Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to address the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006 and also the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. I wish to speak about the government’s spending and lack of spending in vital areas. One is of major importance to my electorate and one is of vital importance to the country.

I draw attention to items under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) in respect of the appropriation to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of $124 million including $104 million in structural adjustment payments for the fishing industry. There is $20 million for the Tasmanian hardwood timber industry. The Department of Defence gets $155.8 million, including $56.9 million for special task force groups to Afghanistan plus helicopters. The third item I would like to draw attention to is the Australian Federal Police: $54.6 million for airport-policing measures including community policing, $27.2 million; first response counter-terrorism in airports, $18.2 million; and airport investigation, $9.2 million. Why do I draw attention to these three items? I think these three items under this appropriation bill draw me to an area of glaring neglect. This government is failing us at home. It is neglecting our security at home by always thinking that it can provide our security by looking overseas.

We are fighting a senseless war abroad in Iraq, a war where the Australian government is funding both sides. We are funding our own troops, we had been funding the troops of the Iraqi government that we overthrew and we are also funding the insurgencies that are causing so much pain and grief over there through our continual kickbacks from the oil for food scandal. So, while we are off fighting senseless wars abroad, we have forgotten about our security at home, and this is no more glaringly obvious than what I have seen in Perth and will be seeing again in Broome tomorrow in respect of illegal fishing. Illegal fishing has become a blight on this country and on our community and the government seems to do nothing about it.

While this is going on, Labor has established a task force into marine and transport security to highlight the dangerous consequences of the Howard government’s failure to safeguard Australia’s infrastructure and borders. For the past 10 years, the Howard government has shown a complete disregard for transport and marine security. As a result, gaping holes have emerged along our borders, opening Australia up to the threat of trafficking, drug running, illegal fishing, communicable diseases and, of most concern, terrorist attacks. By failing to secure this nation’s borders and infrastructure, John Howard is putting Australian lives at risk. The coalition likes to walk the talk when it comes to national security, but it does not seem to be able to walk the walk. The task force that I am chairing will be travelling around Australia talking to communities about their concerns and we are also asking people to make submissions.

The Howard government has proved incapable of managing Australia’s transport and marine security. The damaging Wheeler review highlighted a culture of crime and lax security in Australian airports. Some 384 aviation security identity cards have been lost or stolen over the past two years alone. There is a dangerous shortage of surveillance measures at our regional airports. The position of Inspector of Transport Security has been in constant shambles and still has not been given the authority to undertake any form of investigation. Customs is underresourced and underfinanced, leaving Australia’s borders dangerously underpatrolled. More than 2.4 million parcels which entered the country last year were unscreened. Illegal fishing in Australian waters has more than doubled over the last year. It is estimated that around nine out of 10 boats go undetected. Aside from poisoning our economy and being an environmental threat, this is also a major quarantine risk.

To make matters worse, there is no national coordinated authority in charge of Australia’s various security agencies. Yet the Howard government refuses to adopt Labor’s policy of establishing a coastguard and a department of homeland security. The most concerning aspect of the Howard government’s neglect of our transport and marine security is the possibility of a terrorist attack. There is an urgent need to harden Australia’s infrastructure against such a threat. The line items in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) go very little way towards addressing these items. They do not in any way protect our borders at home. The measly $9.2 million being spent on airport security is of grave concern.

This is a government which has spent $66 million to get itself re-elected. It is a big spending government which has a habit of blowing taxpayers’ dollars on propaganda and advertising campaigns. There are no measures in these bills which will do anything to protect Australian borders. It is a big spending government which is more interested in blowing taxpayers’ dollars on propaganda and advertising than on border protection.

So far, as I have said, we have been to Perth and we will go to Broome and to One Arm Point, because we need to see first-hand what is happening—something this government is not doing. Illegal fishing has doubled over the past year. More than 25 illegal fishing boats have been captured in Australia’s waters already this year. But entire regions of Australia are left completely unpatrolled and, as a result, it is estimated that around 8,000 illegal fishing boats are going undetected each year. Only around one in 10 is being picked up. Many of these boats have actually had their equipment taken off them and then been sent on their merry way to go back to Indonesia, get more fishing equipment and come back to Australia.

