires the Prime Minister, for 15 minutes, to immediately explain to the House:
(a) all the information in the possession of the Prime Minister or his office in relation to Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings; and
(b) what changed between the Prime Minister appointing Senator Sinodinos as Assistant Treasurer in September, expressing full confidence in Senator Sinodinos on Tuesday and allowing Senator Sinodinos to stand aside on Wednesday; and
(3) allow the Leader of the Opposition, for 15 minutes in the House, to immediately reply to the Prime Minister.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson moving immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes that the Prime Minister:
(a) committed to the Australian people that he would lead a Government that is 'transparent and open' and would 'restore accountability and improve transparency measures';
(b) is accountable to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament; and
(c) has been asked on numerous occasions to explain to the House what he knew about Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings and when he knew it;
(2) requires the Prime Minister, for 15 minutes, to immediately explain to the House:
(a) all the information in the possession of the Prime Minister or his office in relation to Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings; and
(b) what changed between the Prime Minister appointing Senator Sinodinos as Assistant Treasurer in September, expressing full confidence in Senator Sinodinos on Tuesday and allowing Senator Sinodinos to stand aside on Wednesday; and
(3) allow the Leader of the Opposition, for 15 minutes in the House, to immediately reply to the Prime Minister.
We know two things. We know—and this is an important point to establish—that Arthur Sinodinos is entitled to the presumption of innocence. We understand there is a process underway, and the process should not target unfairly someone's innocence or pre-presume the outcome. Labor supports that principle. I might add personally that my dealings with Arthur Sinodinos have always been professional, pleasant, civil and decent. But there is a second principle which people want to know.
The people of Australia are entitled to know what has gone on here. It is not enough for the Prime Minister not to tell us what he has done. It is not good enough for him not to tell the Australian people what he knows, when they say, 'We asked the Prime Minister on 20 occasions what he knows.' It is not enough for a Prime Minister of Australia to brush off the Australian people with a reference to private conversations about ministers in government not being worthy of being answered in question time. It is not appropriate for a Prime Minister of Australia to talk about the standing aside of a minister and provide to not only the opposition but the people of Australia only the information that it is a private conversation and that he does not need to explain his actions to anyone.
What the Prime Minister has actually answered in no fewer than 26 or 27 questions over the last two days is that the Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, does not want the Australian people to know what the Prime Minister knows and to know when the Prime Minister learnt of certain key information. We have heard unanswered questions in this parliament today. That is why we should suspend standing orders. We asked the Prime Minister today: was he aware of the remarkably large $1 million amount, which would raise eyebrows in every lounge room in Australia—an informal $1 million success fee—and what did he know about it? We asked the Prime Minister today: what was the role, and what did he know about the role, of Senator Sinodinos in arranging a letter from Premier Barry O'Farrell to help secure a large contract? He said that he knows and that he will not tell us when he knew it or what he knows. We asked today: what is the knowledge that the Prime Minister has about one of his ministers being involved with facilitating a $20 million windfall fee? These are not ordinary amounts of money. These are not ordinary goings-on. Most Australians would understand that if someone says, 'If you can arrange a contract, you will get $20 million,' it is not business as usual. What we want to know and I think what the Australian people want to know—and the one thing we know that the Prime Minister is not telling us, in fact—is his awareness or state of mind on these matters.
We have asked questions about what Senator Sinodinos has done. The Prime Minister said that the reason he has stood aside is not that he has done anything wrong—the Prime Minister is entitled to say that. But what the Prime Minister is saying is that the ministerial conduct standards of this Abbott government are that if a minister becomes a sideshow or a distraction they must move sideways—whatever moving sideways means, which is a point I will come to. That is why we must suspend standing orders—to deal with this issue. The Abbott government's ministerial standard for accountability is that, if you become a sideshow—this must be worrying Mr Joyce!—or a distraction, this is the standard that the government will apply to their ministers. The standard the Prime Minister will not apply to himself is his willingness to be transparent with the Australian people.
It is a fairly made question, I believe: what has changed? ICAC said they were going to investigate Australian Water Holdings in December 2012. Senator Sinodinos appropriately made a statement in February 2013. Then the Prime Minister, upon appointing Senator Sinodinos to the outer ministry, said that there was no cloud and that he wanted to scotch the rumours of a cloud. Yet well-informed sources in the Liberal Party tell us the reason the remarkably well credentialled Senator Sinodinos was not appointed to the cabinet—which I think most people thought was a likelihood—was that there was a cloud.
I actually admire the Prime Minister's commitment to Senator Sinodinos—I admire that on a personal level. What I do not admire is his unwillingness to be transparent about what he knew. There may not have been a cloud over Senator Sinodinos, but there are smoke signals coming from the Prime Minister's office that he knew more than he said. It beggars belief. I have heard the almost eulogistic comments from those opposite about Senator Sinodinos—that in fact he is a great fellow. I too have found him reasonable to deal with; I say that. Therefore, why wasn't Senator Sinodinos appointed by the Liberal Party to the cabinet, which is what everyone expected? Of course, there were the rumours—probably not from allies of the Prime Minister within the Liberal Party—that there were concerns raised. But when we have asked the Prime Minister just to come clean—Prime Minister, just come clean and tell us what you know—what he says is: 'I do not have to tell you. That is a matter that will be at ICAC.' But we are not asking about Senator Sinodinos; we are asking about what the Prime Minister knows. That is why we should suspend standing orders.
What happened to the famous due diligence process at the Prime Minister's office? We understand that the chief of staff of the Assistant Minister for Health slipped through that until the chief of staff became a distraction, not Assistant Minister Nash. But what happened to the due diligence process? I do not think anyone seriously believes—and that is why we should suspend standing orders—that there was a due diligence process. I suspect that there was a chance the people just sort of hoped—there was more hope than due diligence—that this matter would go away. How on earth can a prime minister say that he will not tell us what he knows at any point, when there are clear signposts that these matters have been discussed with the Prime Minister's knowledge and within his orbit of influence? Does the Prime Minister know anything that the public does not already know? This is a fundamental question. The first question is: why is it, and what changed, materially, from September last year to now that has led to a minister standing aside? The second issue is that surely we saw in September last year issues that raised concern and commentary then, but what we do ask now is: does the Prime Minister have any knowledge of any matter with Australian Water Holdings?
This Prime Minister is being shifty. I get that he does not want to tell Qantas workers about their future. I get that he does not want to reveal the Commission of Audit to Western Australian voters before the election—I get that. It is shifty, but I get that. What I do not understand is that there is no way he can simply say it is someone else's issue when it comes to the conduct of his own ministers. I get that he has contracted out the Commission of Audit to the Business Council of Australia, and he says, 'I don't know what they're doing'. I get that he says, 'I have not read a 900-page report'; I get that he does not know anything about manufacturing or fighting for jobs. What I do not get is question after question in this place—legitimate question after question: what did you know, and when did you know it? And what I really find uncomfortable about the Prime Minister's shifty conduct is this: what is it that he knows that the public does not? At the very least, he should come clean and say it. If he knows nothing else besides the public reports, so be it—end of matter; Labor will leave this question alone. But if it emerges that the Prime Minister is aware of more than he has revealed to the Australian parliament, to the Australian people, to the opposition, to the Australian media, then that is a problem for this Prime Minister. It is not the standard he sets for everyone else.
And indeed the final, most frustrating issue in this whole standing aside issue is that we know that the act of parliament governing ministerial conditions does not allow for this sort of half-pregnant proposition that the government has advanced about Senator Sinodinos. His label is still on his office—he has still got his office. Does he get his superannuation? He is going to forgo it—he will probably give it to charity. Fair enough. The Prime Minister needs to come clean with what he knows, when he knew it, and whether he knows anything that he has not told the rest of Australia. (Time expired)
I second the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders. It is right that the House suspends standing orders to discuss transparency and accountability under this government. This is a Prime Minister who promised the Australian people that he would restore accountability and improve transparency measures. And we have seen accountability and transparency go AWOL under this Prime Minister today. He is not willing to answer for the conduct of his own ministers, and he is not willing to answer for his own conduct. The Australian people have known that this inquiry was coming; everybody in this parliament has known that this inquiry was coming; the Prime Minister knew that this inquiry was coming. There were media reports in December 2012 that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption has begun to make formal inquiries into Australian Water Holdings. There were media reports in August 2013 that said Australian Water Holdings would be the focus of ICAC public hearings. And what due diligence did the Prime Minister use about that? What inquiries did he make? What did he ask about Senator Sinodinos and his involvement in these matters before appointing him to the high office of Assistant Treasurer? What did the Prime Minister do to protect the integrity of his ministry?
That is a question the opposition is entitled to ask, and it is a question the Australian people are entitled to have answered, and this Prime Minister has failed miserably to do so. We are prepared to give the Prime Minister another chance, another opportunity. He can have 15 minutes of the House to explain what he has done to uphold the integrity of his office and his government. And if he votes against this motion, that means he is unwilling to do so and he is running yet again from that accountability. And we have seen the Prime Minister today, creating a new alibi about the salary and conditions of Senator Sinodinos. We had to drag from him these letters about Senator Sinodinos's entitlements. He told us that it was all crystal clear and clear-cut—that Senator Sinodinos would not receive his ministerial entitlements. Yet we see this letter from Senator Sinodinos that says, 'It is my intention to forgo my ministerial entitlements'—'my intention'. We want to know how that is done under the relevant act of parliament. We want to know whether his superannuation will continue to be paid as a percentage of his entire ministerial salary. We want to know whether he will continue to receive ministerial level travel allowance. We want to know whether he will sit, formally or informally, on the Expenditure Review Committee as this government brings down a budget. These are questions that the Prime Minister should be able to answer. These are questions that the Prime Minister must answer before this House and the Australian people, and if he does not then he has something to hide.
If he was willing to answer these questions, then he should not worry about this motion, he should welcome this motion. He should embrace this motion, and thank the House for the time it is prepared to give him to explain his conduct and the conduct of his government, to explain what measures he has put in place so that the Australian people can have confidence that he is running an administration of appropriate accountability and transparency measures, as he suggested.
We have seen this government ducking and weaving all week. We had the speculation about whether Senator Sinodinos would stand aside or not, about whether the Prime Minister would ask him to. Well, the Prime Minister did ask him to, but he did it through the pages of Australia's newspapers—that is how he treats his ministers. He sends smoke signals to one of his colleagues, sending him the message that it might be a good idea to stand aside. When matters like this arise, as the Leader of Opposition has said, there is one fundamental question that somebody who sits in that chair must answer: what did you know, and when did you know it? It is an old question, but it is a question that has stood the test of time, and it is a question this Prime Minister has failed miserably to answer.
Senator Sinodinos has had great responsibilities. He has been responsible for things like changing Australia's financial advice laws, laws that were introduced after $6 billion was ripped off of 120,000 Australians, laws that were introduced to provide more protection, more accountability, and more transparency. Senator Sinodinos is ripping these laws up, and this Prime Minister is letting it happen. He has got some serious explaining to do about this entire matter, and if he will not do it in question time then he should do it now.
The leader of the House is about to get on his hind feet and talk to the House. The Prime Minister should be doing that. The Prime Minister should be taking this opportunity to explain to the Australian people what he knew, and when he knew it. The Prime Minister should be accountable to the Australian people and he should be taking this opportunity— (Time expired)
We on this side of the House do not agree with the motion, and the opposition's attempt to suspend standing orders should not be carried. I will say why in the next 10 minutes. We will not be judged by the party of Craig Thomson, and the party of Michael Williamson, and the party of the AWU slush fund, and the party of Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald. We will not be judged by the Labor Party on the issue of standards in government. I have waited all week for the opportunity that I hoped the opposition would give me, to outline why we will never be lectured by the Labor Party about ministerial standards.
I say to the House, how dare the Labor Party come into this chamber and try and wear the clothes of ministerial accountability and standards, after the sewer they presided over for three years in the 43rd Parliament, putting aside the 42nd Parliament. But in the 43rd Parliament—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Charlton!
there was an endless list of atrocities committed against this parliament. Not only did they suborn the former member for Fisher into becoming the Speaker, and replacing a good man in Harry Jenkins, to gain a vote—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Gorton will desist!
but they kept Craig Thomson's vote in their party room until 29 April 2012.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Perth has already been warned! That is the last time.
Labor clung to the vote of the former member for Dobell, the now disgraced Craig Thomson. Now, when did they find out? When did we all find out there was a cloud hanging over the member for Dobell? Well, it certainly was not on 28 April 2012. It certainly was not the day before Labor excluded him from their caucus. In January 2009, even before the 2010 election, Terry Nassios from the Fair Work Commission commenced his inquiry into the HSU's Victorian No. 1 Branch. In January 2009, the Fair Work Commission began its inquiry into the Health Services Union No. 1 Branch, and the stories started appearing in the newspapers about former member for Dobell Craig Thomson.
In fact, we know that in early 2009 Ben Hubbard, the former chief of staff to then Prime Minister Gillard, rang the then Industrial Registrar Doug Williams to inquire into whether they were investigating a Labor MP. So we know that in early 2009 the Prime Minister's office and the Labor Party were aware enough, and concerned enough, that the chief of staff of the Prime Minister contacted—
The member for Hunter will take his seat!
the then Industrial Registrar Doug Williams to discover—
The member for Hunter will take his seat or leave!
if there was an inquiry into the former member for Dobell going on. It goes on and on. There were so many stories. The New South Wales police launched Strike Force Carnarvon in September 2011. The Victorian police fraud squad confirmed in October 2011 that they were investigating Craig Thomson. Fair Work Australia published their investigation into the HSU in April 2012, and in March 2012 they released their investigation into the Victorian HSU No. 1 Branch.
For all that time the Labor Party protected former member for Dobell Craig Thomson and kept his vote in their caucus.
The member for Perth will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
Yet they come in here and try to lecture the coalition about ministerial standards. Craig Thomson is just one example. This is the party of Eddie Obeid. This is the party of Joe Tripodi. This is the Party of Ian Macdonald—and federal ministers were named in the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into the Obeid family's financial matters. Two of them appeared as witnesses.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned!
Greg Combet appeared as a witness to ICAC. Did we demand that he resign from the front bench? No, we did not demand that he resign. Senator Doug Cameron, now sitting on the Labor Party front bench, appeared as a witness at the ICAC investigation into the Obeid family fortune. Did we demand that Doug Cameron be disciplined and be stripped of his responsibilities? No we did not, because there is an enormous difference between appearing as a witness in an investigation and being investigated by the ICAC. The member for Chifley knows that very well; the member for Kingsford Smith knows it very well. For all the confected outrage in the world that Labor are trying to raise this week, they cannot get away from one fact: they are the party of sleaze and smear in New South Wales, in particular, and Sussex Street has got its reputation. We will not be lectured by Labor about standards in this place.
I would also say that the big difference between this side of House and the other side of House is that, when a matter like this occurs, we act. When something was raised, as it was against the former Assistant Treasurer, the former Assistant Treasurer acted. He did the right thing. He stood aside yesterday so that he would not be a distraction from the government's important economic and social agenda. So the Labor Party have spent all week in question time, wasting question time and criticising us for doing the right thing. When Labor were in power, what did they use to do when these things happened? They circled the wagons, they aggressively attacked the opposition and they used all sorts of personal calumnies against members of the opposition, including me and including you, Madam Speaker, when you were in opposition, and including the now Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. That was their response. The response on our side of the House was for a decent man, a man of honour and reputation, Senator Arthur Sinodinos to stand aside until this matter is resolved.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Order! The member for Chifley will either desist or leave.
So, in fact, Labor have spent the week criticising the government for doing the right thing, demanding every day that the Prime Minister respond to question after question—repetitive questions—because they want to criticise us for doing the right thing. If, on the other hand, we had behaved like Labor behaved in government then maybe they would have had a feather to fly with—a leg to stand on. But, no, this is all just the confected outrage of an opposition without a strategy and without a narrative that lives tactically from day to day and that is being marked down by the public because of this exact strategy. That is why the Griffith by-election was the best result for a government since 1984.
How about South Australia? How did South Australia go?
In South Australia, we got 53 per cent of the vote for the coalition.
The member for Charlton will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Charlton then left the chamber.
In Tasmania, we swept aside 16 years of Labor-Greens government, because the public knows that this side of House is operating in an adult, calm and methodical way, introducing the policies that we promised to take to the election and introducing the governmental changes that we know will create jobs, build growth and restore the reputation of Australia internationally and domestically. We are getting on with the job. What Labor are doing is spending a week wasting their questions, wasting question time and building to their suspension of standing orders on Thursday afternoon. I say to the new members of the Labor Party, particularly: you should speak to the strategy team about their strategy, because you are not winning it. You spent all week criticising the government for doing the right thing, and this was a complete waste of a question time.
There are so many precedents for the action of Senator Sinodinos. Mick Young in 1984—
An opposition member: Thanks for your help!
Someone needs to help you! Mick Young, your predecessor, in 1984 stood down from the Hawke ministry; he was reinstated about a month or so later. Phillip Lynch stood down as the Treasurer in the Fraser government; he was reinstated to the ministry a little while later. Ian Sinclair stood down from the Fraser government; he was reinstated to the ministry after he was cleared of any wrongdoing. Even the member for Lilley, when he was a shadow minister, stood down from the role that he held in family and community services under the former Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, until he was cleared of any wrongdoing in any matters and returned to the front bench. These are the precedents—Mick Young, Phillip Lynch, Ian Sinclair and Wayne Swan. These are the precedents. The action that was taken by Senator Arthur Sinodinos yesterday by standing aside from his position—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Minister for Health has used words against the member for Lilley which are offensive, and I request that you ask him to withdraw them unreservedly.
If there is something that needs withdrawing, it would assist the House for the Minister for Health to do so.
I withdraw.
Order! The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Madam Speaker, I do.
Please proceed.