There needs to be a greater sense of coordination between all levels of government on this. The Western Australian state government has been taking a great lead but is being frustrated by the lack in interest of, and coordination with, the federal government. Whilst the incompetent fisheries minister has gone and a new one has replaced him, we are yet to see the new minister, Senator Abetz, say anything about this issue. We have had the ludicrous situation whereby the member for Kalgoorlie had to fly to Tasmania to see the responsible minister to ask him to take an interest in his own portfolio.

If illegal fishing boats can get into Australia, what else can? The fact that there is no coastguard to patrol Australian waters is opening us up to the threat of trafficking, drug running and illegal fishing, as I have said. But, more importantly than this, we have now had sightings of individuals actually coming ashore up at One Arm Point where the trochus shell is harvested. I did not know what a trochus was before this exercise; I now do. It is a very large but very pretty snail, and the shell is used to make buttons for clothing. You learn wonderful things in this job every day.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you eat it?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can eat the snail, in fact. To harvest these you have to come onshore and pick them up from the reefs. Boats are coming onshore with individuals who are carrying communicable diseases that we have eradicated from our shores. They are also bringing a quarantine risk because they come onshore with food to survive on for a couple of weeks while they harvest the trochus shell. They are bringing birds onshore. Is avian flu now going to be rife? They are bringing onshore other domestic animals that may have foot-and-mouth disease. This is a huge concern and we are letting it go unchecked.

The Howard government has appointed only five fishery officers to cover the entire Kimberley coast, which covers areas such as Broome and One Arm Point. During the pearling season four of these officers will be in Broome to ensure proper pearling practices are undertaken, leaving other areas of the coast unattended. These individuals also have to protect the domestic fishing industry to ensure that catches are right.

The pearling industry is very concerned about these illegal boats coming in. Often they are infested with stripey mussel, and this can cause great damage to the pearling industry by polluting the waters where our pearls grow. Unless the government takes action now entire ecosystems will die, Australian fishermen will lose their livelihoods, Broome’s pearling industry could collapse because of marine pests, Australian agriculture will be at risk from quarantine threats and Australians will be at risk of contracting rabies, tuberculosis and avian flu. Also, terrorists will be able to patrol our unprotected coastline.

The Aboriginal people of One Arm Point are outraged by Indonesian poachers who are raping the reefs of the valuable trochus shell. The Aboriginal communities, including the Bardi people, have the right to harvest the shell, of which Japan is a major importer. The shells are used for jewellery, ornaments and clothing, and they sell for about $6.50 a kilo. To ensure sustainability the Aboriginal communities have established a quota of harvesting 10 tonnes of trochus shell each year. The Indonesians obviously have no regard for quota systems. So, while the Aboriginal communities and the fishing industry have placed quotas on themselves to sustain our aquaculture industry, this is being undermined by illegal fishing vessels entering our waters. Again, as I say, these bills are not introducing any measures to bring in money to ensure that these things are combated.

The Aboriginal communities at One Arm Point will lose their livelihoods, indeed they are already losing their livelihoods. The loss of revenue is already hampering plans to establish a second hatchery to breed the trochus. The Bardi people are considering suing the Howard government over its failure to combat illegal fishing and poaching. Curtin University professor of politics and constitutional law Greg Craven says that they have ‘a strong moral case’.

So we have seen complete incompetence from the Howard government on this issue. We need more action and we need it now. There need to be discussions on the MOU that is in place for the waters off WA, which has ensured for many a reasonable agreement between Indonesian fishermen and the Australian fishing industry. That MOU has been respected for many years and has worked well. But now it needs to be renegotiated and reconsidered because the illegal fishing trade, with lots of money behind it, is totally ignoring it. It is not only destroying the livelihood of the Australian fishing industry but also taking away the ability of the traditional fishermen to ply their trade.

This is also becoming a huge security issue for these Australians when they are at sea trying to earn their livelihood. What happens is that these boats come towards them—it is becoming fairly scary. They are becoming the frontline of protection for our Australian waters. They are genuinely concerned for their safety. These Indonesian boats are becoming far more sophisticated. They are backed by rather large syndicates out of Indonesia, and it has become a situation in which people are fearing for their lives.

The other area of grave concern is regional airports. While I welcome the expenditure in these appropriation bills, it does not go far enough. Around 140 regional airports in Australia still have no screening facilities. In its 2004-05 annual report, the Department of Transport and Regional Services gave itself only one tick—a fail mark—for implementing passenger screening at these 140 airports. Despite allocating $3.8 billion for wand metal detector kits and staff training in the 2004-05 budget, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services spent only $400,000, or just 10 per cent. Poor planning by the government has seen very little training done to date, with only one firm able to carry out the instruction. This bungle means that the training of regional airport staff to use handheld wands and detectors will not be completed until the end of 2006.

This failure comes on top of the criticism levelled at regional airport security in the Wheeler report. To date, we have not seen a response from the government to that far-reaching report. Four years after the September 11 attack, the Wheeler report produced 150 pages on the failure of this Howard government in airport security. Instead of writing more laws, which mean nothing to terrorists, the Howard government should be making sure that practical security measures are implemented now.

With respect to these appropriation bills I see yet again absolutely nothing—complete silence—from the government and, again, it demonstrates their complete ineptitude when it comes to running this economy, although they keep claiming they are great economic managers. I remember the Treasurer—he slayed the inflation dragon. We do not hear that statement anymore. This is a government that is presiding over the largest current account deficit we have ever seen. The December 2005 deficit of $1.7 billion is disastrous. It is one of the highest in the OECD at a time when we are having booming commodity prices. It is at a 30-year high. How is that so? And there is $450 billion of foreign debt. We do not see that debt truck around anymore. Again, this demonstrates that Australia is becoming an egalitarian economy—dependent on a narrow range of commodity exports. Service exports are very weak and our manufacturing base has collapsed, along with productivity outcomes.

The Howard government has done nothing to capitalise on the reforms of the Howard-Keating years. This decline in manufacturing is having a severe and immediate impact upon my electorate of Chisholm. We have seen a series of closures of car component plants, the largest and most recent being Silcraft, where 460 people will lose their jobs in the coming weeks. At the Icon factory, 120 people are just hanging on to their jobs. We are not 100 per cent sure which way that will go. A few years ago we saw the closure of the Arnott’s biscuit factory, where over 600 people lost their jobs. I am quite fond of saying in many quarters that, if I represented a regional centre, I would probably have a rescue package by now, but because I am in downtown metropolitan Melbourne nobody seems to care. These job losses are severe. The individuals who have lost their jobs from these industries have not been able to find new ones. They have specific skills to the manufacturing industry, the manufacturing industry is going and we are doing nothing about it. There is no plan, there is no position and there is no thought for the future.

The amendments to this bill talk about how we should be doing things now and doing things more intelligently. This government is failing on that score. The manufacturing industry is experiencing a massive decline in employment. Since the election of the Howard government in 1999, a total of 144,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost. That is a rate of 320 jobs per week or nearly two jobs per hour. It is a disgrace and this decline is accelerating. Since the government’s re-election in 2004, we have seen 68,000 manufacturing jobs go. As I say, nothing is being done about it. The automotive industry is the hardest hit, but it is not just at automotive plants. It is the downstream plants that are most affected and those in my electorate of Chisholm. The Silcraft factory has been there for 50 years. It has worked hard, it has worked well and it is going. There is no rescue plan, there is no restructuring, there is no hope—there is nothing. It is closing its doors and that is the end of it.

Greg Combet gave a speech to the National Manufacturing Summit entitled ‘Repositioning Australian manufacturing in the global economy’. I would like to quote some interesting things he said. He opened his speech:

In a recent article in the New York Times the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Thomas Friedman began with the following words:

What if we were really having a national discussion about what is most important to the country today and on the minds of most parents?

I have no doubt that it would be a loud, noisy dinner-table conversation about why so many U.S. manufacturers are moving abroad—not just to find lower wages, but to find smarter workers, better infrastructure and cheaper health care. It would be about why in Germany, 36 percent of undergrads receive degrees in science and engineering; in China, 59 percent; in Japan, 66 percent; and in America only 32 percent. It would be about why Japanese on bullet trains can get access to the Internet with cell phones, and Americans get their cell phone service interrupted five minutes from home.