In question time today, the member for Mayo suggested that I had argued incorrectly that funding was included in the budget for the Great Northern Highway and the North West Coastal Highway. That is not true, and I seek leave to table the budget document from 2013. That shows that the Great Northern Highway and the North West Coastal Highway—
Leave is not given. The member will resume his seat.
(—) (): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fraser proposing a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government's moves to cut transparency, accountability and consumer protection, and its impact, particularly, on the voters of Western Australia.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Yesterday, in this House, the Leader of the House said as follows:
There will be a single national database for university reporting, so government departments will coordinate with each other rather than putting that burden of coordination on the university sector—
a single national database to allow coordination. But remove the word 'university' and insert the word 'charity' and you have exactly what the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission does.
It is a one-stop shop. This is a government that approves of one-stop shops when it comes to environmental approvals but when it comes to a one-stop shop for charities they are suddenly against it. When it comes to one-stop shops this government is all over the shop. The charities commission is a body that could not enjoy wider support from across the charity sector. A wide range of charities, more than 40, have signed an open letter to save the charity commission. They include: Save the Children, St John Ambulance Australia, the Ted Noffs Foundation, RSPCA, The Sidney Myer Fund & the Myer Foundation, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Volunteering Australia, Lifeline, ACOSS, SANE Australia, Musica Viva Australia, Hillsong Church, Social Ventures Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, the YMCA, the Wesley Mission and the Queensland Theatre Company. What else could bring all of these organisations together from across the political spectrum but the Abbott government?
The Abbott government said it would bring Australians together—and it has. They are united in opposition to what this government is doing. This government wants to get rid of a charities commission, about which Tim Costello said:
The commission is actually working for us, and it gives the public confidence. It underpins the consumer benefit to charities.
Myles McGregor Lowndes, of the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies said:
During its short history, the ACNC has played a positive role in the overall regulatory environment of charities.
Indeed, he describes:
Its stellar improvement in terms of timeliness, consistency of decision making and responsiveness…
Carolyn Kitto of Stop the Traffik said:
The ACNC is a dream come true for small charities…The ACNC has cut red tape dramatically. The staff are helpful and navigate complexities so we can be sure we are compliant and efficient.
David Crosbie, CEO of the Community Council of Australia said:
The ACNC is more efficient than the government regulators it replaced, is doing good work and deserves a chance to achieve its three goals of reducing red tape, increasing public trust and strengthening the charity sector.
Louise Walsh from Philanthropy Australia says:
Since the ACNC’s establishment as an independent charities regulator, Philanthropy Australia has consistently supported the ACNC’s important role in our community.
We also heard strong support yesterday from Anglicare Australia, which said:
The repeal of the ACNC will simply recreate more bureaucracy, lessen protection for the public and add unnecessarily to the workload of community service providers. It will also create uncertainty as there is no clear replacement. Uncertainty is the biggest enemy of efficiency, as big business tells us.
The matter of public importance before the House goes in particular to the impact on Western Australia. Professor David Gilchrist, the Director of the Not-for-profit Initiative at Western Australia's Curtin University, spoke to my office today and said:
A silent majority in Western Australia think the ACNC is the way forward. Regulation is only part of what it offers.
Its best practice governance principles have been very well accepted. It has provided the sector with a good set of financial principles that allow for differences between charities. It recognises that the WA sector is every bit as complex as any other sector.
Removing the ACNC without a fair trial and without leveraging the hard work of the commission in recent months would be a mistake.
That is what David Gilchrist of the Not-for-profit Initiative at Curtin University said.
A pro bono survey in August 2013 of 1,500 charities found that 81 per cent supported the ACNC. What share supported the government's preferred solution of returning charities regulation to the ATO? Just six per cent. The National Party gets more votes than that! There is more support for the Australian Greens and the National Party than there is for this government's approach of returning charitable regulation to the Australian Taxation Office.
This is a serious sector. The not-for-profit sector employs one million Australians, turns over $100 billion and involves five million volunteers. It is at the heart of our community and many of us in this place take pride in the work of the not-for-profit sector. But if we want a strong not-for-profit sector we have to listen to what expert reviews have said. No fewer than five reviews, including the Productivity Commission review and the Henry tax review, have said we need a national charities commission. That is because without a charities commission there is a hodgepodge of regulation which puts donors at risk and does not allow charities their own bespoke regulator.
This government is driven not by expert advice, not by listening to five inquiries and not by listening to the four in five charities that want to keep the ACNC; instead, it is driven by blind ideology. There is no better evidence of that than the attempt by the minister in charge of abolishing the charities commission to hang onto a 400-year-old common-law definition of charities rather than a new statutory definition. John Howard back in 2000 said that this statutory definition would be a good idea. Mr Howard said:
Yet the common law definition of a charity, which is based on a legal concept dating back to 1601, has resulted in a number of legal definitions and often gives rise to legal disputes.
This government is a pre-Howard-era government in its approach to charities. It wants to take us back to 1601. In fact, not only it is pre Howard but it is pre Protestant, pre Enlightenment, pre electric lights and pre steam engines. When it comes to charities, this government would take us back to the time of leeches and witch burning. That is its view of charities. Its view of charities is that they should be seen and not heard. It wants the Australian charity sector to be simply a service delivery arm of government. That is why the Minister for Social Services is taking carriage of this and not the Assistant Treasurer—that was at the time when we had an Assistant Treasurer!
Labor's view is that charities play an important role in the Australian community sector and they should be free to speak their minds. Brave charities have spoken their minds. You have to be a pretty bold charity to put your head above the parapet with this government, knowing their willingness to play favourites and to have a go at charities that are of a mind to speak in the public interest rather than simply look at where their next dollar is coming from. We have seen charities, from ACOSS to the age sector, saying that this is a bad idea and that, if this change goes through, it will be utterly retrograde. Charitable donors will be at risk. They will be placed at risk from scam artists. If you are opening your door to a charity, you want to know that there is a charities commission standing ready to take complaints against the thankfully small number of dodgy charities. If we do not have that then we are not going to have the backstop that the sector requires. This approach would be like the coalition saying to financial investors: 'Let's get rid of ASIC. We'll be okay without the Securities and Investments Commission. Let's just let the market rip.'
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The shadow Treasurer said perhaps I should not suggest that. You never know what this government will do. This is, after all, a government that is going further in the area of removing protections on consumers than the Financial Planning Association would want. This government should listen to donors, should listen to charities, should listen to philanthropists and should keep the ACNC.
What was that? We had the professorial tutorial. He read the timetable wrong.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Those who are listening may be bewildered to know that the MPI topic we are supposed to be debating is the government's move to cut transparency, accountability and consumer protection and its impact particularly on the voters of Western Australia.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Instead, we got a PhD dissertation about why we need another regulator.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
He did not manage to come to the point that the points he said were so crucial to the regulator can actually be dealt with without creating another institution. What a novel idea! To see the professor who does not even have the courtesy to sit quietly and listen to the discussion on the actual topic he brought forward—it just shows you what a rabble Labor is.
To show you what a matter of public importance this is, there were 21 questions at question time today and not one of them was on this subject. So absolutely gripping, so compelling—Labor was so insistent that the parliament allocate time to this matter of public importance, but it was not important enough to ask a question. Isn't that remarkable. But doesn't that give you an idea about just how misguided and how completely befuddled this Labor opposition is. To hear the professor talk about what should be happening to protect consumers—he seems to overlook a little problem. We heard the Treasurer today saying that under the previous Labor government we saw the fastest growth in government outlays in the top 17 IMF countries in the world. But what did they forget to fund? They forgot to fund the ACCC. They forgot to fund the regulator that is there supposedly to protect the consumers. I know those opposite have had very little interest in competition policy and consumer affairs. They have had so little interest while they were putting all this debt and deficit on the national bank card that they forgot to fund the ACCC.
Did you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, that if it were not for the election and the change in government, our principal regulator and protector of consumer rights would run out of cash next month? So convinced was Labor that consumer protection mattered that they forgot to fund the agency whose task it was to implement those protections. On 12 September 2011, there was a request for an unimproved operating loss that ran over the top of the budget that was allocated in 2010-11. We thought, 'Oops, we have overshot.' The professor is off to read the timetable and realise what the topic is before the parliament. On 16 January 2012, guess what, another operating loss—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister should refer to people by their correct titles.
The minister has the call.
On 16 January 2012, we had the discussion from the member for—
A government member: Fraser.
Fraser, thank you. The member for Fraser did not manage to speak at all about the necessary requirement to actually fund the consumer protection regulator. Again on 16 January, we saw another letter to the Treasurer, 'Look we have got an operating loss of over $17 million.' There was another one on 13 April, 'There is another operating loss and we have eaten away at all of the accumulated surpluses.' We then saw another request saying, 'There is another operating loss coming in 2012-13.' Guess what? The operating loss was actually greater than the disclosed operating loss. What happened? Labor did not even fund the ACCC. So let us have none of this cant. Let us have none of this nonsense from Labor that they have the slightest interest in consumer protection. If they were interested in consumers, they would join us in helping consumers by the abolition of the carbon tax.
Here we have a discussion about transparency and accountability. We have the Labor lead candidate for the Western Australian Senate election saying in The West Australian, 'Labor is scrapping the carbon tax.' That is not right. Labor just voted to keep the carbon tax, allowing Labor's law to run which will see the rate of the carbon tax actually increase. So the punishment is extended by the action in the Senate today which will also see it applied to heavy vehicle transport. On the back of this completely false and misleading statement in The Western Australian from Labor's lead candidate for the Senate election, those Western Australian voters who want their consumer interests protected would be aghast to hear what is going on in the other place. It is not only a preservation of Labor's carbon tax; it is a protection of the Labor law that will see the punishment increase and extend to on-road freight. This must be a compelling issue for the Western Australian community.
You would think that if they were interested in the abolition of the carbon tax, they would fund the ACCC to make sure the savings were actually passed on to consumers. That is consumer protection. When the price rises previously attributed to the carbon tax are removed, we want to see a price reduction. But that would require resourcing for the ACCC. Again, this side of the House has provided those resources, unlike Labor that were just happy to let it run down.
I turn to the area of our competition review, an area that Labor cannot even turn itself to address. In its last utterance on this topic, Labor said that they thought the law that was currently in place was perfectly adequate. David Bradbury said that in a debate in this place when he was the responsible minister. The coalition parties were arguing about the need to revisit and reanalyse our competition framework to make sure it was fit for purpose for a modern changing economy; that it would deliver durable consumer benefits and protect their interests; that it would support efficient businesses, big and small, investing in this country by having the opportunity to grow and prosper. What was Labor's response? When Labor were in government, their position was, 'The existing competition framework is adequate to deal with these challenges.' They are not even interested in the review that has the consumer interest and the machinery that is in place to protect it at its heart.
So, again, let us hear none of this nonsense from Labor about being the slightest bit interested in consumers. Their actions do not back up that the glib rhetoric that we get. More worryingly, the debate that we have does not even align with the topic that Labor submitted for discussion today. So what is happening instead? You have seen the coalition bring forward its program about terminating the carbon tax, ensuring proper resourcing for our consumer protection regulator and putting the resources in place to monitor the impact of the removal of the carbon tax. We have also put in place a deregulatory agenda, something that is of great interest to consumers. They know excessive regulatory overreach costs money. Those costs are carried by the consumers. They are passed on from those burdened with those excessive compliance requirements.
We have a deregulation agenda that is at the heart of trying to ensure that regulation is right-sized in the financial services area and deals with some of the overreach and excesses of Labor's approach that has made the affordability and accessibility of financial advice more out of reach for those with modest resources to invest in that important part of planning for their retirement or their financial independence. We want proper protection for consumers if you happen to be a worker on a building site. That is why we want the ABCC. We want them protected as well. That is why we want to make sure there is a registered organisations entity in place so that that commission can do its work to protect Australian consumers and ensure this is a positive place where there is transparency, accountability and protections.
How important is that for the people of Western Australia who have heard about the thuggery that has gone on in building sites in that state. Do we hear anything about that from Labor? No, we hear nothing about those crucial topics. So we have a choice. We can get behind the government's program, respecting the fact that our deregulation agenda delivers benefits for our economy, delivers benefits for those being weighed down and burdened by excess red tape, which causes costs and missed opportunities for consumers. Protecting their interests is getting regulation right sized. It is about reflecting the fact that in this country, before Labor was elected, we were 68th in the world in terms of the burden government regulation put on our economy. By the time Labor had left office, we were 128th. That was after one of their previous ministers said regulation was a noose around small businesses and that they needed to do something about it. What did do they do about it? They just added more and more regulation—21,000 new and amended regulations. Again, there was report after report saying that for time poor small businesses, excessive regulation cruels their opportunity to find work, to generate revenue, to support their viability. Yet what do we get from Labor? We get opposition to that.
Concerning paid parental leave, why is Labor so obsessed with making employers, particularly small businesses and not-for-profit employers, pay a cost to double-handle the paid parental leave payments that the previous Labor government had put in place? What is the argument for that? $44 million additional costs for businesses and $4 million of additional costs for not-for-profit organisations.
What you have seen today is a ridiculous attempt for Labor to make it sound like they are remotely interested in the people of Western Australia. Well, the voters are smarter. They know that we have the plan that will put the mojo back into the Western Australian economy, that will support opportunities for the economy. And talking about consumer protection, we will walk the talk, not just talk the walk.
I rise to speak on this very important matter of public importance because I know there is a lot of interest in and talk about getting rid of red tape and reducing regulation. For that, we are all supportive. Red tape ought to go as much as is possible. Unnecessary redundant regulations ought to go wherever possible. That is exactly what Labor did in government and we did it in spades, but we did not crow about it and we did not have special days in honour of doing the normal work of business. It is what a government ought to do every single day. It is what a government ought to do as a matter of normal business. It is what governments should be doing.
We need to examine very closely what this mob are up to when they say that they are cutting red tape and getting rid of regulation. It is actually a very big smokescreen. It is a big cloak for what they are actually doing which is removing consumer protections and taking away hard fought and hard won protections. When people come to see me—whether they are consumers or small businesses—they often come about things that burden them, about things that are happening in the market and about things for which the government ought to be doing more to protect them. So they often come about the two things—yes we want to get rid of red tape, yes we want to make life easier—and that is exactly what Labor did in government. We did it with business name registrations, which used to be an absolute nightmare under the mob from across the way, the Liberals and the Nationals. During their time you were required to register your business in seven different jurisdictions across the states and territories, either by paper or online. There was a different system in all of them and if you wanted to register your small business across Australia, it would cost over $1,000 and take you an enormous deal of effort. What Labor did to reduce red tape, to get rid of regulations and to reduce the cost was to actually do it properly and do it by making sure that we had an online system, seven days a week, 24 hours of the day. It worked absolutely fantastically for small businesses.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The shadow minister might want to relate to the House how that result now takes months to achieve rather than days.
There is no point of order.
What they have forgotten is simply this: they have forgotten the damage that is being done to ordinary mums and dads through the Storm Financial collapse. About $4 billion of life savings of ordinary mums and dads cannot be recouped. That is what happened under the poor culture and poor practices in the financial services sector. Labor did not just watch it happen; we did something about it. In fact, we did a lot of the heavy lifting. We made sure over the past five years that something was being done significantly to protect consumers, something that the consumers were wanting and demanding and something that this government will completely dismantle and rip away, under the guise of red tape and of getting rid of bureaucracy. This is not what people expected.
The former Labor government put in a best interests duty to make sure that advisers would act in the best interests of their clients. We put in an opt-in clause, requiring advisers to make sure that they go back to their clients once every two years—that is not too onerous—to ask, 'Is it okay if we keep taking money out of your account?' I am sure most people on the other side would want to know, maybe even more than once in every two years, if somebody was taking money out of their account. They might even want to know what are they taking the money for. I have had a close look at what these changes actually do. When the former, the stood-aside, Assistant Treasurer gets his stuff through, when it actually becomes part of the new regulations, it will mean that a firm, an institution or a bank can change the amount they charge you, they can change the length of the agreement and they do not have to inform you. They do not have to disclose it. It is specifically written in. This is the tragedy of what these guys do not understand. They are not going to read the detail because for them it is all just about sweeping away red tape. You are sweeping away red tape but you are also sweeping away the protections that ordinary mums and dads have in investment and financial world. There are some very important measures in place, whether they are in best interests, in the opt-in or in the annual disclosure, so that every single one of you actually knows what you are getting and what you are being charged.
We got rid of banned commissions, which everybody in this sector agreed with. Now they are going to change the definition of 'advice' and reintroduce banned commissions. They are going to get rid of the catch-all and the safe harbour, and they are going to scrap opt-in. Worst of all, this has been a shambolic process from day one with draft legislation being dropped a couple of days before Christmas and people having until the middle of January to respond, while not taking it through the scrutiny of the House.
The issue of charities was raised earlier. The Financial Services Council estimate that charitable trusts will save more than $2 million in compliance costs with the disbandment of the ACMC; and that is obviously money that could be allocated to charitable areas; that is to say, the recipients of charity. Like all these things in the deregulatory area, the arguments against deregulation are theoretical but the effects of actually deregulating are practical and real—in this case, $2 million in trust savings.
This is a discussion that is ostensibly about Western Australia, but in 15 minutes of speech from the opposition we had no more than one sentence addressing issues relevant to Western Australia. I thought I might touch on a few issues relevant to Western Australia, just to break that small habit. Before I do that, I would like to place my speech in the context of the notion of this matter of public importance. The wording has an element of spin about it. We hear that word often. Spin is defined as 'the act or practice of attempting to manipulate the way an event is interpreted by others often in a way which is contrary to the best reasonable assessment of the quality of the act.' There are two basic types spin. The first is where you have an event which, on the best factual evidence, is a positive event and the aim of the spin is to have people interpret it negatively. The alternative is an event which, on the best factual evidence, is a negative event and the aim is to have people interpret it positively. We have an event here, which is the deregulatory agenda of the coalition government. A good example of trying to convey a negative event positively—this is a story from the internet so it must be true—is a story about a Ms Wallman, a professional genealogist. She is doing work on her own family tree when she discovers that a relative of hers was also a relative of the US congressmen Harry Reid. It turns out that the great uncle of Mr Harry Reid, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. The story says the only known photograph of Remus Reid shows him standing on the gallows in Montana Territory. On the back of the photo an inscription read:
Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.