It would be about why U.S. 12th graders recently performed below the international average for 21 countries in math and science, and it would be about why, in recent years, U.S. industry appears to have spent more on lawsuits than on research and development. Yes, we’d be talking about why the world is racing us to the top, not the bottom, and why we are quietly falling behind.

You could probably transpose that to Australia and say exactly the same thing: why are we attempting to race to the bottom in this country? Why are we no longer pursuing the great dream of being the clever country? Why are we no longer putting money into skills and education? We are the lowest ranked country in the OECD in putting money towards education. We are falling behind.

We cannot ride on the sheep’s back or the mines forever. Even if we attempt to do so, we still need the infrastructure and services to support it. We have seen that recently in having to import skilled workers. It is ridiculous. We have a country with so much to offer and we are letting it go. We are not putting money into areas where it is vitally needed, such as research and development. Again, my constituency of Chisholm is very dependent on research and development. I have the largest university in Monash Clayton, one of the largest CSIRO institutes at Clayton, the Monash Medical Centre and various other research development areas around that. But that money is going to seed. As we have recently seen, CSIRO scientists are being gagged and forced out of the country because we no longer want to employee intelligent people and we no longer want research and development. We are racing to the bottom instead of to the top. In his speech, Greg Combet said:

However, the important thing about Friedman’s article is that it focuses attention on the positive proactive agenda for repositioning a nation’s manufacturing industry so that it can win its share in the race to the top.

It’s about how nations and firms investing in skills, infrastructure and innovation to win international business opportunities and move up the value chain with more defensible competitive advantages. It is this debate about the race to the top rather than the usual debate often associated with the race to the bottom that Australian manufacturing must engage in if it is to succeed and meet the global challenge.

That is why I say that our challenge is to race to the top by investing in skills, infrastructure and innovation. There should not be no mention of them at all in appropriation bills. We should be doing more about them. We should not be making it so expensive to go to university that children are no longer going. They are turning away from science and engineering degrees because they cannot afford them. If we do not do these things now, we will have no future for a children.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today as we debate Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006, I will be speaking on a range of topics. In particular, I want to talk about some comments made in the House yesterday by the member for Ryan. Last December I threw my longstanding support behind Ipswich City Council’s plan to replace the antiquated Moggill ferry service with a bridge linking Ipswich and Brisbane. Replacing the 127-year-old ferry service is long overdue and must happen because it is in the best interests of the entire region. It is in the best interests of the residents of Ipswich and Brisbane. It makes economic and social sense. Building a bridge to replace the Moggill ferry service is plain, old-fashioned commonsense. It is not about politics or rhetoric or long-held views about the demographics of who lives on which side of the river. These are old views; they are dead views. To be relying on a ferry service which was built back in 1878 is just plain stupid. It is high time that support and encouragement were given to both the Brisbane and Ipswich city councils to get together and make sure this long-awaited piece of essential infrastructure becomes a reality.

Transport issues are vitally important to the rapidly growing south-western suburbs of Brisbane and Ipswich, so all options must be carefully considered, but replacing the antiquated Moggill ferry service with a bridge is a no-brainer. For far too long, urban planning decisions, in particular the provision of vital transport infrastructure, have been made on the basis of political interests and not what is in the best interests of the entire community—none is more obvious than the political interests in Ryan. The member for Ryan, with his Cheshire cat smirk, waxes lyrical about his overflowing pride and his belief in his own high intellect, which he thinks will mask his real motives from his constituents. Improving the entire region’s liveability and quality of life depends on some tough decisions being taken now on the transport needs of the area. It is not about keeping the people from one side of the river out of the other side of the river. Ideas such as the bridge cannot be ignored any longer simply because they are politically unpopular.

Of more concern to the member for Ryan should be the question of how to assist in providing infrastructure for the rapidly developing Moggill region—and I know he has spoken about this. Perhaps he should have a broader view on how he would link Moggill with the rest of the community rather than shutting down. He would know the rapid development through there, and not investigating all the options is plain silly. Good planning and infrastructure provision is vitally important for the residents of Ipswich and Brisbane. What is really needed is for the local elected representatives to take a stand for what is in the entire community’s long-term interests and not their own short-term, short-sighted political playthings.