Ms Wallman, so the story goes, corresponds with the good congressmen's office and he sends back, through his staff, a description, a biographical sketch, of his great uncle, which reads:
Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.
That is an excellent example of how an event which is largely negative can be spun to look positive. What we have before us is a proposal attempting to do the precise opposite of that—to take an event which is overwhelmingly positive for WA and try to find some kind of negativity in it, no matter how minor, imagined or pretend. In fact, what we have here is a classic example of a motion where there is a massive expanse of silver lining in the sky and Labor is trying desperately to find some kind of imagined dark cloud.
The event that we are interpreting here is yesterday's deregulation event from the coalition government—legislation and documents tabled to repeal more than 10,000 unnecessary and counterproductive pieces of legislation and regulation, and 50,000 pages of unnecessary and costly regulation. The effect will be $700 million a year in compliance cost savings. That is in one year, so the accumulation of that effect will be extremely significant—$700 million in year one, $1.4 billion by year two, $2.1 billion by year three and $2.8 billion by year four. Some of the headline features of this process are particularly beneficial for WA. The NOPSEMA reform, to have a one stop shop for compliance for offshore oil and gas, will provide massive savings of about $120 million a year recurrent Australia wide. WA represents 75 per cent of Australia's oil and condensate production and 55 per cent of our gas production and, accordingly, the share of WA's benefit of that $120 million compliance cost saving is about 80 per cent. So, in year one the compliance cost saving to the WA economy will be $96 million; it will be $192 million in year two, $288 million in year three and $384 million in year four. Yet, we have here in a discussion about WA spurious arguments about the charity sector. WA's mineral and petroleum exports represent 89 per cent of the state's total merchandise exports and 47 per cent of the nation's total merchandise exports. We are also getting rid of the mining tax as part of this deregulatory package. Here is a massive expanse of silver lining; there aren't any dark clouds. (Time expired)
Yesterday, in this House, the Assistant Minister for Education suggested that the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education would be axed as part of their red tape repeal day. I am sure the previous speaker, the member for Pearce, knows there are child-care centres in WA, and that is why it is relevant that that issue be raised in this matter of public importance. I cannot believe that the minister stood here and said that quality child care was red tape. I cannot believe that she stood here and suggested that we need to get rid of the quality framework that ensures good child care. To have good child care we need a system; a system that will ensure good child care. The minister went on to say that she thought it was okay to have less-qualified staff. Part of the quality framework involves ensuring that there are trained staff and ratios setting the requisite number of qualified staff to educate and care for our youngest Australians. But yesterday the minister suggested that this framework was nonsense. In fact, she used the word 'madness'—it was madness to suggest that child-care centres should be required to have qualified staff working in them. She thought it would be okay to have not a kindergarten teacher but a cert III, or rather than having a qualified kindergarten teacher we should have someone with absolutely no qualifications teaching children. It is hard to believe that part of getting rid of red tape includes completely axing the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education. It is what ensures that our youngest Australians get the care and education they deserve.
To be honest, the stunt yesterday was a smokescreen. It was about trying to cover up what this government is trying to do—trying to do in terms of cuts in jobs, cuts in health and cuts in education. It is also hard to believe that the minister, who was saying it was okay to have less-qualified staff, comes from the same government that says they are going to help people to go from a good job to a better job. Yet, they are saying it is okay to have people work in a child-care centre without qualifications. What is next? Are we going to see further cuts to higher education? That is where people get their qualifications. Are we going to see further cuts to health care?
Some time ago, the Abbott government was handed the biggest review into government spending in a generation. Because of the confusion, because of the mixed messages coming from government, Australians need to know more than ever what is in that Commission of Audit. Is the government hiding it? Is the secrecy because there are plans for privatisation? Is it the fact that public sector jobs will go?
We all know what happens when we cut public servants numbers: there is a reduction in the quality of service, there are fewer services and services are outsourced. There is only one reason why governments outsource services and that is so those workers get paid less. We see a dumbing-down of the workforce.
It will not come as a surprise to anybody opposite that in WA there are public servants. There are public servants working really hard to ensure that Centrelink queues are not 90-minutes long and there are public servants working really hard to ensure that Medicare offices stay open and people get help, but all we are seeing from those opposite is secrecy around the cuts. They are trying to hide the cuts because they do not want people in WA to know that they are about to axe their Centrelink staff, that they are about to axe any number of public sector jobs.
I want to touch on a couple of statistics that the CPSU brought up in a recent Senate inquiry. Twenty years ago the Public Service employed roughly 160,000 people for a population of 17.8 million, yet today they employ only a few thousand more. There are 167,000 employees working for the Public Service, yet our population has grown to 23.1 million, suggesting that we are already understaffed in terms of public servants. If you think that we had the ratio right 20 years ago, then we do not have the ratio right today. Every time I am out there talking to people, they always tell me about their need to get access to our services, but if we continue these cuts, if we continue to wind back the jobs, we will see longer queues and more people waiting. That is not what Australians want.
I must admit I had to come to the table to actually read the terms of the matter of public importance after the member for Fraser's contribution. The topic is the government’s moves to cut transparency, accountability and consumer protection and its impact particularly on the voters of Western Australia. I listened carefully to the member's contribution, as I always do, and that is why I had to come and look at the blue sheet, because I was not quite sure that he was on topic. Given the fact that all we heard about from the member for Bendigo was child care, it is obviously an open discussion; we can talk about anything.
I want to talk about something that is very important, and that is the carbon tax. It was not mentioned in the MPI, but given the fact that everybody else is talking about everything I will have my turn too. An interview published today by the ABC—so it has to be correct-says:
West Australian Labor MP Alannah MacTiernan says the Federal Opposition should go "back to the drawing board" on the mining tax.
The government wants to repeal the mining and carbon tax for reasons that are obvious, particularly for Western Australia, which is referred to in the MPI but which Labor forgot to refer to.The ABC goes on:
Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says Labor's policy is to support the mining tax.
He says one thing in Perth; he says another thing in Canberra. The article says:
But Ms MacTiernan—
the member for Perth—
says the policy, implemented by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and former Treasurer Wayne Swan—
the current member for Lilley—
has been ineffective.
"I think it would be fair to say that the mining tax hasn't done the job that it was designed to do," Ms MacTiernan told reporters at Parliament House in Canberra. "This is time to look at that again and look at how we do that in a better way. "We will have to be talking to state governments about how to introduce a successful mining tax."
Well, the mining tax has not been a success. Labor's whole budget was based on the mining tax reaping these rivers of money, which were never realised. Unfortunately, so many programs which Labor put forward just have not been able to materialise because there was no money brought forth by the mining tax.
We know where Labor and the Greens stand with the repeal of the carbon tax. Today in the Senate it was voted down 33 to 29. What a disgrace. Last year, on 7 September, we had an election where the will of the people endorsed the coalition overwhelmingly to get rid of the mining and the carbon taxes, but today in the Senate we have the Greens and Labor, that formidable duo, once again knocking back the will of the people—once again turning their backs on Australians. Labor and the Greens just do not get it. The people of Western Australia go to the polls on 5 April to elect a new Senate—hopefully, they will endorse the coalition overwhelmingly again. Labor and the Greens do not get that Western Australia do not want a carbon tax. They do not understand that 7 September last year, which has been eradicated from the calendars of all those opposite, saw the Australian people have their say and vote for the abolition of the carbon and mining taxes. They do not understand that the coalition does get Australian families, does get small business, which is the engine room of the Australian economy, that it does understand the impost which the carbon tax places on families, and that it has a bill to reduce their electricity bills.
Today, Labor and the Greens yet again said no. They are so negative, those on the other side; they just say no all the time. Today, Labor and the Greens sent a message to Western Australia—they are smart people over in Western Australia—and I bet they are listening. I bet you they know that this government wants to get rid of the mining and carbon taxes and that this opposition wants to continue those job-destroying, economy-crippling carbon and mining taxes. The Western Australian people saw today that the Labor Party and the Greens do not want to work with the new government. They do not want to accept the results of 7 September; they do not want to abolish the carbon and mining taxes. If the people of Western Australia want a strong voice in the Senate, they need to know that they should not vote Labor and certainly should not vote Greens. They need to get on board with the coalition, get on board with the Liberals or the Nationals, and put good people in the Senate who will overturn these economy-wide, job-destroying, crippling taxes. They have to vote for the coalition.
Senator Cormann, the Minister for Finance, said that nearly 100 per cent of all relevant Australian iron ore production takes place in the Pilbara region of Western Australia and it is being hurt by the mining tax. Furthermore, WA taxpayers were forced to pay $627 million in carbon tax last year, increasing the cost of living for families and increasing the cost of doing business in Western Australia. I say to Western Australian voters: get on board, vote for the coalition on 5 April and get rid of the mining and carbon taxes.
Each and every day the Abbott government finds a new way to cut transparency, accountability and consumer protection. The people of Western Australia deserve to know the details of the Commission of Audit and what cuts the Abbott government has in store for them—cuts to education, cuts to health, cuts to the pension and a new GP tax. The people of Western Australia need to know that. They need to know that the Abbott government says one thing before an election and another after. They stand condemned.
I rise today to let the House know that last Friday the Bendigo Art Gallery opened its new extensions. The project was worth $8.5 million and increased the gallery's size by about a third. There will now be underground storage for the permanent collection.
The gallery was established in 1887 and is one of the oldest in Australia. The new extension will be used for temporary exhibitions and will also showcase some of the gallery's permanent collection. The extensions also have spaces to project on, which allow contemporary and historical works to be displayed. The gallery now has the flexibility to meet the needs of a growing audience and our local community.
The arts are valuable and they are also valuable for our local economy. In 2012, before the extensions, the Bendigo Art Gallery displayed the exclusive Grace Kelly exhibition, and it was a hit with people not just from Bendigo but from all over Victoria. The economic impact on the Bendigo economy was worth more than $16 million. The exhibition ran from March to June.
Investment in culture in Bendigo is a good investment. Cultural tourists are attracted to Bendigo. We are a thriving cultural economy. Just over 9.8 per cent of attendees to the Grace Kelly exhibition were from interstate and a further 0.4 per cent were from overseas. Melbourne residents made up the highest proportion of visitors, and a further 20 per cent of visitors came from other parts of regional Victoria.
I can remember talking to coffee shop, cafe and restaurant owners, and they talked about how people would arrive by train, walk through the town, pop in for lunch and then pop up to the gallery. One owner, Tim Baxter, owner/operator of The Dispensary Enoteca, told me that the only time he is really profitable and really makes money is during excellent exhibitions at the art gallery. That is another example of how important our cultural economy is to other parts of our economy in Bendigo. During the exhibition, he was turning away 20 to 50 people for most lunches and dinners for three months straight.
The Bendigo Art Gallery and its new extension will have a positive impact on our local community. La Trobe University are partnering with the council and the art gallery. Investment in our arts and training is an investment in a creative Australia.
I am proud to have one of the paintings from the Parliament House art collection in my office here in Canberra. It is a painting by abstract artist Roger Kemp. Roger Kemp was born in Bendigo in 1944 and won the Bendigo Art Gallery prize. Roger was born in Long Gully, one of the most impoverished parts of Bendigo. I am proud to have his work in my office here in Canberra and hope that it will be joined by the works of other artists from the Bendigo electorate.
The Bendigo Art Gallery has stimulated and inspired the growth of artists throughout our region. Whether they be students studying one of the new courses at the university or involved the new La Trobe Art Institute—an alliance between the Bendigo Art Gallery, the City of Greater Bendigo and the university—art lovers or artists who have lived in the region forever, the Bendigo Art Gallery is home to them all.
I acknowledge the efforts of the Bendigo Art Gallery board and its director, Karen Quinlan, the City of Greater Bendigo, the former Premier of Victoria, John Brumby, and the former Minister for Regional and Rural Development, Jacinta Allan. Together, they had the vision and foresight to put the money aside in the budget for these extensions.
We welcome everybody to come to Bendigo to enjoy our gallery, to see our new extensions and engage in the exciting exhibitions and programs of 2014. Come help us grow our cultural economy. Next year, we hope that the theatre project will be completed. Again, that is another great state Labor and federal Labor government project. The theatre will be open to you soon.
I rise this afternoon to make mention of two important community events that occurred in the Casey electorate in the last week or so. Last Friday, I had the honour of attending the opening of the Montrose & District Men's Shed. All of us in this House know the great work that groups of volunteers do to raise community passion and the funds needed to open Men's Sheds, and that has certainly been the situation in the Montrose community. With some help from the local council and Councillor Len Cox, the organising committee were able to obtain the old Montrose fire station, that was no longer in use. It was originally built in the 1940s, and for a number of weeks and months they have been restoring that fire station so that it is fit for purpose as a new home for the Montrose & District Men's Shed. They currently have about 15 members.
I want to pay tribute to the president, Max Lamb, and the project leader, Geoff Brown. None of this would have been possible without the dedication of so many contributors in the Montrose community. Montrose, which is in the heart of the Casey electorate, has a very strong local community. I want to make mention of those who made contributions to enable the Montrose & District Men's Shed to get off the ground: the late Ken Dowling, a wonderful man who passed away recently and who did so much for Montrose in so many ways over so many years—his wife, Chris, and their daughter were there for the opening. There is also Gary Brown; Councillor Len Cox, who I have mentioned; Bendigo Bank; the Rotary Club of Montrose and District; and the Montrose & District Lions Club.
On Sunday of last week, I had the pleasure of attending the 21st birthday celebrations for the historic Mont De Lancey in Wandin. This is a historic property that dates back to the late 1800s. Twenty-one years ago, a group of locals—in fact, four descendants of the original pioneers, the Sebire family—got together with the local community to restore this wonderful property into a community asset, which it is today. It is a museum. It is a place where local school children can visit and view firsthand what that part of Australia was like in our colonial days.
After a number of years of work—much fundraising—and with the help of a group of dedicated volunteers, the Mont De Lancey historical home and museum was opened back in March of 1993. It was quite fitting that they had a 21st birthday celebration that brought together all of the volunteers over all of those years on Sunday to celebrate all that they have achieved. It was great to see the president, Alison Sebire, and Gordon Chapman, a past president who has done so much there with so many others. I have absolutely no doubt that Mont De Lancey will go from strength to strength with the community passion and commitment that saw it revived and opened again to the public and that saw it thrive in the years since its opening back in 1993. When the volunteers come together to celebrate their 40th birthday, they will be able to look back on nearly two decades of additional achievement.
Labor's National Broadband Network was to deliver superfast broadband to the front door of 93 per cent of all Australians. It was the most important infrastructure project of the next decade, a true nation-building project. It was to change the lives of residents in our cities and regions alike. High-speed broadband internet access is today a utility, not a luxury.
Like electricity, gas and water, it is an essential service. Children cannot go through school without it. Businesses rely on it to trade, advertise and deliver customer service. Innovators and researchers use broadband to connect with others around the world, as they search for major scientific breakthroughs or compete in the global digital economy. Any nation in the world that does not have reliable, fast internet access will fall drastically behind, locally and globally.
Prior to the election of this government, my electorate of Newcastle was due to have 100 per cent coverage of fibre to all premises by the end of 2016. Superfast access would connect them to the rest of the country and the world. Every home, school, hospital, health clinic and business was set to be connected. Construction on the network commenced in the suburb of Mayfield last year. Planned works and interchange upgrades were underway or completed in New Lambton and Hamilton. Some residents in Thornton, Stockton and Beresfield were to benefit from the broadband access for the first time. That is right. There are still places in Newcastle, a major regional economic hub, that have no broadband access whatsoever. Digital economy leaders have made major business decisions to locate themselves in Newcastle. Our city's size, diversity and population make it an ideal location to run major technology trials. Not only is Newcastle missing out on superfast fibre-to-the-premises broadband, this government has wiped my electorate entirely off their new rollout maps.
Last week, I welcomed a visit from the shadow communications minister, Jason Clare, who wanted to see the situation for himself and to hear directly from residents and business men and women in Newcastle. We went to Mayfield, the suburb I mentioned earlier, which is about five kilometres west of Newcastle's CBD. NBN Co had commenced construction in that area last year. I had residents contact me during the election campaign, excited that there was activity in the area with the NBN Co trucks starting work in their streets. It turns out their excitement was premature.
When this government came to office, they called the trucks back in and cancelled all of the work in the suburb. Rather than making plans to see which superfast broadband package would suit their needs best, Mayfield residents now visit NBN Co's online rollout, if they have access to internet in the first place, and plug-in their addresses only to receive the following message:
The NBN rollout has not started in your area. Keep checking the website for updates and more information.
It is a source of endless frustration for residents. They saw on their street trucks with NBN Co written on the side one day, and now the message, from the same organisation, under this new government, says rollout has not commenced.
This government is creating a digital divide of haves and have-nots. The residents of Mayfield, like the broader electorate of Newcastle, have been designated into the have-nots basket. The digital economy leaders that the shadow communications minister and I met the other day were frustrated, as were the residents of Mayfield. We learnt that mining engineers and geologists are forced to physically deliver data files on USB sticks in a five-hour dangerous road trip to and from work sites. This is hardly 21st century best practice. Large data files and video files are being couriered or driven one hour or more to the Central Coast to access the 'big pipe', as they call it—areas where fibre to the premise is already available. Businesses wanted to base themselves in Newcastle, but are being forced to consider relocating their businesses elsewhere. Again, I remind you, this is not an issue about fast music download or streaming TV. High-speed broadband, today, is an essential service enabling access to a global digital economy, providing health care to those who are less mobile or who are isolated and making sure children get the best quality education they deserve.
The people of Newcastle deserve to be on a level playing field. We are the second-largest city in New South Wales. We are not an outpost—we are just 150 kilometres from the centre of Sydney. We need a fast, reliable, affordable broadband service. We cannot afford to be left behind. I call on this government to give residents and businesses the assurance they deserve by releasing their rollout maps for the broadband network. We deserve better.
I rise to speak about the merits of the Australian government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program and the enthusiasm with which it is being embraced in the Lyne electorate. The local grants program is a key element of the entire Anzac Centenary program, which is acknowledging one of the most important, if not the most well-known, defining moment in our country's modern history—the World War I and Anzac tradition. The local grants program is aimed at engaging the community to acknowledge what happened in World War I and the huge numbers of Australian families it affected—many too tragically, as we all know. It is doing this by encouraging and assisting communities to conceptualise, design and deliver their own localised Anzac Centenary projects that commemorate the service and sacrifice of our First World War service men and women.
I am very pleased to report that the program is being embraced well and truly in the Lyne electorate. With the welcome funding of $125,000 per electorate, we have an enthusiastic committee which is working away in the seat of Lyne to guide and oversee the applications and recommend them on to the minister. I will indicate the range of projects that have come forward in a moment, but I must acknowledge that the final decisions on these recommendations will be made by the minister. The core members of this committee are, not too surprisingly, ex-servicemen—though not universally. But they are all continuing to serve their country and their mates through their roles in their respective RSL branches and sub-branches, and here I would like to acknowledge some of them: Greg Laird, Colin Clark and Kevin Lakey from Port Macquarie; Lance Gainey and Bob Metcalfe from Kendall; Bob Coombs and the inimitable Darcey Elbourne from Taree; Bob Murray and Max Poole from Gloucester; Mike McLelland from Laurieton; Joe Richards from Harrington; Roy Meguyer from Old Bar; Des Hancock from Wauchope; and Darren Robinson from Wingham.
But I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Wingham heart and soul, Mave Richardson AM PSM, who is also working away, contributing to the design of and the application for projects. And there are many others who have also been involved. They are Ron Irwin from Wingham, Darren Hooper from King Creek, Peter Teerman from Taree, Greg Cook from Port Macquarie, Terry Gould from Wherrol Flat and Ken Greenwood from Telegraph Point.
As for the projects, we have a wide array of projects coming forward that commemorate the services and sacrifices of our service men and women, now 100 years ago, and there is an array of interesting ideas and community activities coming forward. At one extreme we have the large-scale, somewhat more spectacular community events such as the essential and highly valued restoration of existing and development of new World War I honour boards and memorials. And at Telegraph Point, Wherroll Flat, Taree, Kendall, Old Bar and Elands, the communities are applying for funds to do these relatively small but enduring works to honour boards and memorials, where people gather to remember World War I and subsequent actions.
The Wingham community, on the other hand, is proposing to adorn the walls of the historic Wingham Hall in images of World War I servicemen and battles and is also proposing a writing competition for local school students to reflect on World War I and its impacts on the community. The small Mount George community is seeking to run a Back to Mount George Day featuring the families of those young men who enlisted and set off to war in Europe. The Laurieton RSL sub-branch is proposing a large Anzac Day community event featuring commemorative services, a re-enactment of army mess, breakfast for the community to participate in and a fly-over of Tiger Moth planes. Wauchope is proposing an event to take the town back in time to 1915, with period costume, equipment and sets to re-enact recruitment and military scenes, interactive displays and a Gallipoli trench. Other projects from Harrington, Gloucester and other members of the Lyne committee are forthcoming. It is going to be very difficult to separate the successful ones from those that have huge merit. I hope all of them get a guernsey, because they are all very worthy projects, and I look forward to making recommendations to the minister.
Over the next few weeks Western Australians will have a unique opportunity to make a statement about what they want for government, about how they want government to work to secure their future, their opportunity to secure a decent quality of life and to develop a strong and resilient community where everyone has a chance of a place in the sun. Unfortunately, the Abbott government has modelled itself on the extremism of the Tea Party. Its aim is to make government small, to undermine those strategic interventions that create that thing that makes us Australian—that universality of opportunity. The Abbott government is walking away from the hard issues—from delivering an education system that ensures that our kids will be able to participate successfully in an increasingly competitive global economy. Before the last election they committed to the Gonski education reforms. But instead of delivering that carefully targeted new funding they have allowed Premier Barnett to rip $113 million from the education budget, more than the total that the federal government will contribute under the Gonski project—a complete contravention of the principles of Gonski—so that WA schools across the state are losing teachers, education assistants and resources as schools in other states are receiving a massive cash injection.
The Abbott government is walking away from the hard issues around Perth's rapid growth. They say they do not do public transport and are pulling $500 million from the federal budget that has been committed for the expansion of our rail network. At the same time, congestion is creating major problems for productivity and for family life.
The Abbott government is threatening Medicare, which over the last 30 years has ensured that every Western Australian had free access to a first class public health system. They are in the process of dismantling carbon pricing and look set to undermine the Renewable Energy Target, which has seen 500,000 Western Australian households and businesses embrace solar power and solar hot water systems.
Not only are they playing Pontius Pilate in this, as we head towards the dangers of climate change, but they will be denying tens of thousands of Western Australians the opportunity to reduce their power bills and to have an electricity network that will be robust in the face of increasing fossil fuel prices.
They are repealing the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act that have worked for decades to help deliver harmony in this great melting pot of Australia. They have ditched any attempt to protect Australian jobs. Every advanced economy around the world has a government that takes an active involvement in ensuring the development of strategic industries. It does not happen by 'getting out of the way'. The internet, touch screens, wi-fi, all of these and many more are developments that came from government investment.
The coalition cannot even find room for a minister for science, let alone investment in scientific and technological research and skills formation. They are unpicking the constraints around the 457 visas, as unemployment in WA is now at a 10-year high, with 84,000 Western Australians out of work. Tell the Abbott government that you want a government that is out there actively fighting for you, your family, and for Western Australia. Vote for Labor in the coming election.
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister informed the House of a historic moment for the Australian Parliament: the introduction of legislation to repeal more than 10,000 acts and regulations. This represents the single largest bulk repeal in the history of the Commonwealth. We will cut red and green tape from nearly every portfolio. This will slash the compliance bill for the business and not-for-profit sectors by more than $700 million.
Those sectors form a foundation of our economic strength. The broader positive economic impact of these changes will be significantly larger. The Productivity Commission estimates $12 billion can be saved by eliminating red tape. Deregulation has the potential to ease the burden on almost every sector of our economy, from aged care to agriculture, from schools to small businesses, and from visas to veterans. Overregulation stifles investment and innovation, and impedes the creation of thousands of new jobs. During the six long years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government an additional 21,000 regulations were introduced. This has contributed to our current malaise, a situation where the World Economic Forum judged our great nation 128th out of the 148 countries surveyed for their burden of government regulation.
What do these changes mean to the people in my electorate of Bennelong? Ours is an electorate that boasts the innovation capital of Australia, employing thousands of local professionals, and one of our top universities. It has public and private hospitals and many hundreds of small businesses, which are the lifeblood of a local economy. In this new deregulated world universities will no longer be required each year to submit extensive and duplicated survey data on the size, use, management and maintenance of their lecture theatres, laboratories, offices and other facilities. Aged care providers, disability employment service providers and charities—like Alzheimer's Australia; Meningococcal Australia; and Achieve Australia, who I am proud to say I serve as patron of—will no longer be subjected to as much duplication with their paperwork, allowing them to focus on their core functions.
National businesses will be allowed to operate under one workers compensation scheme right around our nation, rather than having to operate in up to eight. Importers of veterinary medicines, of which we have several in Bennelong, will no longer need to re-register well established products over and over when those products have not been changed. Employers and small businesses will no longer be required to administer the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Instead, the paperwork will be centrally controlled by the government's family assistance office. The same will be true of superannuation payments. The administrative burden on employers will be lifted, with payments now remitted through the ATO.
Over the past few years I have developed my own form of direct action to assist these small businesses, called the Bennelong Village Business Initiative. This successful program aims to help communities throughout the Bennelong electorate to recognise the social benefit, convenience and genuine value of shopping locally. Through letterbox drops we encourage local residents to shop local, and to ask them to imagine their suburb without a vibrant local shopping village. We advertise the village of the month at no cost to businesses, we coordinate reduced advertising rates by bringing individual businesses together into a local village collective, and we organise community dinner events at local restaurants.
The next step to this initiative is an interactive social media project offering an online presence to retailers, and discounts to the public, as BVB members. I often visit these businesses and update them on activities in Canberra. I will be delighted to go back to them now and say to them that the coalition has heard their complaint that red tape is killing them, and we are honouring our election commitment to fix the mess that Labor left behind. Their confidence should grow as 'repeal day' will go a long way to reverse the strangulation on small business caused by the 21,000 regulations left as a legacy of the Labor years.
Despite all this work, I note that there is a long way to go. These changes form just the start of a cultural shift. We need to remove duplication between different levels of government and between different agencies of government, to streamline onerous and costly reporting requirements, and to take a common-sense approach to regulation. I will be inviting Bennelong small businesses to participate in this important process.
Given that there only a few minutes left before adjournment, I might take this opportunity, that I have been looking for over the week, to let the House know about an activity in my area that I was able to attend on 8 March. It was the 15th annual Bowelscan launch by our local Rotary clubs, who do a fantastic job with this program. It is great that governments of both persuasions have gotten behind it and expanded the Bowelscan program as a preventative health measure.
I just want to acknowledge Alf Harley, a great local Rotarian who started it 15 years ago, and who is well supported by the clubs across the region. We have a guest speaker, Professor Ian Olver AM, who is the CEO of Cancer Council Australia. He made the point very well that it is one thing to get the scan program out, but we have to also make people aware that they need to take the test and return it. Prevention relies on you actually participating. We have a great song. I will not give you the lyrics, but I encourage people to imagine local musician Graham Wilson, who has a song that reminds us of the important of the Bowelscan program. All over there are locals getting together, such as Ryan Park the member for Keira, Gordon Bradbery the local mayor, local GPs and Southern IML Pathology, all coming together to support a really important and great initiative.
Order! It being just after 5pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
Today I am here to speak about the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Recently I had the pleasure of attending an Australia Day multifaith dinner hosted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association Victorian branch at the Bait-us Salam mosque in Langwarrin, an event which celebrates Australia Day and the coming together of people from different faiths and different cultural backgrounds. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community hold peace, reconciliation, harmony, love and mutual respect as their key values and, importantly, promote open interfaith dialogue to remove misunderstanding and to achieve inter-religious harmony. They have worked tirelessly to convey the peaceful message of Islam and to discredit supposed Islamic justifications for terrorism or extremism.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Association have as their motto 'love for all and hatred for none' and they are deeply committed to upholding this doctrine. Despite this, the Ahmadiyya community face persecution in many countries around the world, including Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia, where they are considered non-Muslim and, as a result, face serious breaches of their human rights, such as not having the right to vote and having their lives at constant risk because of their moderate beliefs.
In October last year I had the pleasure of meeting with his Holiness Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the fifth Khalifa of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim community, who expressed in his speech and powerful presentation the peaceful beliefs of the Ahmadiyya community and their enduring commitment to support Ahmadiyyas around the world and the communities they live within.
Globally the Ahmadiyya Muslim community has built over 15,000 mosques, 500 schools and 300 hospitals. It has translated the holy Koran into 70 languages and propagates the true meaning of Islam and the message of peace and tolerance through the internet, print and a 24-hour satellite television channel. The Ahmadiyya community is heavily involved in social welfare activities for the benefit not only of its members but of the broader community. It runs a number of schools and medical facilities across Africa and Asia. It also has a very powerful role and influence in Victoria.
Last week I met with a raft of important Ahmadiyya community members. The Victorian branch of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association are the largest chapter in Australia and they are actively involved in supporting the broader community. These are people who are putting their money where their mouths are, reaching out, trying to connect across faiths and across the community, promoting tolerance and understanding. Unfortunately, for their trouble, in other countries that I have mentioned they are being persecuted; they are literally being killed. President Obama mentioned this in a prayer breakfast speech in Washington. They are a great community; they are a community we should be holding and promoting. I congratulate them on their endeavours and look forward to working with them in the future.
There is an emerging need for a landmark regional cultural facility in my electorate of Moore to accommodate performing arts, visual arts, crafts, film and media. The north-west corridor of the Perth metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. In 2013 the region had a population of 334,000 residents and is expected to grow by a further 200,000 residents over the next 20 years. There is a need for a venue with sufficient seating capacity for close to 1,000 patrons for concerts, graduations and major civic events.
The City of Joondalup, led by visionary mayor Troy Pickard, has played an instrumental role in initiating the Joondalup Performing Arts and Cultural Facility, with the aim of creating an inclusive environment to celebrate imagination and creativity, inspiring individuals and the community to take part in culture and the arts. In 2006, the city purchased land suitable for the development of the performing arts centre from the Department of Education. It is located at lot 1001, in Teakle Court, Joondalup.
Since then, the city has commissioned a project feasibility study based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data on population projections, as well as culture and arts participation rates, to assess the demand for regional cultural facilities. The research undertaken for the market analysis and feasibility study indicated that there is currently a significant underprovision for performing arts and cultural facilities in the north-western corridor. The analysis found evidence that local residents are travelling outside the city of Joondalup to attend cultural events.
A steering committee for the project has been established. An architectural design competition attracted 21 entries from architects. Various design options for the centre were examined. The preferred Art Box option includes an 850-seat lyric theatre, a 200-seat black-box theatre, a dedicated art gallery and hospitality facilities. The capital cost of the performing arts centre and cultural facility is estimated to be in the order of $91 million. This figure will increase to approximately $113 million with the inclusion of car parking and commercial tenancies. The City of Joondalup is not in a financial position to fund the construction of the facility in its entirety. The city is seeking capital-funding commitments from both the state and federal governments to construct this important regional facility.
This week my office was informed by the office of the Minister for Human Services, Senator Marise Payne, that our local Medicare office in Kingsford Smith, situated at the Eastgardens shopping centre, will no longer be open and making services available to the community on Saturdays. This is a great shame. The Medicare office in Eastgardens, which serviced my community, was well patronised on a Saturday. The largest demographic in our community is young families, and most of those families have both parents working five days a week, so, if they are to avail themselves of important health services at the local Medicare office, they need access to a service on the weekends. Our local Medicare office was providing that service. Now that will be taken away from our community. This is a great shame and something that is opposed by working families in my community.
It comes on the back of the consideration by this government of the possibility of a $6 Medicare co-payment, a GP tax, as some have described it. In my community, 85 per cent of visits to the GP are bulk-billed. If this $6 co-payment is introduced by the Abbott government, it will mean that constituents in the seat of Kingsford Smith, in our community, will pay an additional $5.6 million to visit their local GP. That is something that those on fixed incomes, the elderly and those on invalid pensions cannot afford to pay for a visit to the local doctor, in a system which is supposed to provide universal health care for all Australians. The elderly person with a crook back or a dodgy knee who relies on regular visits to their GP, the young girl with a mental illness who relies on a regular visit to the GP for prescription medication—these are the people who will be hit by an additional payment of $6 if it is adopted by the Abbott government.
In the 2013 election, the No. 1 issue in our community was cuts to the Prince of Wales Hospital by the Liberal state government and access to good-quality healthcare services. People throughout Australia and in my community want better health services. Unfortunately, this Abbott government is cutting health services by introducing a possible GP tax and closing our local Medicare office on Saturdays.
In early March I had the pleasure of attending a significant event in New Norcia's history and met with many of my constituents in this tranquil community. I was not sure what to expect when I agreed to attend a bicentenary celebration of the birth of New Norcia's founder, Dom Rosendo Salvado, but I must say I was in my element, joining with Abbot John and other New Norcia monks and community at the Abbey Church of the Holy Trinity to sing the celebratory hymns.
The small town of New Norcia is located 132 kilometres north of Perth, and, yes, it is in the electorate of Durack. It is a town like no other in Australia. In fact, it is Australia's only monastic town. It was established in 1847 by Spanish Benedictine monk Rosendo Salvado as a mission for the local Aboriginal people. Although the town's distinctive religious history is enough to draw you there, it is the town's, and in particular Salvado's, support of Aboriginal culture since its establishment that should continue to be highlighted and commended by all.
It is said that Salvado's original mission was to create among the Aboriginal peoples of the Victoria Plains a Christian, largely self-sufficient village based on agriculture, but he ended up focusing some 54 years of his life on giving a practical education to the Aboriginal children who were brought to New Norcia from all over Western Australia. According to the New Norcia Aboriginal Corporation, Salvado was considered a friend of the local Aboriginal people, the Yued people of the Noongar nation, and gained their trust. It is his records and perceptions of the Aboriginal men and women he encountered in New Norcia that have since provided important historical information about the Noongar people, including being used to support the Noongar native title claim. These works can now be viewed at the Salvado Bicentenary Exhibition at the New Norcia Museum and Art Gallery, and they will be on display for the next 12 months.
Although New Norcia is largely self-sufficient, there are still ways that this government can help to ensure its long-term sustainability, including supporting my call for urgent infrastructure funding to build a much-needed bypass road for the increasing volumes of heavy traffic that pass by the town on the Great Northern Highway. About 1,000 vehicles, including road trains and triples, use this road every day. At present there are valuable European artworks hanging on monastery walls which are only metres from these extremely wide truckloads. This is causing not only the town's ambience to be disturbed but its tourism ventures to suffer as well, due to dangerous road conditions. I encourage my federal colleagues on both sides of the House, and my state colleagues, to support my call for funding and to take the time when they are in Western Australia to witness this unique community firsthand.