Last December I also called for a considered debate on the Westgate project. It is a Queensland government project to redevelop more than 500 hectares of surplus government land along the Brisbane River between Woogaroo and Wolston creeks. What I suggested then, and continue to support today, is that people need to take a cold shower on this issue and debate the merits of the proposed Westgate development project in a mature, considered way and not deliberately mislead the public on the options and on community consultation. When a large parcel of land such as Westgate is opened up for development there are a lot of matters which need to be considered like, for example, the long-term impact on the local environment, especially the local eastern grey kangaroo population.

Of particular importance in this debate is the fact that there are no bridges to be built or even proposed as part of the Westgate project, and that any bridges which may have to be built in the future would be a decision of the Brisbane City Council—not the state government, or the federal government for that matter. Just because lines on a map have been drawn that indicate possible potential future bridges, it does not mean that they are part of this project or will ever be built. Elected representatives should not reject proposals out of hand until they are at least fully considered in a rational manner and through proper community consultation.

On infrastructure issues, the member for Ryan has demonstrated no leadership, just an oppositionist approach to the proper servicing of residents of Brisbane and Ipswich, and I think we all deserve better. The member for Ryan should stop engaging in counter-productive, cheap political point scoring and concentrate on lobbying his own government to find the direct road funding needed and take up his responsibilities in the region in a positive manner.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Oxley, I am not going to interrupt you for any extent of time, but I want to put the view that I was not here when the member for Ryan spoke. If I was, I would have pulled him up. This debate is more like an appropriation of the Queensland parliament. I will allow you to continue, but I will put my view that I do not condone the debate in here of state affairs; it should be the appropriation of the Australian parliament.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but these are very much federal matters. The member for Ryan consistently speaks about them and so do I, because they are of national importance.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are forums of the House that can be used, as you would be aware.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

His constituents, I am sure—and I spoke with one of his constituents just this morning—want a better deal from their local elected representative. What they want is a representative who will start delivering on road infrastructure projects, not just behaving as though he is in opposition and has no influence over the federal government. For instance, where is the member for Ryan when his colleagues want to cut a swathe through the leafy suburbs of Ryan with an outrageously expensive monstrosity called the half Goodna bypass—another federally funded project, for which the research money also came from the federal government.

When compared to the billion-dollar plus road that would loop between Dinmore and Gailes through Priors Pocket, the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway between the exact same two points—both federal projects—would cost only $300 million. Just do the simple sums on this: $1.1 billion for a pie in the sky federal project which may never get off the ground or a ready to go $300 million project which delivers a much better outcome. Let me answer that for members here—where is the member for Ryan? He has gone missing. When confronted with any tough issue in his electorate, he tries to blame anyone but himself or his government. I recall very well the community meeting on this very issue. More than 1,000 of his constituents turned up, but he did not because he was too busy having dinner with the US ambassador at the time.

I would now like to encourage the member for Ryan to show some courage and join me in trying to get a solution to the infrastructure needs in South East Queensland, which his government has so openly neglected for the last 10 years—that is, the federal government. For example, he should follow my lead on the Ipswich Motorway—another federal government issue. In my view, it is an eminently sensible and affordable solution that the federal government will eventually have to adopt because of its desperate need. I am sure many in this place are aware of this as I have spoken about it many times and I have been campaigning on this issue for many years, even before I was elected to parliament. But we need to take the politics out of road infrastructure and we need to get the federal government to, at the very least, take up its own responsibilities on this issue.

As a result of my campaigning, I have been able to secure close to $550 million for the residents of Ipswich and south-west Brisbane—so much so that some members have commented and asked me whether or not I was a National Party member! A few members will understand exactly what I mean by that. The notorious Ipswich Motorway is a crucial link in the national highway network. But there is more to be done, and I will not give up just because I have managed to secure $550 million. I will do that work whether I am in opposition or whether I am in government—it makes no difference to me—because I believe that completion of this infrastructure needs to be carried through.