Australia's National Heritage List was put in place in 2003 as an amalgamation or consolidation of three national heritage lists so that we could have one which identified the most culturally significant sites in our nation. This is a very important list and has on it many places that would be well known to everyone. It also includes some very significant other places such as the Cascades Female Factory Yard 4 North, the Moree Baths and Swimming Pool, the Mount William Stone Hatchet Quarry and the Echuca Wharf, all very important sites indeed, but in all of these sites there is a significant omission, and that is that there is not a single site in the city of Geelong which is on Australia's National Heritage List. This is a disgrace.
Geelong is a deeply historic city in Australia. As I have said before in this place, it was meant to be and would now be Victoria's capital but for some 19th century Melbourne shysters who doctored a map to show Melbourne closer to Ballarat than Geelong, which of course it is not. On the back of that, investment was put into the port of Melbourne rather than the port of Geelong, and this is a matter which still causes some consternation to those of us in Geelong today.
When Australia rode on the back of the sheep, most of that trade came through Geelong. It was Australia's wool capital. Cunningham Pier was a critical place for a lot of that trade. The wool stores along the waterfront are historic and now form part of Deakin University. Customs House is one of the oldest customs houses in Australia. But for me, amidst all of that history, the greatest connection between the people of Geelong and Corio Bay, the water, is Eastern Beach. At the site of Eastern Beach there has been continuous usage since the 1840s. It was first proposed to build a precinct there in 1914. Works commenced in 1927 and it was opened in 1939. What we have now is a shark-proof enclosure in Corio Bay with a boardwalk and a kids pool. It is a wonderful art deco construction by the architect Harry Hare.
It is used and has been continuously used since the 1840s. Denis Walter's Carol's by the Bay is held there every year. Indeed, just last Sunday, there were thousands of people there—as there often are with major events—for the Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon in which my daughter Bella competed. It is symbolic of Australia's connection with the sea—as is the Bondi swimming pool, the North Sydney swimming pool and, more recently, the wonderful Cairns swimming pool. I might say that Bondi is on the National Heritage List.
We have had a tough 12 months. I reiterate a call I have made here on numerous occasions: that Eastern Beach should be put on Australia's National Heritage List, so that the omission, which is Geelong not being there, is rectified. (Time expired)
Last Sunday's announcement by motorway company Transurban Group that it has chosen Lend Lease and Bouygues as the construction partners for NorthConnex, the critical missing link infrastructure which will link the M1—formerly known as the F3—and the M2 is good news for my constituents in Bradfield. This is yet another tangible step forward on this important project, following the commitment of $405 million made by the Abbott government federally and a $405 million by the O'Farrell government at the state level.
The heavy congestion which presently exists along Pennant Hills Road has a very serious impact on the suburbs of Wahroonga, Normanhurst and Thornleigh. NorthConnex is a project that will help to address that problem. It will be a nine-kilometre long tunnel, running under the existing route of Pennant Hills Road and it will link the M1 and the M2 motorways. The consequence will be to reduce congestion, shorten travel times and improve safety. It is a major project to build these twin tunnels and the total budget is around $3 billion. When this project is completed residents along Pennant Hills Road will enjoy a quieter, safer and more pleasant community to live in. It will also make Pennant Hills road easier and quicker to use for local traffic.
Importantly, the project is now moving into the planning approval phase. The benefits that we can expect from this project include an easing of traffic congestion. In particular, it is expected to enable commuters and freight trucks to bypass up to 21 traffic lights and reduce travel time by up to 15 minutes. It will also reduce the number of heavy vehicles travelling along Pennant Hills Road by more than 5,000 trucks per day. As well as a benefit to Pennant Hills Road there is also expected to be a benefit to the suburbs along the Pacific Highway—which runs right through the centre of Bradfield—as some traffic between Sydney and the Central Coast and points north will divert from the Pacific Highway to NorthConnex.
This is a very important piece of infrastructure, jointly funded by the federal and state governments, which has now reached an advanced stage of assessment. I want to see this project built to deliver benefits to the communities that I represent and I want to ensure that, as it proceeds, its design addresses the proper and reasonable concerns of nearby residents. Key design principles for this project have been identified in work done over the last decade. I am keen to ensure that community feedback is properly captured and reflected in the design of this very important project.
Three years ago one of my constituents, Tim, was a kid living in an extremely violent home. Amongst the adults he knew, you really were not anyone until you had done some prison time. At 15 he was starting to disengage from school, but this kid was smart. His teachers connected him to TaskForce, a Youth Connections provider in my electorate and they worked intensively to help keep him connected to school when all of his mates were dropping out. This year, Tim will be the first person in his family ever to go to university. For this young person it was a lucky escape.
Youth unemployment is higher than 20 per cent in some parts of Australia. For 15- to 19-year olds looking for full-time work, unemployment is 25.5 per cent on average and tops 40 per cent in some parts of our country. Defined more broadly, an even larger number of young people are disengaging. The Council of Australian Governments reported late last year that 41.7 per cent of disadvantaged young Australians between the ages of 15 to 24 are neither fully engaged in work nor in study.
What really worries me is that when we look at all these measures the situation for Australia's young people is getting worse, not better. For kids who do not make a smooth transition from school into work or further study the future looks bleak. Casual work is rife and disproportionately affects Australians with lower skill levels and younger workers. In a past Australia, people like Lindsay Fox and Paul Keating could go on to incredible professional lives without finishing school, but those days are behind us. In the new economy, skills are king. If young people spend the first years of their working life standing in a dole queue, they may never enjoy secure employment.
That is why we need to support young Australians to stay in education and training for as long as they can. If education is not working out for them, we need to support them to get a fast, secure foothold in the workforce. That is what Youth Connections, delivered so ably by Task Force in my electorate, is for. It has been widely reported that this program is for the chopping block. Youth organisations tell me that Youth Connections works and that cutting the funding would be a mistake. But what they are most concerned about is that Youth Connections will disappear and there will be no program to replace it, that is no specific support for these young people at this critical time of their lives. Most of us in this chamber enjoy the benefits of the new economy, but I can hardly think of anything more socially and economically backward or unfair than cutting funding to young people in our society at the very moment when they need it most. The evidence shows us that life for disadvantaged people in Australia is getting harder, not easier. These kids have potential and they deserve a hand up. If we provide them with that, there will be more people in Australia with a story like Tim's, and that is the kind of Australia most of us want to live in.
I want to alert my community to my new website, which will be launched next week: KevinHogan.com.au. I have designed this to be very much a community resource. There is one section that already a lot of people have started to contribute to, what we are calling the community hub section. On this part of the website, people can advertise a community event. We have got a lot of links from other websites, so, if you are having a fete, if you are raising money for a charity, if you want people to turn up to something on the weekend, you can put that event on this website. Hopefully, it will be one-stop shop for all the events that are happening in our local community.
Another very important part of that is that there is a 'do something now in your community' part. We have linked to that every organisation in our community that is looking for volunteers. As we go around the community, one essence I get from the people I talk to is that people who volunteer in our community are essential. They carry a lot of organisations and provide a lot of services that government just could not do. We are very thankful for that. The other thing people say is that people who volunteer get as much enjoyment and value out of it as the people they are helping. So there is going to be a one-stop shop for all volunteer organisations. If you want to get involved in your community, please go and look at that. There is also a business hub to help all small businesses in the community. It has got a lot of local chamber news, workshops and training things that are on in our environment, also business news about what is going on. There will be a local history part of the website for school students or anyone else interested in what is going on in our community. It has great local history and is linked to education websites, so, if teachers are looking for information about different towns or our community in general, all that will be there: facts, figures and statistics. We will also have a local news section and links to local news providers about what is going on in our community.
Importantly, I get contacted a lot about what grants are available for different sporting clubs or other clubs in our community. There will be a one-stop shop area for community grants to go to that part of the website and how to apply, and the links to that will be there as well. There also obviously be a section where, if you want to contact me or you have an issue that you wish to talk about, you can use it. Again, any community organisation, anyone looking to volunteer, any small business, anyone looking for any information, I encourage you to go to KevinHogan.com.au, which will open next week.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a very significant development for residents of Gorton, in particular our local veterans. On 21 February, we saw a slice of local history unfold in Caroline Springs. The Caroline Springs Returned Services League Sub-branch officially opened its doors, at a moving event which brought together around 200 supporters. As you know, Deputy Speaker Scott, the RSL is a cornerstone of many communities, and the Caroline Springs RSL Sub-branch joins one of Australia's oldest and most respected national organisations.
We have 200 to 300 young service men and women and their families living in Gorton who will benefit from this new facility. The opening was a very well-attended affair. Indeed, it was an uplifting experience for me and for many others who were there. The RSL state president, Major General David McLachlan, AO, officially opened the club. Also, there was material support from the Collingwood Football Club. I pay tribute to them, in particular to Rodney Eade, who represented them on the day. I do so as a St Kilda supporter.
The Caroline Springs sub-branch will be a place of camaraderie and concern, mateship and welfare, loyalty and support. I encourage local residents to continue with their activities or indeed to become more involved. In particular, I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the sub-branch's first president, Mr Peter Burquest, and the first vice-president, Mr Murray Lewis. Without the hard work and determination of Murray and Peter, the sub-branch would not have got off the ground. Indeed, they are still surprised by their own efforts. If you knew the dedication they put into this project, you would not be surprised.
I look forward to joining Murray, Peter and other veterans and their families for the local dawn service to commemorate Anzac Day. I warmly wish Murray, Peter and everyone who played a hand in bringing this club to life all the very best for the future.
Providing foreign aid is as important to Australia as it is to the recipients. With economic growth comes demand for the products Australia can supply. With economic growth comes political stability. Some sections of the community would argue that, in a budget emergency, charity begins at home and the foreign aid money should be diverted to domestic projects. This thinking is misguided and is not something that I, in any way, support.
Stephen Ives lives in Longford in my electorate of Lyons. Stephen is an agronomist and farming systems scientist who works with the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture. Since 2011, he has spent part of each year in Vietnam as part of a foreign aid research program, working alongside Vietnamese scientists to help fill the food gap in that developing country. Part of the research is determining the limitations to growing good-quality beef, better understanding the value chain from paddock to plate and what consumers are looking for when they purchase beef. Australia's beef exports have risen as the economic prosperity of our trading partners has increased—testament Japan post the Second World War, South Korea, Indonesia and China. This project, funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, started in March 2011 and will run until March 2015. First principles say that economic growth cannot be achieved without providing the fundamental building block of adequate nutrition for the population. You cannot fix up your own backyard when you do not know what is wrong in the backyard—hence the importance of Stephen's work.
Good nutrition is vital. RESULTS is an international, non-partisan, grassroots advocacy organisation whose members campaign for the public and political will to end poverty. Gina Olivieri is RESULTS grassroots engagement manager. In 2010, an estimated 104 million children under the age of five were underweight and a further 171 million were stunted due to malnutrition. It is estimated that more than 55 million children under the age of five have acute malnutrition. Australians who work in this space understand that the best results come from helping recipient countries to develop their own support mechanisms, rather than just handing out cash. It makes sense for Australia's foreign aid not to be limited to but to be focused on and emphasise the Asia-Pacific region, of which we are a part.
Practical foreign aid that delivers people out of poverty and provides children with adequate nutrition is the foundation for building economic growth in the countries of our region which, in years to come, will be customers for the high-quality products we are capable of supplying from this country. After cuts to the foreign aid budget under Labor and dysfunction in the management of this section, at last providers have certainty thanks to the good work being done by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, and her department. Performance benchmarks into which results have had input are an important part of this project.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
I want to talk today about two important days. One, the National Close the Gap Day, is today and relates to my role as shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, and the second is National Harmony Day, which is tomorrow. Events will take place here in Canberra in Parliament House but also around the country.
Harmony Day is on 21 March, which is also the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It provides an opportunity to celebrate and recognise the benefits that cultural diversity brings to our country. Since World War II, 7.2 million people have migrated to Australia. We identify about 300 ancestries, and about 45 per cent of Australians were born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas. We speak about 300 languages. Within 10 years of people coming to Australia, it is likely that 85 per cent of them will become Australian citizens.
Since 1999, more than 55,000 Harmony Day events have been staged around the country. Last Saturday, I attended one in my electorate. I congratulate Shan-Ju Lin, the President of the World Harmony Society, for putting on the event in Springfield, in Ipswich, where I was joined by Bernie Ripoll, the member for Oxley; the Mayor of Ipswich, Paul Pisasale; and Senator Claire Moore. It is a wonderful occasion each year and I run a mobile office each time it takes place. There were Japanese sword performances. We saw Maori-Anglican Church guitar performances and kung-fu performances. We saw the Middle Eastern dance and drum group from the Ipswich Multicultural Projects, Polynesian dance by St Augustine's College and a whole host of other events. One of the most moving aspects was the national anthem being sung in an Indigenous language by the Aboriginal Centre for the Performing Arts. I congratulate the World Harmony Society on their efforts.
Ipswich is changing. It is becoming more multicultural. Gone are the days when it was represented by Pauline Hanson, the former member for Oxley, when there was division and disharmony. These days, Ipswich is a vibrant centre for multicultural growth, and I warmly welcome people from all over the world coming to our wonderful city.
I wish to also speak in relation to National Close the Gap Day, which is taking place today. There will be about 1,200 events around the country and about 150,000 people will publicly demonstrate their commitment to closing the gap, to end Indigenous disadvantage in their workplaces, schools and communities. Here in Canberra, Indigenous Allied Health Australia will reaffirm the commitment to closing the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing. Only two per cent of the total workforce involved in allied health services are from an Indigenous background. That is quite a tragic situation in the context of what we see. We have about 120,000 practising allied health professionals in this country, delivering an estimated 200 million allied health services around the country annually—and only two per cent of those services are delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So we need to do more.
Recently, I attended Kambu Medical Centre in Ipswich. It is one of the biggest community controlled centres in the country and it is located in my electorate, in the heart of the Ipswich CBD. I recently saw the benefit of a wraparound service provided to young mums, young dads and older Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, by this wonderful centre. I commend them on the work they do.
But, once again, today we reaffirm the commitment required of both sides of politics. Our side is committed; to us, the government remains uncommitted to the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan, a 10-year health plan launched in the middle of last year. The government should take up that health plan and undertake its implementation. They should also commit themselves to the national partnership on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. They have not done so. Sadly, we will see Indigenous health disadvantaged in this country if they do not.
I also call on them to commit themselves to improving early childhood development by reaffirming at the middle of this year their commitment to the national partnership. If you cannot get your kids to school and they cannot be taught in the early childhood context by teachers with the educational resources and funding required, then we will not get good outcomes and we will not close the gap in this country. So, the government has a big responsibility. They need to change their perspective, commitment, and determination to fund these wonderful programs.
Some of you may have noticed that on the weekend there was a change of government in my home state of Tasmania. After 16 years, the Labor government has finally been moved on into a place where I hope they remain for many years to come. For the last four years we have had the double whammy of Labor being in government by virtue of support from the Greens. The damage that has been done to my state in the last four years is palpable, and it was made worse by the fact that in the federal arena we also had a federal government that was beholden to the support of the Greens and Independents that was, for my state, a disaster.
I was so pleased the other day when I came across a document I had not seen until then. It talks about the first 100 days—it is the implementation plan for the incoming Hodgman Liberal government. It makes very interesting reading. It is a plan to deliver strong and stable majority government that is capable of getting things done in my home state of Tasmania. It is broken up into a number of headings, and I will go through those in a bit more detail. But clearly this election was one of the most important that my state has faced in probably a generation.
We understand, and Will Hodgman understands, that the challenges Tasmania faces are not going to be fixed overnight, so he has a long-term plan in place for Tasmania's future. We do not want to be a state continually extending a hand with the palm facing upwards; we want to be able to fend for ourselves. Tasmania has done it in the past, and we can do it again. We will do it by delivering strong and stable majority government—a government that is building a modern economy to create jobs. And I would refer you to the theme you are seeing in the federal arena at the moment: building a modern economy and cutting red and green tape to encourage investment.
I would also refer you to the economic growth plan we outlined during the course of the federal election campaign. One of the key announcements during that campaign was for a Tasmania major projects approval agency, which will be located in Launceston in the electorate of my colleague the member for Bass. It will be a one-stop shop for major projects. Some people may be aware that there has been one major project in the north of the state—the pulp mill, which has been vilified, undermined from day one. Having this sort of agency will avoid those sorts of things happening in the future.
Will Hodgman is about fixing the budget, and I just want to touch briefly on the budget of Tasmania. Probably the best example of where my state has gone wrong in recent years is the budget that former Premier Giddings brought down in 2010-11. In the 2012-13 budget there was a forecast of a $57 million surplus. They were good words, and I think every Tasmanian was wholeheartedly behind the Premier at that time in seeing Tasmania's budget reset on a course to delivering more sustainability. But what actually happened was that the government delivered the biggest deficit the state had ever seen: $358 million. I just do not understand how we could have got it so wrong. But Will Hodgman has a plan. I note that in the last couple of days, from day one, on the Sunday after the election, he has met with the heads of his department and he is starting to put in place the things that need to be done.
There is a framework in which they will be rebuilding the Tasmanian economy and re-establishing competence in competent and capable government. This will be done as follows. They will provide strong and stable majority government to get things done and will not be beholden to secondary parties and have to negotiate with others. They will be able to make the clear decisions for which this government has a mandate. It will make Tasmania an attractive place for investment, and they will build a modern economy and rebuild essential services.
This morning I would like to share with the House a very sad story of how the system has let down a long-suffering family, the Lunn family. The Lunn family were part owners of 100 shares in Cardiff Coal Company. The Cardiff Coal Company was the proprietor of 221 acres of valuable land on the foreshore of Lake Macquarie. In the 1980s the family realised that the Carter Coal Company had been taken over by a person named Leslie Herbert Savage, who had actually fraudulently fiddled with the ownership of the shares. This was dealt with in the Supreme Court and went as far as the High Court. The decision was found in favour of the Lunn family. I must emphasise that the Lunn family are basically pensioners. They spent practically every last cent they had taking this case to the High Court. Despite the fact that it was established that they had this ownership right, they have never been able to cash in on it or be able to benefit from their ownership.
The land on the foreshore of Lake Macquarie was subsequently sold to a developer, who developed the land. Lake Macquarie City Council spent $6 million buying part of that land to create a wonderful foreshore park. But still these pensioners battle for justice. They have battled for justice all the way along. They started their proceedings in 1980 and it was decided by the court in the mid-1990s. So you can imagine the enormous financial impost this had on the family. I have been closely associated with the Lunn family over this period of time, giving them support and contacting the various authorities along the way, but no matter how hard you work and how many people you contact there seems to be this wall that prevents them from succeeding.
The area I am particularly concerned about is the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, because they have refused to investigate this issue. They have washed their hands of it and declined to investigate it. Leslie Savage has avoided prosecution for breaches of even other corporate laws. The simple fact that we cannot get ASIC to investigate this family has just added another layer to the disservice and to the fact that the Lunn family have ended up without any financial compensation for ownership in a company that subsequently sold land—and there was an enormous profit.
There are questions that I would like to ask. Are there in the ASIC legislation any barriers that prevent ASIC from fulfilling its legislative responsibility and obligation? Does the accountability framework to which ASIC is subject need to be strengthened? If so, I would like the government to act on it. Can the workings of ASIC's collaboration and working relationship with other regulators and law enforcement bodies be pulled in? What are ASIC's complaints management policy and practice? What are the protections afforded by ASIC to corporate and private whistleblowers? That last comes in very strongly in this case. What other barriers exist that prevent justice for the Lunn family?
I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker Randall, on your elevation to the Speaker's panel.
Thank you.
As the re-run of the Western Australian Senate election on 5 April approaches, voters will be asking themselves which team of senators and which party is best placed to provide a strong, united team to represent them in federal parliament. In the last two sitting weeks we have seen, from WA Labor members who are normally invisible, two matters of public importance aimed at distracting WA people from the real issues and begging people to vote Labor.
After the last six years of instability in Canberra, when the Labor Party could not govern itself, let alone the country, people are craving a government and a Senate team that will provide the stability that the country needs. While the Liberals have a strong, united team of candidates competing at this election, the same cannot be said of the Labor Party, who, according to a series of media reports around the time their Senate candidates were selected last year, are completely divided, dysfunctional and dominated by deals, with backstabbing amongst union powerbrokers. These are the people who want to represent Labor in Western Australia. These are the people who want to represent WA. An article in TheAustralian Financial Review by Jennifer Hewett of 11 March 2013 entitled 'State of antagonism to Gillard' said:
The battle over the WA Senate vacancy created by the exit of Chris Evans … is instructive even if details will remain confusing to most of the public.
The retiring WA secretary of the left's United Voice union, Dave Kelly, who has just become a new state Labor MP, has been negotiating for a female United Voice candidate to return from Sydney to take the Senate spot. The right wing Shop, Distributive and Allied (SDA) Employees Association (the old shoppies union) may support this in exchange for United Voice giving its support for the SDA to replace its former state secretary and (near invisible)—
he will be invisible after 30 June—
senator Mark Bishop with its current secretary, Joe Bullock, in the No.1 spot on the Senate ticket.
Who this United Voice candidate is was revealed in an article entitled 'Blast from the past shows up union muscle' in the Weekend West on 16 March by Paul Murray. Paul wrote:
That vacancy is being lined up for one of Mr Kelly's union colleagues, Sue Lines, who wants to return to WA after eight years as an official in the east, to enter Federal Parliament from here.
How great for WA! I can confirm that Senator Lines moved into my electorate of Swan when she got preselection. One of her first contributions was to state on the public record that there should be more Homeswest housing in Belmont and that tenants who commit a crime should not be forced to leave their Homeswest properties. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that did not go down well in Belmont.
It seems Brian Burke has also been involved. An article in the West Australian on 12 March 2013 entitled: 'Burke looms amid Labor Senate fears' seems to confirm this:
Brian Burke is continuing to cast a shadow over Labor's Senate … Senator Mark Bishop, whose spot is being challenged by former friend and union ally Joe Bullock, said the weekend's State election showed Federal Labor faced "serious structural issues" in WA that "border on the existential".
"The real problem in my view is Federal Labor does not get WA," he said. "It does not understand its size, its distance or its wealth."
In an editorial dated 13 March 2013, the Australian Financial Review refers to state Labor MP Peter Watson's complaints:
… "party hacks and union officials" have captured Labor, including for parliamentary pre-selection.
It continues:
… as Mr Watson complains, Labor needs more genuine representatives of the community, not labour movement hacks who think they have a God-given right to represent the people.
Paul Murray quoted Labor MP Martin Whitely as saying:
It is too late to reform WA Labor rules in time to prevent factional self-interest dominating the coming Senate preselection round in WA.
This sums it up. Nothing has changed for the Senate election re-run. It is the same Labor candidates from the same WA Labor system who are contesting this election. There does not seem to be much consideration of what the best policies are for WA or which candidate can offer the best representation to the people of WA. It is all about union power.
The people of Western Australia have a clear choice between the dysfunctional Senate team from Labor and the strong, united Liberal Senate team that is stopping the boats and is moving to repeal the carbon and mining taxes, which are anti-Western Australian taxes. As we have heard in this place many times, and as we will hear again, the WA people will not stand for those taxes; they need to be repealed now, and the only thing stopping that is the Labor Party and the Labor Senate team.
There is a clear choice for the Western Australian people in two weeks time: to vote for the Liberals—a strong and united standing Senate team.
Earlier this week four big, bright green vans rolled into Canberra, stopping first at Richardson Primary School in Tuggeranong and then travelling up to Parliament House. Over the last five weeks these vans have driven more than 23,000 kilometres, visiting every state and territory in the country. The vans came to Canberra with a message: a message from every school, every community and every town in every state and territory. This was a message for the Prime Minister: Australians want Gonski.
Before the election, Tony Abbott said that he was on a unity ticket with Labor on education. Those were his words, not ours—'a unity ticket'. He promised that no school would be worse off under an Abbott government:
We will honour the agreements that Labor has entered into. We will match the offers that Labor has made. We will make sure that no school is worse off.
But almost as soon as the election had been declared, the Abbott government walked away from this promise.
The Prime Minister has not honoured the six-year funding deals that Labor had signed with the states, territories, independent and Catholic school sectors as he promised he would do. Instead, he has offered them funding for one year—just one year, not six. He has not maintained the requirement that states and territories must themselves increase funding to schools by three per cent, paving the way for states to cut their own education funding and replace it with federal funding.
He has broken his promise and he has broken the trust of the Australian people. I have spoken to schools in my electorate; I have spoken to the government schools, the Catholic schools, the private schools and their peak associations. They all tell me the same thing: under an Abbott government they have no funding certainty.
The great irony is that one of the key aims of the Gonski reforms was to ensure that schools have certainty of funding. We all know that without funding certainty you cannot plan. You cannot make plans around staffing, you cannot offer your employees, who in this case are teachers, ongoing or permanent contracts. You cannot make plans around infrastructure, resources or school size. The Gonski review recognised that this was a problem for schools, and so in implementing the recommendations of this review Labor sought to provide schools with funding certainty—certainty that the Abbott government has now taken away.
Gonski is more than just a policy. The Gonski review was the most comprehensive investigation of the way our schools are funded in almost 40 years. The review found that in Australia too many people—too many children—were being denied the education they needed due to lack of resources. It warned that the link between disadvantage and poor outcomes in education was stronger in Australia than in any comparable nation, and that the situation could worsen without urgent action.
And so it promised a model of school funding that would target disadvantage. And Labor responded with a funding model that included: a benchmark amount called a school resources standard for every Australian student, based on the costs of schools currently achieving the best results; more training for teachers and principals, and ongoing professional development and support for them throughout their careers; a school improvement plan for every school, developed in consultation with the community to help each school improve their results; and, most importantly, extra support for the students most in need through publicly funded loadings, paid in addition to the SRS, for students with a disability, Indigenous students, students from low-income families and students with limited English skills, as well as additional funding for remote and rural schools.
This is a funding model that targets disadvantage. This is a funding model that will improve education results across every school sector in every part of the country. This is a funding model that replaces a failing, unfair system that left people from a disadvantaged background with poorer educational outcomes.
I have said again and again that I am living proof of the transformative powers of education. A good public education allowed me and my sisters to escape a cycle of disadvantage. But that was over 30 years ago, and we know that since then the system has broken. The Gonski review found that over the last decade the performance of Australian students and Australian schools has declined across all sectors and that there is a significant gap between the highest- and lowest-performing students in Australian schools. It is time to act. Labor believes that every child has the right to a great education in a great school, supported by our great teachers. Labor will keep fighting the Prime Minister's cruel cuts to education. We will not let him forget his broken promise, and neither will the thousands of parents, students and teachers across the country.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my congratulations.
Thank you.
As the House would be aware, access to higher education in regional Australia has been a major challenge for our nation. It is for this reason that the federal Liberals and Nationals for years have implemented policies aimed at encouraging growth in the level of services and infrastructure in higher education, particularly amongst our universities.
In my electorate of Lyne, access to university education over the past decade has continued to grow, particularly as a result of the wise policies of the Howard coalition government. First of all, in the health space, funding was provided for the University of New South Wales to establish one of the many rural clinical schools. There has been one in in Port Macquarie for over 10 years now, and the University of Newcastle has established a Department of Rural Health in Taree. This investment has seen many medical students undertake their studies in Port Macquarie and Taree for well over a decade. A number of local medical specialists have also made themselves available to supplement the University of New South Wales program in Port Macquarie, and it is a similar situation with GPs and specialists in Taree. I myself have been heavily involved in this, and it has certainly been beneficial for both the medical students and the specialists and GPs who have taught these students.
Another critical coalition policy, which was fortunately retained by the Rudd-Gillard governments, was the introduction of a regional loading to assist universities with the provision of university programs and courses in regional Australia. In my electorate, the University of Newcastle established a campus over a decade ago courtesy of capital funding from this. The regional loading allowed it to introduce a number of courses, including Bachelor of Nursing, Bachelor of Teaching, Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of IT, at a shared campus in the TAFE building in Port Macquarie. The university has established a close collaboration with the North Coast Institute of TAFE and it has assisted the TAFE sector with participation levels for its diploma-level courses, which are increasingly articulated into the university's bachelor degree programs. At a recent University of Newcastle graduation ceremony in Port Macquarie, the chancellor and vice-chancellor were very proud of the fact that they had over 1,000 University of Newcastle alumni living and working on the mid-North Coast.
The coalition's Higher Education Endowment Fund, established in 2006, was set up to allow the income earned from this perpetual fund to be invested into infrastructure and services within our universities well into the long term. That fund, combined with the regional loading, has made it possible for Charles Sturt University to commence a very ambitious campus expansion into the mid-North Coast, with plans for a 5,000-student campus in Port Macquarie, with the first stage recently announced and on display.
Charles Sturt University's presence in Port Macquarie has grown quite a lot over the past three years and it now offers over a dozen bachelor degree programs at its temporary campus in Grant Street. Charles Sturt University has also established a close working relationship with the TAFE sector, helping to offer a broader range of local courses, particularly in the early years so that local school leavers and mature-age students who are looking to increase their academic qualifications can enter Charles Sturt University and University of Newcastle degree programs through the pathway programs at the TAFE. The University of New South Wales, the North Coast Institute of TAFE and Newcastle University have now developed such a close working relationship that a specialised joint medical education facility is being established adjacent to Port Macquarie Base Hospital and the University of New South Wales existing rural medical campus.
My predecessors as members for Lyne over successive periods have worked on this project. By attracting and retaining people to study in our region we are not only combating the brain drain but contributing to economic growth and social opportunities. I would like to congratulate Charles Sturt University, the University of Newcastle, the University of New South Wales and the North Coast Institute of TAFE on their commitment to delivering higher education opportunity on the mid-North Coast.
I was not able to attend the Light the Dark rally a couple of weeks ago, although I would have liked to have done so. While I was flying to Canberra to start a week's deliberations in our national parliament, thousands of Australians stood together in remembrance of a man they had never met. A solemn vigil was held for 23-year-old Reza Barati, who was killed in Papua New Guinea: in respect, in sorrow but also, I like to believe, in hope. Light the Dark inspired me by showing our communities at their best—looking out for others, and looking for something more. And it challenged me to shed some light myself. There is too much concealment, too little accountability in this place. This goes to the heart of the functioning of our democracy.
But the challenge goes beyond this. This is not simply about process. How we treat those seeking asylum in Australia raises major issues, all of which deserve serious debate. Our responsibility is to ensure that this debate happens, in a constructive way: I think my constituents are entitled to nothing less, to say nothing of the displaced persons. And, when we ask what is to be done, we should consider all the dimensions of this issue. In this short contribution, I am not concerned to set out policy solutions but rather to consider the tenor of this debate and the principles that should inform it. I note that my thinking has changed in some significant respects over the years I have been interested in these issues.
While much of the recent focus on asylum seekers has, understandably, been in relation to the conditions at regional processing centres, I have been thinking lately about those in Australia too. Last week I visited the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation facility in Broadmeadows, a few minutes drive from my electorate. As the name suggests, the facility was originally intended as short-stay accommodation for those refused entry at airports, or for people who breach visa conditions or have visas cancelled. More recently, this has changed. Much of the population detained at MITA is comprised of people who are referred to, wrongly, by this government as 'illegal maritime arrivals'. These people are not illegal, of course; it is not illegal to seek asylum.
There are 274 human beings in MITA, with 118 men, 79 women, some of whom are pregnant, and 77 children. I am not placed to tell their stories, how they came to be there, their hopes, their dreams, their fears. But I want to recognise their existence. Some have been in this 'temporary' accommodation for some years, and a place designed for short periods of confinement is now used for longer stays. This carries consequences that are of concern to me. I visited MITA to better inform myself about what happens within the facility and to better appreciate the circumstances of the people who live within it. I acknowledge the professionalism of the departmental staff who escorted me and my staff, and the employees of the contractor at the facility, all of whom responded to my queries frankly. I was impressed with their humanity and obvious care for and connection with those people they are responsible for. This was something of a contrast to the physical environment. The fence is a stark reminder that not all are free to leave. In the course of my visit, I was struck by many things, most especially by seeing a young boy who appeared to be around the same age as my son. It is impossible not to be affected when you put yourself in the shoes of that boy's parents.
Down the road from MITA, in the Scullin electorate, I spoke with Peta Fualau from Whittlesea Community Connections about the issues they face in assisting people released from detention into the community. Challenges are compounded by a shortage of information and a lack of transparency. When people are released, there isn't a process to link them into local services. Most arrive by way of word of mouth, and very limited services are available. This poses grave concerns. I think about the isolation and what it means for very vulnerable people who have been through so much.
And I say to those people who are in the Scullin electorate, and elsewhere, that I am thinking of you too. We face some very difficult questions in relation to the policy settings we adopt in immigration. Again, I do not presume to have the answers to those questions, but I am committed to doing all I can to find those answers, away from rhetoric, away from politicking. And I know this: no-one in this country should be invisible. We need a real policy debate in Australia about immigration and asylum—critically, a debate about real people which recognises and is based on our common humanity. There can be no room for triumphalism in this place when there are 45 million forcibly displaced people in the world.
I hope to help light the dark that all too often obscures the real issues underpinning our immigration debate, or what passes for it, and to open up the key question that should inform policymaking: what are we trying to achieve? Point scoring is not the goal, nor is making ourselves feel better. I suggest instead that we concentrate our efforts in ensuring that Australia, as a relatively small but prosperous democracy, does its fair share globally and that we do the right thing by all of those in our care—those people we are responsible for. We can do better, and I will do my best to focus this debate on its real subject: desperate people in need of support.
Today I want to talk about shipping from Weipa to Gladstone carried out by the Rio Tinto Alcan company. There is a study underway, and recommendations will eventually be handed down, on future shipping activities conducted where the ships pass through or outside the Great Barrier Reef. I am a strong advocate that no changes be made, especially to the shipping routes that are currently used by Rio Tinto ships in transporting bauxite from Weipa to Gladstone.
I think that there are threats to the reef. The greatest is the crown-of-thorns starfish, which has been around for a long time and does a lot of damage to the reef. It seems to come and go, but it is always present and always doing damage to the reef. Another threat to the reef is ballast water that comes in on overseas ships. We do not really know what is in that ballast water, which is discharged before the ship is loaded with coal, wheat, aluminium or whatever. So the ballast water is a concern to me and to the authorities—what is in the ballast water, where it ends up and what unknown or foreign bodies come in with that water. Of course, toxic fresh water from the land is always an issue, but in the last 10 to 20 years the irrigation farmers inland have really cleaned their act up and now most of that water, except in extreme flood conditions, is contained on the farm itself, so it does not go into waterways and the reef areas.
But I would like to point out some facts about QAL and its operations from Weipa to Gladstone. They employ over 4,000 people and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries and wages, $10 million in royalties and $6.5 million in community investments each year. Shipping is central to the Rio Tinto aluminium supply chain and, as such, represents a large proportion of the cost borne by the integrated businesses in and around the aluminium business. Rio Tinto has safely utilised the inner Great Barrier Reef route to transport bauxite from Weipa to Gladstone for 50 years, and there has not been a major incident. I think it is worthwhile to repeat that: 50 years without a major incident. The company is to be congratulated for its safety record.