Since 1998, with the support of the community, I have led the campaign to get the Commonwealth government to face up to its responsibilities and fund a full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. In 2001 I helped secure $66 million for a range of interim safety works and planning along the Ipswich Motorway corridor—another underfunded federal government matter. In 2004 the Commonwealth government finally agreed to provide $160 million for the upgrade of the Logan-Ipswich Motorway interchange, which is locally known as spaghetti junction. Recently, after starting the media-adopted ‘dial a motorway’ campaign, which encouraged local residents to call the Prime Minister directly and demand he release funding for the full upgrade, $320 million was allocated for roadworks between Wacol and Darra. That just goes to show that, if you apply the blow torch to the belly, sometimes it just does work. This brings the total amount of money extracted from the Howard government to $546 million. Sure, it was like pulling teeth but it also means that the community campaign has successfully secured funding for the part of the Ipswich Motorway, between Goodna and Darra at least, but it is not over.

There is much more to be done, and I will not rest until every single Queensland Liberal member takes up their responsibilities to fix the federal government’s roads in the area. If it were not for more than eight years of campaigning on this issue in the region, we would have received a big fat zero. This money has been gained despite the efforts of the member for Ryan and, more importantly, his fellow traveller in the clueless club, the member for Blair.

The Prime Minister’s announcement in November last year to fund the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway between Wacol and Darra is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It has been done, though in the most cynical way, despite every effort from the member for Blair to absolutely block it. While the money is welcomed, it is nowhere near enough, as I have said. What I have asked the Prime Minister to do on many occasions is go the full monty. Let’s go the whole way: let’s fix the road, let’s stop wasting tens of millions of dollars on a half-baked half bypass that does not even deliver half a solution. South East Queenslanders deserve much better from the Prime Minister. They deserve to have the Ipswich Motorway fully upgraded, regardless of who their representative is in parliament.

A further $345 million is needed for the full upgrade between Dinmore and Goodna and $205 million is needed for the Darra to Rocklea section, which touches into Moreton. This means the people of Ipswich and south-west Brisbane have been short-changed by a total of $550 million, which should have been delivered a long time ago. Just imagine for a minute that that money had been delivered on time: today that road would be fully completed and we would not have the roadblocks, the rage, the accidents, along with other problems, and the economic failings of the area because of the condition of the road. On behalf of local residents, I would like to continue to lead the campaign to ensure they get a modern, safe motorway and to make sure that we address the growing traffic problems in the region.

The principal reason that local residents have not received the money needed for the full upgrade is the member for Blair’s continued blocking of it. While a government member may not always get money he wants to fund a project, I can guarantee people that if he objects to money for a project in a local area it ain’t ever going to be coming. So if the member for Blair were not insisting on investigating some pie in the sky Goodna half-bypass, the Prime Minister would have no option but to fund the full upgrade. If the member for Blair backed himself out of his own corner and swallowed his pride, we would now have a fully upgraded motorway.

Instead of going into bat for local residents and trying to get some money to improve local road infrastructure, the member for Blair has argued against fixing the motorway and is delivering nothing for the people of Ipswich whom he represents. The member for Blair is the man who has single-handedly thwarted the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway at every turn—day in, day out. I cannot stress that enough, because it frustrates me so much and it must frustrate so many local people. He has blocked the upgrade year after year. He is the one-man roadblocker. He has let the people of Ipswich and South East Queensland down time and time again.

Even this morning, the member for Ryan, like nearly every other Queensland based government member in this House, was trying to blame the Queensland state government, local councils, the bogeyman—anyone they could think of—for the infrastructure problems in South East Queensland, but they will not come to the party when it comes to funding their own responsibilities. They will blame anybody.

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Gavan O’Connor interjecting

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the member for Corio that they will blame anybody. Let me tell you one thing for certain: the Liberal mayor of Brisbane knows whose fault it is, and he is coming to get you. He is coming after you.