Rio Tinto bauxite shipments are one of the few shipping activities of the region that traverse the full length of the Barrier Reef. They go from top to bottom and much further. Rio Tinto maintain a very modern fleet. In fact, there is a no ship older than 4½ years. The last ship that we have was built in late 2007 and commissioned some time thereafter. The ships are Australian owned and crewed by Australian seamen. All vessels that operate or are chartered on the route are vetted by RightShip to ensure that they meet the high standards of vessels, conditions and crew competency and conform to Australian and international shipping standards.
They do a great job, and business is increasing by 1.4 per cent per annum. Weipa to Gladstone now represent more than 25 per cent of Australian coastal trade by volume. Rio Tinto shipping operations have been fully assessed and approved under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation Act—possibly the only shipping operations in the country to do so. In 2012, Rio Tinto, the CSIRO and the foundation put a million dollars into investigating the life of the reef. It is because of these ongoing investigations and monitoring that I can assure the people of this House that the Barrier Reef is well looked after by Rio Tinto and its support agencies.
Today I rise to inform the House of a wonderful new initiative in my electorate—the initiative being HALT. HALT was created and designed to raise awareness of mental health within the tradie community. HALT stands for Hope, Assistance, Local Tradies. HALT was cofounded by Castlemaine residents, Jeremy Forde and Catherine Pilgrim, in response to the increase in suicides in the region.
Suicide is a problem and it is far too frequent in our society, particularly in regional areas. According to the 2010 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, A snapshot of men's health in regional and remote Australia, male suicide increased with remoteness. Males living in inner-regional areas experienced death rates of eight per cent higher than those in major cities. In very remote areas, it was actually 78 per cent higher. Sadly, statistics like these I have just mentioned highlight the importance of an organisation like HALT—and the importance of these organisations in our tradie community, which is a predominantly male industry.
In the Bendigo area we have a large tradie community. That is why it is wonderful to see two residents stepping up and organising such a program. I am proud to say that HALT have developed an innovative approach to communicating with tradies about mental illness. They hold a Save Your Bacon Breakfast for tradies at local hardware stores—a venue which tradies feel familiar with and comfortable in. On Tuesday, 18 March, HALT held their second breakfast—and their first in Bendigo. Their first breakfast was held in Castlemaine. Approximately 250 local tradies attended this breakfast at the Hume Hardware Store, where there was a free breakfast, show bags with food and also information about mental health. At these breakfasts tradies are given information about mental health services. However, the strongest message given at these events is the encouragement for tradies to speak up—speak up if they are having trouble and speak up if they know their mate is having trouble.
Far too often tradies will hide the issue, not talk about it and just get on with their job. HALT is a preventative model that encourages tradies to look for the early signs of mental illness within themselves and their colleagues. Symptoms such as tiredness, stress and anger often present well before clinical depression. Identifying the early signs in a person who is not coping is very important. It is an important skill. It is important to encourage people to speak up. To get help early is vital to suicide prevention. Therefore, it is not surprising that HALT are so keen to start the conversation on mental health and keep the conversation going.
Another way in which HALT have been innovative is by looking for the stresses in tradies. The founders of HALT identified that finances and bookkeeping are often stresses for tradies and are working with small businesses that are experts in these areas and linking them together. HALT has arranged through NAB and the Bendigo Bank three financial health checks. These checks will allow tradies to get help with their books and that will help reduce one of the major stresses identified in this area. Co-founder Jeremy Forbes is keen to take the concept of HALT national over the next three to five years. Next year Jeremy plans to run HALT 'save your bacon' breakfasts across the state of Victoria and plans to expand from there. Organisations like HALT build community strength and community capacity. I encourage all members of the House to engage with HALT, to visit the website and find out what they can do in their community to encourage a HALT breakfast.
Finally, I would like to congratulate our local media—the Bendigo Advertiser and ABC Central Victoria, based in Bendigo—for getting right behind this program. They have helped raise the importance of HALT and talk about the issues. Jeremy Forbes, you are a local legend. Congratulations on a job well done, and I look forward to the next HALT breakfast.
The electorate of Wright is an extraordinary, resilient electorate. Recently, we have suffered floods, but outside that we have also suffered drought. Whilst we have had our times of suffering, there are some operators in the business sector, and particularly in the agricultural sector or with links to that sector, who have excelled beyond expectations with reference to where they grade themselves in the sector. We have members of our dairy farm community doing it extremely tough who are now using technology to try to embrace far greater profits. We have in our electorate dairy farms that are fully robotic, using tags on the necks of beasts that come in freely. Lasers look at the fingerprint of the teat, because every cow is different. They assess the milk content of the cow through previous data, do a calculation and give that beast a rationed portion to optimise its performance.
We have robotics in our nurseries planting seedlings at Pohlmans over in the Lockyer Valley, producing seedlings and delivering to most of the major hardware chains up and down the eastern seaboard—a business that you would drive past and not know they had the linkages to the Australian economy of which we are very proud. We have cattlemen investing in new breeds of cattle, and I bring your attention to the UltraBlack and none other than Euan Murdoch at Nindooinbah. Euan used to be the main shareholder of Herron Pharmaceuticals, a company that all Australians would have a thorough understanding of. He is now investing his money into the cattle sector, developing a hybrid black beast that is conducive to Queensland conditions and Northern Australia. A funny email went round recently from Euan about the performance of these UltraBlacks. The email went something along the lines that a person had bought an UltraBlack and taken it home and the bull was not performing. He was most disappointed with it, so he got the vet out. The vet said, 'What I want you to do is give it one of these tablets once a week for the next two weeks and assess the bull's performance.' The vet came back in two weeks and the breeder said: 'The bull is working outstandingly. It's worked all of this paddock. In fact, it's broken the fences to my northern boundary and it's gone and worked all my next-door neighbour's cattle and broken fences to the south and gone and worked all the southern cattle.' The vet said to the grazier, 'What did you do?' And he said, 'I gave them one of these tablets once a day.' The vet returned a week later, and the grazier said, ' I don't know what was in those tablets but they taste a little bit like peppermint.'
On closing, I would like to bring your attention to a man of landscape, Terry Nolan. Nolan's Transport has over 200 trailers running produce out of the Lockyer Valley, which was devastated by the floods. As you remember, for most of our growing areas in Queensland—St George with melons and onions; Myall, watermelons again; in the Lockyer Valley, a lot of the brassicas; and the Fassifern Valley—Nolan's would be the lead operator for transport. They are celebrating 150 years of service. I send my humble thanks for their contribution not only to the electorate but also to this nation for what they do for employment and their contribution to the local community. Terry and Daphne are fifth generation, I believe, or maybe more, and their sons Flea—and I do not know why we call him Flea, but that is what we call him—and Darren will most professionally take that business through for another 150 years.
Terry is not feeling 100 per cent at the moment. I think that he is suffering from cancer and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge his contribution and share that with the nation. As Australians and as members of this House, it is important that we bring people to task when they let the country down but, equally, praise those that have made a contribution to this nation. We offer him a speedy recovery and I extend best wishes to him and his family.
An international consensus of Western, Chinese and Asian media would agree with Businessweek this week which says that the Malaysian government probably has done more over the past week to undermine the international image of Malaysia than anyone else in the country in nearly 60 years as a nation.
Six Australians are on that lost plane and, naturally, I made a comment about the handling of this by the Malaysian government on my Twitter page. In response, a minority—and I would make it very clear that it was only a small minority—of Malaysian citizens posted highly sexualised comments of a homophobic nature on my page. They were not just abusing me, they were abusing the Malaysian Leader of the Opposition, Anwar Ibrahim. They did not take up the issue of the dysfunctionality of the Malaysian government and its handling of the aeroplane MH370 tragedy raised in such newspapers as TheAustralian and TheNew York Times and mentioned on my Twitter account.
It is an indictment of the ruling party and the state-controlled media in Malaysia that such sexist abuse is considered a political norm. Supporters and haters of Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the nation's opposition, do not realise how weird such detailed discussions of anal sex are on political sites discussing the disappearance of Malaysian aeroplanes. Wouldn't it be better if Malaysian government supporters directed their anger at the incompetence of their authorities who sent non-Chinese speakers to China to explain to grieving relatives about the disappearance of the plane or, when Chinese families turned up to a press conference in Malaysia, had their security officials beat them up? Rather than give intricate details of what the Malaysian government supporters quaintly call 'sodomy', wouldn't it be better for them to explain how one of their national airliners with 239 passengers aboard, including six Australians, was missed by Malaysia's air force radar when it flew back over Malaysia? The Malaysian leaders' poor response to the disappearance of Flight 370 is not surprising. The country has been ruled by the same coalition since independence. Its leaders normally shun independent journalists and its state-controlled domestic media rarely push ministers to answer tough questions.
I have got some suggestions that were originally made in Businessweek, suggestions that I certainly agree with. Firstly, the Malaysian government needs to speak with a single voice. It should start by designating one senior minister. The minister should hold daily question-and-answer sessions with reporters, not just with the compliant local media.
Secondly, the Malaysian government should cooperate with Western governments such as Australia and the United States. Kuala Lumpur should allow foreign aviation and police agencies to cooperate with it in investigating the disappearance of the plane. Organisations such as the US National Transport Safety Board and the FBI would be a good place to start. This is because, Businessweek says:
Malaysia’s police have a weak record of investigative work, partly because the police—like virtually every other part of the Malaysian government—are … highly politicized, stuffed with patronage jobs, and perceived as very corrupt
Thirdly, Malaysian officials apparently knew about the flight's westward trajectory after the transponder was turned off. They should disclose everything they know now, because there are naturally questions about whether Malaysia is concealing more details.
Above all, they should stop trying to link the plane's disappearance to domestic political opponents. To quote Businessweek:
Government leaders have long been obsessed with Anwar,—
the leader of the opposition who has just been interviewed by Christiane Amanpour of CNN—
as his opposition alliance has gotten closer and closer to winning a national election and ending the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition's reign. Malaysian officials have been acting as if Shah's support—
the pilot—
for Anwar's opposition party was something shocking …
Fifty-two per cent of Malaysians support Anwar Ibrahim. If this was a reason for people crashing airplanes into the sea then half of Malaysia would be guilty. What an absurd and ridiculous suggestion. Six Australians have been lost, apparently, along with the crew of this plane. I call on the Malaysian authorities to address the issue, stop abusing people with homophobic remarks and stop encouraging their supporters in UMNO to do the same. I am quite used to these gay-bashing statements. They have been made against me personally. They should not be made against me or Anwar Ibrahim.
I rise to inform the House that some manufacturing in the electorate of Petrie is actually thriving. We know Australia has a strong skills and manufacturing base and that Australians are in fact creative and the design experts. I would like to highlight the achievements of a local manufacturing company in the Petrie electorate that I recently visited. This local company proves that domestic manufacturing can be not only productive and profitable but at the forefront of innovation and design. This local manufacturing company is The Evolve Group. They are located in Clontarf and have created 130 jobs throughout Brisbane, 40 of which are in my electorate.
Evolve are a true end-to-end product innovation and commercialisation solutions provider. They are part of a new manufacturing industry that do not just make great products; they design them to be great and design them to be manufactured here in Australia. Ninety-five per cent of what Evolve manufacture is done locally. At a time when more and more Australian manufacturing departs our shores, Evolve have broken the mould and have steadily grown.
Ty Herman, the company's managing director, and his team understand what gives product value to the retailer, which is important. This is why they are successful in the global market and can compete with China. Any manufacturer or small business can make a cheaper product, but when Evolve make a product they ensure the product is either a patented innovation that cannot be copied or design it so efficiently that China cannot compete with it.
A great example of Evolve's product innovation and design is Polyslab. Over eight years ago, Evolve launched this very simple plastic equipment base, which goes under air-conditioning units. Since its launch, Polyslab continues to be the biggest selling equipment base throughout Australia and New Zealand. It is now sold in the United States and Europe. This remarkable product is not only manufactured locally in Brisbane but made from 100 per cent recycled products, which is of course great for the environment.
Evolve also make a four-wheel drive product called total recovery and extra device, otherwise known TRED. In six months, Evolve created this product, met the market demand and became the No. 1 selling product in the market. For those of you who like to go four-wheel driving on the beach or in the bush, if you get bogged you need TRED in your vehicle. It will help pull it you out.
It is in the Petrie electorate's best interests that companies like Evolve do well. The more successful Evolve become, the more jobs are created locally. This is why I support the coalition government's move to repeal over 10,000 acts and regulations. Cutting red tape and slashing the compliance bill for businesses will provide economic benefits for the Petrie electorate. Of course we need to abolish Labor's the crippling carbon tax, another hurdle that Australian manufacturers have had to jump over—a tax that overseas manufacturers do not have to pay that our manufacturers do. We know—and I say this to those opposite—that a lot of those Labor members said before the last election that the carbon tax would be abolished. They put it on their printed material. They said on their printed material that the carbon tax would be scrapped. There was nothing about an ETS; they just said it would be abolished and scrapped. Yet they come into the House and continue to support it.
I also call on the Queensland state government to eliminate the payroll tax for SMEs or raise the threshold to $10 million plus. Why should any company that employs people have to pay a tax to employ them? Of course, I understand that the Queensland state government was left with $80 billion of Labor's debt and is currently paying about $450,000 an hour in interest. It makes it very difficult to abolish taxes when you have been left with that debt.
Finally, I would like to say congratulations to Ty Hermans and his entire team for the great work they are doing. I personally thank Ty for employing local people in the Petrie electorate. As their business continues to grow, I would love to see their entire manufacturing base moved into the Petrie electorate. Local people in my electorate are willing to work, but they just need the jobs to get going. It is great to have a local and successful entrepreneur like Ty providing jobs for locals in Petrie. Well done to the Evolve Group.
I rise to call on the government to introduce national regulation to mandate the use of electronic stability control, ESC, systems on dangerous goods tankers throughout the country. It might seem ironic to some in this chamber that I am calling for more regulation during a week of mass regulation repeal. However, I believe that the only way to get nationwide use of life-saving ESC systems is for the federal government to act on this issue.
The government of New South Wales has acted independently. It has made it mandatory for all dangerous goods tankers to be fitted with ESC by 2019. This will also include any tankers passing through New South Wales. I am pleased to say that this will force many vehicles registered in other states to install these systems as well. The New South Wales government took this action in response to the Mona Vale fuel tanker explosion in October 2013. I commend the O'Farrell government for taking this step and call on the federal government to create similar national regulation. Our roads need to be safe.
Everyone across Australia relies on our network of highways and major roads. This is particularly the case in Indi. We use highways to get to work, to go to school, to access services, to respond quickly and efficiently to emergencies and to take our goods to markets. Our roads need to be safe. Indi also has many famous tourist attractions, so tourists come from all over the country and the world to explore our mountains and our waterways and enjoy our food and wine. They use highways to get to Indi and travel around Indi. We need these highways to be safe. One important and relatively easy step that the Commonwealth government can take to make our roads safer is to regulate the use of ESC systems on our trucks. In 2013, 13 per cent of all road accidents in Australia involved a truck, and these accidents resulted in 167 sad deaths.
One such accident was described to me and my staff by my constituents Jack and Jenny Murray. Jack and Jenny first visited my office in Wangaratta on Wednesday, 18 February to discuss this issue. They told me the sad story of how, in December 2009, they lost a daughter, a son-in-law and two grandchildren when a fuel tanker struck their car on the Princes Highway. The family was travelling from Wangaratta in my electorate to drive back to their homes at Ulladulla, on the New South Wales coast. The tanker, owned by Cootes Transport, had taken a bend too fast and swerved into them at between 80 and 90 kilometres per hour. ABC Radio National reported that, after striking two other cars and injuring their occupants, the tanker rolled into the family's car, which exploded, killing the Murrays' grandchildren, 13-year-old Jordan and 11-year-old Makeely, in the back seat. The Murrays' daughter, Debbie, and her husband, David Bridge, both suffered burns to 80 per cent of their bodies. David died five days later and Debbie, sadly, died two years later. The other victim of this tragic accident was the driver, David Carolan, who died at the scene of the crash.
The recent media surrounding this issue has highlighted the risks that truckies are forced to take as they move our goods around the country. The trucking industry, like all industries, works hard to make their businesses financially viable. However, as recent media reports have exposed, cost savings have been made at the expense of the safety of our truckies. Trucking is hard work, and we owe it to our truckies to take advantage of technology such as ESC and ABS to make their job safer.
My constituents Jack and Jenny Murray have been lobbying hard to get national reform to retrofit tankers with ESC. They inform me that ESC, which is also preferred by the Australian Trucking Association, costs about $5,000 to $10,000 per truck to retrofit. While there is no doubt that this represents a significant up-front cost for trucking businesses, a single crash of a tanker carrying dangerous goods can cost up to half a million dollars, not to mention the immeasurable cost in lives lost.
My constituents want their roads to be safer and to ensure that dangerous goods are delivered without disaster. I call on the government to take note of regulation in New South Wales and to implement national regulations mandating the use of ESC on all dangerous goods tankers in Australia. In doing this, we will greatly decrease the chances that families will be subjected to the suffering and loss that the Murrays have faced over the past four years. I support the motion.
I rise today with great pleasure to speak about a vital decision made by the good people of Mount Gambier over the weekend. That decision, of course, was to elect the Liberal candidate for Mount Gambier, Troy Bell, to the South Australian House of Assembly as their new representative in the state government.
I have been pleased to count Troy Bell as a hardworking member of the Liberal Party in the lower south-east, and now I am very proud to call him a state parliamentary colleague. His dedication to the state electorate of Mount Gambier over a long period up to the election, which included over 12 months of full-time campaigning, has at last paid dividends.
Voters in Mount Gambier wanted change. They voted for change and now, at least at a local level, they have change in the form of Troy Bell. Of course, the state-wide picture remains far less clear, even though the SA Liberals received some 53 per cent of the primary vote. Such are the quirks and oddities in the way that the South Australian electorates are drawn. They effectively deliver a modern-day gerrymander.
Those of us who have been around politics for a while never underestimated the ability of the ruthless SA Labor machine to sandbag a handful of critical city seats and possibly cling to power despite the state-wide swing against Labor and the clear mood for change.
It is safe to assume that the election campaign will almost always be tight in South Australia. Gaps in opinion polls invariably narrow in the approach to election day. The 2014 SA state election result was no different. Nevertheless, the message across the state seats that share territory with the federal electorate of Barker was clear. Now, for the first time since the state election in November 1997, Barker and the relevant state seats of Mount Gambier, MacKillop, Hammond and Chaffey are all blue.
There is a perception in some sections of the community that Barker and the state seats that lie within it are blue ribbon, and therefore safe. This, however, is absolutely not the case. Indeed, voters in all of the four aforementioned seats—Mount Gambier, MacKillop, Hammond and Chaffey—have seen fit to elect independent MPs at one stage or another in the past 16 years. As such, neither myself nor my state Liberal colleagues are even slightly complacent about the work we have to do constantly to gain and retain the trust of electors.
The modern electorate of Barker now also takes in Schubert, as it has done since the redistribution of 2004. Thankfully, Schubert has remained a Liberal seat throughout, and this has been in no small part due to the excellent work of a man I am pleased to call a friend and mentor, Mr Ivan Venning. On Saturday night, after a distinguished parliamentary career, which started in 1990, Mr Venning's time as an MP came to an end. On behalf of the good people of Schubert and, indeed, all rural and regional South Australians, I put on the record my thanks to Mr Venning. While the end of such a career is tinged with sadness, on a happier note the baton in Schubert has been handed over to my good friend Stephan Knoll. Although I am a few years older than Stephan, I would like to think that we are part of a new generation of regional Liberal MPs in South Australia. I am excited at the thought of working with him on behalf of the good people of the Barossa as well as the mid-Murray and northern Adelaide Hills, much of which he shares with me.
Another quirk of electoral boundaries in SA means that I share the wonderful Murray river township and surrounding districts of Morgan with the Liberal member for Stuart, Dan van Holst Pellekaan. The good people of Morgan are in the federal seat of Barker, which includes Cape Northumberland, which is South Australia's most southern tip, while also in the state seat of Stuart, which runs all the way to the Northern Territory and Queensland borders. Dan van Holst Pellekaan has a huge electorate to cover, and I commend him on being elected for a second term in SA parliament.
So while we wait for the final votes to be counted in a number of Adelaide seats it is wonderful that we recorded such an excellent result in my part of South Australia. I congratulate Adrian Pederick in Hammond, Mitch Williams in Mackillop and Tim Whetstone in Chaffey and look forward to continuing to work in harmony with them for our shared constituencies. To Troy Bell and Stephan Knoll: congratulations on wonderful results. I wish you long and successful parliamentary careers and know I will enjoy having such energetic and effective community representatives working alongside me in Barker.
I rise to today to commend to the House ISIS Primary Care and the work they have done in the community health sector across the west of Melbourne for more than 17 years. ISIS has an annual budget of $33 million and employs more than 400 staff throughout Melbourne's west. Recently, ISIS worked together with the previous federal Labor government to provide primary health care to the community of Wyndham Vale in the Lalor electorate. I am pleased to be able to say that the Wyndham Vale GP superclinic opened its doors last Friday and that they did this under budget. I was able to take a tour of the facility on Sunday with hundreds of other locals after receiving a flyer in my letterbox.
This is great news for the community of Wyndham Vale and it is great news for the region. It is also a shining example of how a government's health policy can directly serve the wellbeing of its citizens. The previous Labor government saw the need to plug the gap in primary health care services. This need was identified under former health minister Nicola Roxon.
Australia produces surgeons of renown who have performed many world firsts in areas such as microsurgery and organ transplants. Australia is also renowned throughout the world for the quality of its doctors. Other nations look to us and try to emulate our Medicare system. You might say that it is a good place to get sick. What was missing, however, was an intensive approach in the space between the two—a service that would go further than just a local GP and one able to take the load off hospitals. The GP superclinics were designed to do just that—to deal effectively with primary care.
GP superclinics bring together general practitioners, practice nurses, allied health professionals, visiting medical specialists and other healthcare providers to deliver primary healthcare services aimed at addressing the healthcare needs and priorities of their local communities. Importantly, this GP superclinic will provide after-hours care and dental care, addressing the current 22-month waiting lists in my electorate.
As many of us in this House know, each electorate has its own unique health profile. For example, only 40 per cent of women in Wyndham have regular Pap smears, an alarming statistic in preventative health terms. This GP superclinic will cut waiting times and work in tandem with private practice and the Medicare local to make seeing a doctor and getting vital health checks easier and more timely.
As a further example, the rate of gestational diabetes in my electorate, where 76 babies are born each week, is 4.5 per cent, almost twice the national average. Reducing these numbers is critical because gestational diabetes increases the risk of type 2 diabetes in the longer term. Preventing diseases like diabetes before they take hold is extremely important, as treatment after they become established is difficult, time consuming, leads to poorer health outcomes for patients and leads to lower economic productivity too.
On a purely economic basis, the fiscally shrewd way to deal with diseases, then, is to prevent them—to treat them at the primary level. Prevention, of course, is often immeasurable in the health outcomes for individuals, families and communities. This is why investing in this GP superclinic is not only a good and sound idea for our community's health, it is also fiscally responsible and this is why my community is thankful to people like Nicola Roxon and the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Tanya Plibersek, and indeed my predecessor, Julia Gillard, for putting such work into this project. We also thank Terry O'Brien, the CEO of ISIS, and Clovis Bonner, the chair of the ISIS board.
ISIS have driven the project locally, taken on the challenge and excelled. They had three clear aims for the centre: that it be an iconic building that spoke to the importance of health, that it be near public transport and that it be near a shopping centre to increase awareness and access. They have achieved all three of these aims. The building is beautiful and functional and has plenty of room built in for future expansion. It is near public transport, right next to the Manor Lakes railway station, and the Manor Lakes shopping centre is just a stone's throw away. They have achieved this despite the building being built on the very edge of the growth corridor—truly a greenfields site: no power, no water, no drainage. They built it all under budget and in good time. This was achieved with $15 million from the federal government, at a total cost of $23 million. This GP superclinic will add to the six sites already run by ISIS throughout the Wyndham, Brimbank and Hobsons Bay local government areas.
We needed this GP superclinic. The Wyndham region is going through a period of unprecedented growth. There is a clear need for family healthcare services at the primary level; there is a clear need for this service to operate after hours; and there is a clear need for this service to offer bulk-billing. This GP superclinic satisfies all of those needs. This is good news for health provision in Lalor. I thank ISIS and all those involved for their efforts and expertise.
Sadly, on 11 March, Len Buckeridge died at his family home in Peppermint Grove, aged 77. Those not familiar with the name Len Buckeridge may be more familiar with the term BGC—Buckeridge Group of Companies—which Len founded. I will talk more about BGC later.
Len was born in 1935. He attended Perth Modern School and then trained as an architect at Perth Technical College. By 1959 Len was an ambitious young architecture graduate who believed fiercely in the social and economic benefits of homeownership. Driven by a desire to find better ways of achieving affordable, practical housing for all Australians, Len laid the foundations of BGC more than five decades ago, starting out delivering manufacturing materials to achieve his goal of affordable housing. Today the group has diversified as a multimillion-dollar company, delivering construction, contracting and manufacturing, and employs more than 4,000 people.
It is important to acknowledge Len's contribution to the mining, gas and resource sector, with BGC Contracting being one of Australia's leading mining and civil construction contractors. BGC Contracting's civil division spans the key areas of bulk earthworks, site preparation, road construction, road network maintenance, major concrete walls, rail construction, dams, pipelines and the supply of quarry material.
Len's success with BGC would have been of no surprise to those who knew him during his student days. In the final year of his architecture degree, he won the James Hardie prize for architecture for his thesis entitled The economical house: on low-cost housing.
For me, though, my introduction to Len came much later in life. It was during my campaign in 2010, before I was elected to this House. It was at a meeting, where you go and wonder what sort of response you are going to get. I remember walking in and meeting Len around his boardroom table and seeing a real-life character who I had read about in the media, and then I was sitting with him, talking about what his thoughts were for government and what his thoughts were for the economy. He asked me a couple of questions, which went to the core of: 'Why are you standing?' We had a great conversation around that.
Len came to all the events I held and, if he could not attend, his son Sam would. I remember a moment from a campaign event in 2010, which the now Prime Minister Tony Abbott MP attended. Len was standing at the back of the room by himself. My wife, Anna, who at that stage did not know who Len was, got a chair for him and sat and chatted with him. Someone then said to Anna, 'How do you feel about talking to Len Buckeridge?' She said, 'I didn't know that he was Len Buckeridge.' Anna told me the conversation with him was like talking with her grandfather.
Reflecting on that moment from the early introductions to Len, this is how I remember him. He was a fatherly figure, but he was also a friend who shared his thoughts and feelings on issues. The Len I got to know and remember is Len the family man. In our conversations he would share stories and achievements of his children and his grandchildren, whom he was so proud of. While Len was a no-nonsense person, he was immensely proud of his company. While Len was not afraid to take people on and fight for what he believed in, he respected people. He admired people in public life. There are hundreds of articles written and thousands and thousands of words dedicated to Len over his career, and today I add my contribution to this list. There is one article that I read many years ago which I want to share here. Len said: 'I've done it this way. Maybe I could have done it another way.' When reflecting on these words, it told me so much more about the man Len Buckeridge was.
Another of Len's passions was the North Cottesloe Surf Life Saving Club—an association which goes back more than four decades. Following Len's passion, the club president, Chris Shellabear, recalled how Len was always willing to help the club realise its plans and projects over the years. Even recently when Len was in ill health he was down at the club helping pour concrete for the club extension. This, along with more than 2,000 people who attended a memorial service at the Cottesloe Civic Centre on Monday, is a testament to the standing he had in the community and the extent to which his personality, passion and dedication were felt.
When someone leaves this earth we are prompted to ask: what is their legacy; what have they left behind as a reminder of their contribution to the community and our lives? For Len, his vision and pioneering for the construction industry are undoubtedly the biggest and most tangible legacy he leaves behind. In my home state, Western Australia, it would not be difficult to name anyone who was involved with BGC. But, behind the company, behind the bricks and mortar, was a man, a much-loved husband, a father, a grandfather and a friend.
I rise today to speak about the importance of regional infrastructure funding and the fact that the Abbott government have slashed regional funding, particularly through their very cruel cuts to the Regional Development Australia Fund, RDAF, round 5. The Regional Development Australia Fund was a fantastic initiative for regional communities such as my electorate of Richmond to gain access to much-needed funding for vital projects of significance and infrastructure. RDAF was set up by the previous Labor government to fix the years of neglect of regional communities due to the Howard government's lack of funding.
The funding under round 5 of RDAF gave great opportunities for regional communities to address many of the challenges of growth whilst also providing economic activity and job creation. Unfortunately the Abbott government does not share my community's enthusiasm for the funding available to their area through RDAF round 5. That is why the Prime Minister—who quite ironically dubs himself the Prime Minister for infrastructure—callously froze and cut the funding for many ongoing and promised projects. The most disappointing part of that is the fact that the National Party just sat back whilst all this all happened—not mentioning a word about these cuts, not fighting once for regional Australia and what these RDAF round 5 cuts meant to those people in regional Australia. But we all know the National Party long ago sold out regional Australia—and they should hang their heads in shame now.
Many local government areas in my electorate would have benefited from these projects through round 5. One example is the more than $149,681 worth of funding for Byron Shire Council for a fantastic cycle track that would have been located at the Byron Regional Sport and Cultural Complex centre. This was a shovel ready initiative that cannot go ahead now that funding has been pulled. Also, Tweed Shire Council had a fantastic project that would have boosted jobs, productivity and business in an area where Tweed Heads really needs it. Under this program the Tweed Shire Council would have received more than $613,000 to fund the rejuvenation of the Tweed Central Business District. This project was desperately needed for the Tweed Heads CBD area. It is currently very run down and in need of a major facelift.
This money was allocated for the street-scaping of Bay Street and primarily consisted of an upgrade of two sites to complement the earlier streetscape work undertaken on Wharf and Bay streets. The project would have involved planting more trees and beautifying existing pedestrian routes and outdoor dining options, which would have complemented some of the development at Coolangatta, just over the border. So it would have meant a lot to the Tweed Heads CBD. Unfortunately, the council have been forced to come up with the funding themselves. This really is an appalling situation. They had entered into a contract with the government in good faith and, when it came time to cash in, the Prime Minister and the National Party just tore up the cheque and said, 'No, you can't have it.' So, because of the short-sightedness of this Liberal-National government, Tweed ratepayers now have to pick up the tab for this really fantastic project for our area. It is very disappointing to have that funding cut put in place. I question the government on their priorities when they now force struggling councils to pay for such important infrastructure projects. These projects would have brought with them great infrastructure improvements and economic growth.
Compare this with the previous government, the Labor government. In my electorate we invested more than $1.5 billion, which included the single biggest ever infrastructure project on the North Coast—the Tintenbar to Ewingsdale Pacific Highway upgrade which is currently underway. We invested this massive amount because we knew the value of regional communities and we knew the value of investing in infrastructure projects, particularly the Pacific Highway upgrade but great community projects as well—our community centres, our school projects, the GP superclinic at South Tweed. There was a massive array of infrastructure investments that have made a very big difference to our community.
What is really concerning today—this really reflects how little the Liberal-National Party care about regional Australia—is that the Abbott government has announced that the MyRegion website will be shut down next week. This website was a very useful tool for people in regions right across the country. I think that the shutting down of this website really puts into question how much the Prime Minister, Mr Warren Truss and all of the National Party value regional Australia. Obviously it is not too much, because they have proven that they are not prepared to listen to regional Australia and work cooperatively to get the best outcomes for their communities.
My concern is we have those cuts to RDAF 5 and now we have cuts to this really important MyRegion website. Is this the start of more cuts to come across regional Australia? People are very, very concerned, because the fact is: investment in regional Australia creates and supports thousands and thousands of jobs, and it also creates vital infrastructure for our future.
I think the move today to shut down this website, which is really appalling, does really reflect the fact that the coalition government just do not value or understand how important it is to have that investment in our regions. It is particularly appalling that the National Party are not only sitting back but also allowing and pushing this along and making it happen. It shows that the National Party do not value regional Australia and cannot represent the interests of regional Australia.
On Monday of last week the Prime Minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott, came to my electorate of Barton and visited food manufacturer Frutex. During the visit, the Prime Minister met with members of the local Magiros family at their Kingsgrove facility to familiarise himself with one of the largest manufacturing employers in the Barton electorate.
The Prime Minister and I determined the state and capability of locally based Australian manufacturing and ascertained the business owners' concerns for the impact of regulatory costs such as the carbon tax on their operations. The owners of the local manufacturer informed us of the pressures the carbon tax has placed on their business, which has contributed to a dramatic increase in electricity bills. The Prime Minister and I reiterated the coalition's support for a viable manufacturing sector and noted the cost burden placed on local manufacturers such as Frutex. The Prime Minister was insightful to acknowledge Frutex as 'a great Australian success story', noting the opportunities and successes that have marked the lives of the Magiros family and countless other immigrant families within my electorate of Barton.
Manufacturing is an iconic and valued component of the Australian economy and of the Barton electorate, and it is a component of the market that employs many people of diverse and valuable skill sets. Considering the vital role that manufacturing plays in employing Australians, government should be concerned when we are continually told that the cost of running a business in an Australian context is too high. Over the past six months the business owners in my electorate have pleaded with me to get across to lawmakers that ordinary Australian business owners are in dire straits and struggling to keep their operations afloat.
If we as a government continue to maintain regulations and taxes that strangle rather than encourage productivity, we are sending businesses the wrong message. We are sending the message that if you run a business, you have to stretch yourself thin to fit in with government. You have to dedicate yourself to paperwork, you have to bend over backwards for red tape requirements and you have to see your bottom line affected—not because of poor business decisions but because government is strangling carbon-reliant industries. The message we should be sending is that if you are running a business—an operation that provides vital and innovative production and employment to Australians—government has to fit in with you.
Government has to step aside, get out of the way and enable Australian businesses the space and encouragement they need to flourish. Representatives have to find ways to step up to the plate and repeal the laws that slow local businesses in their electorates, whichever side of the House they sit on.
After all, this toxic tax has not seen real progress for our natural environment My constituents do want to see a constructive, not destructive, approach to environmental reform. They care about the tangible state of their rivers, waterways, foreshores and street paths. They want clean air to breathe, clean water in which to swim, and parks and neighbourhoods in a respectable state. But they do not want top-down taxes that hurt their household budgets or bottom lines. This tax has not seen real progress for our natural environment. Instead it has seen a stranglehold placed on the business environment—an environment right at the heart of Australian life and of my electorate of Barton.
Further to the cost of business, residents in my electorate of Barton have raised legitimate concerns regarding the increased cost of living imposed by the carbon tax. Last year I knocked on the doors of thousands of homes in my local area. The single biggest concern that was spurring residents to connect with government was an unjustifiable spike in their cost of living. Average local families will be set back by $550 this year alone because of the impact of the carbon tax. That is a lot of school books, dental appointments and maintenance jobs that families will have to forgo this year.
That is why people in my community have grown impatient with Labor's obstructive approach after we were given a clear mandate on 7 September to repeal the carbon tax. People want to see this redundant cost lifted from their lives and lifted from the operation of their small businesses. We as a government want to abide by the will of the people and repeal it. The only people standing in our way are the opposition. It was clear from the Prime Minister's time with us on Monday that the federal government is listening to local manufacturers, so I thank the Prime Minister for visiting our electorate and for renewing his pledge to repeal the carbon tax. As the federal member for Barton I am proud to be part of this team fighting for the future of local manufacturing.
Question agreed to.
Fed eration Chamber adjourned at 11: 30 am