It should be remembered that fully upgrading the Ipswich Motorway is the best use of taxpayers’ money. Analysis undertaken by the RACQ shows that upgrading the motorway would be four times a better use of taxpayers’ money than proceeding with any further studies into the so-called Goodna half-bypass. It is imminently sensible that we move in that direction. In addition, cost-benefit analysis of the full upgrade of the Goodna to Dinmore leg of the Ipswich Motorway, compared to the half-bypass, reveals that the full upgrade is six times a better use of taxpayers’ money. Cost-benefit analysis factors in a project’s cost and the improvements it would make to both travel time and road safety. How can anyone argue that spending $345 million on the Dinmore to Goodna section of the motorway is not a better option than gambling $1.22 billion on the half-baked, pie-in-the-sky half-bypass which will not deliver the same solutions as upgrading the motorway. The full upgrade is ready to go now, but the half-bypass needs a further three years study which includes an extensive community consultation process just to see if it is even feasible.

Further, the Howard government’s decision to spend—or I should say waste—$10 million investigating another study into this ridiculous project will simply throw good money after bad. The money has been set aside as a personal get out of jail card for the member for Blair to save his bacon from embarrassment over his ill-judged gamble and obstructionist posturing. The member for Blair is on record as saying, ‘Only a fool would spend money on the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway.’ He just may get his wish yet.

The announcement of a further study in the half-bypass is a political manoeuvre. It has been done to try and salvage some political pride for the Howard government, which wants to walk away from its funding responsibilities, which is well known to members of this House. It wants to palm the Ipswich Motorway off to state and local governments. This is equivalent to a tenant renting a house for 10 years and then moving out never having paid rent. The federal government for the last 10 years has been the tenant on the Ipswich Motorway and has not paid one cent of rent. It is now going to walk away and leave it in a dilapidated condition. That is not the sort of behaviour that local people want or expect from the Commonwealth government or their elected representatives.

I want to play a little game. It is called ‘Spot the odd man out’. In recent times, many people have had a lot to say about road funding and the Ipswich Motorway. Here are some of the comments:

The people who have not stepped up to the plate are the Federal Government in regard to road funding in the region.

Who said that? It was the Brisbane Liberal Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, on the Ipswich Motorway. There you go! Another quote:

We are firmly saying to the Federal Government it is time to upgrade the entire motorway and provide the financial backing to the people in the fastest growing region in Australia.

Who said that? You have guessed it—the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Another quote:

The Government’s failure to prioritise this major road in Australia’s fastest-growing city simply doesn’t make sense.

Who said that? The Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, Robert Walker. Another quote:

I’m not going to take on projects which are rightly the responsibility of the Commonwealth. They have to carry their share of the load, here they have the responsibility of upgrading the Ipswich Motorway.

Who said that? It was state Liberal leader, Bob Quinn. Another quote:

The people of the western corridor have been betrayed by Mr Howard. This is a Commonwealth responsibility, it always has been.

Who said that? The Premier of Queensland. Another quote:

As well as clogging roads, traffic congestion chokes economic growth, by reducing productivity of the workforce and capital, and by raising costs of transporting people and goods.

Who said that? No less than Ken Willett, the Economics and Public Policy Manager of RACQ. Another quote:

The federal government’s belated announcement of funding for the upgrade of only the central section of the Ipswich Motorway and to undertake still more studies on the worst section—the Dinmore to Goodna link—will inevitability lead to further deaths and serious injuries, worsening congestion, and substantial economic costs.

Who said that? Ken Willett, RACQ. Another quote:

The Federal Government has been pondering over the Ipswich Motorway for eight years, and its latest announcement ensures that procrastination over the severely congested, high-accident-rate western end of the link will continue for a few more years yet.

Who said that? Chief Executive of the RACQ, Alan Terry, on the Prime Minister’s decision to waste a further $10 million. Another quote:

Clearly, the ‘potentially feasible’ Ipswich Motorway Northern Bypass options are not feasible in the widely accepted, conventional, economically appropriate sense because they compare very unfavourably with at least one other alternative, the one proposed by the Queensland Government.

Who said that? Ken Willett, RACQ. Another quote:

That’s always been our intention.

Who said that? Liberal MP Cameron Thompson, the member for Blair, admitting the Howard government wants to walk away from the Ipswich Motorway and dump responsibility for funding a full upgrade onto the state and local governments. Another quote:

The local traffic component is not our responsibility

Who said that? Liberal MP Cameron Thompson again, admitting that he is not interested in helping local people in his own electorate. Unbelievable but true. My question to the member would be: how can you rightfully and justifiably attempt to separate the responsibility for local and other traffic on a road that is a major thoroughfare through a major city? Another quote:

The full responsibility for the existing motorway will pass to the state government.

There is a clear message there. Who said that? Liberal MP Cameron Thompson. He continually admits that he is not interested in federal government responsibility. One of my favourite quotes, from the same person, is:

Only a fool would spend money on the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway.

I say to him: it is looking closer every day, because one way or the other we are going to pull those teeth for funding. We are going to get that money. We are halfway there—we have $550 million—and there is $550 million to go. But Cameron Thompson is going to get his wish: only a fool would spend money on the Ipswich Motorway. There are no prizes for guessing who the odd man out is in the little game we have just played. The one-man roadblock to delivering a safe and efficient upgrade to the Ipswich Motorway is the member for Blair. He and the member for Ryan—partners in crime, as it were—are both letting down the people in their electorates in south-east Queensland. Instead of trying to blame everyone else or coming into this place and attacking me, other members and the state government, they should do something constructive.

They can fill their boots for all I care in attacking a whole range of people, but get on with the job—take your responsibilities seriously. Get on with the job of planning. Let us see infrastructure delivered to the local people that they represent, I represent and all members from that region represent. Let us get south-east Queensland buzzing. I know the state government is doing everything it can. It is not perfect, but it is working hard. I apply the same principle to the federal government: you are not perfect either, but work harder and deliver the funding, because right now you have no leadership, no plan and no courage—we have certainly seen none of that from the Liberal representatives in the region.

It is disgraceful. They run misleading and misguided campaigns on these roads, telling furphies about options and plans and continually delaying and obstructing. Eight years is way too long to be waiting on a road that is of national importance. Labor has made a commitment. We are prepared to take up where this government has failed. We will deliver if the government does not deliver. I make this pledge: I will be campaigning for this whether in opposition or in government.

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Oxley. He has been a strong campaigner in his part of Queensland and has exposed the shortcomings of the federal government and of the representation given in that part of Australia by Liberal members of this parliament. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006 represent significant spends. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) provides for an additional $2.63 billion in 2005-06, and $124 million of that is for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, particularly the fisheries adjustment scheme. That is an area of my portfolio responsibility as shadow minister for agriculture and fisheries, so I will be addressing my remarks to that area of additional expenditure.

In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) the additional expenditure sought is $1.37 billion, with the main increase being $744.4 million for payment to the states. Wrapped up in this payment to the states is GST compensation, drought exceptional circumstances and Australian health care arrangements. So there is proposed expenditure in that bill that I would like to address in this debate. In Appropriation Bill (No 3) a significant amount, $124 million, is allocated to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and part of that is earmarked for fisheries adjustment.

I note a statement by the minister in November 2005 that the government was providing some $220 million to ‘secure Australia’s fishing future’. The main thrust of this expenditure on fishing structural adjustment was to better manage our fisheries and make them more sustainable. That is not only in the interests of the industry but also in the national interest, as this industry contributes billions of dollars to Australia’s gross domestic product and, indeed, is a major export earner. So it is in the national interest as well as the sectional industry interest of fishermen that we get things right in this industry. But it is an industry where things have gone horribly wrong for many fishermen. Significant investments have been made in the industry in the face of declining fish stocks and, of course, as the management squeeze has come upon these fisheries so has the pressure for structural adjustment.

When you get behind the terminology and get behind what structural adjustment actually means, it means Australians who have invested in a particular livelihood, be it on farms or through investing in a fishing boat and becoming part of that industry, have invested their life savings in the hope of value adding to those life savings and contributing to the national economy. Things go wrong in industries. In the case of agriculture it might be drought, and that is going to be an issue in debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006. In the fishing industry it is the perennial problem of declining stocks, pressure on the fisheries from various sources and, of course, the inevitable process of structural adjustment where people have to make a decision to exit the industry. Of course, many of those people do so with considerable losses of livelihood and curtailment of their futures.

Australian fisheries are under enormous pressure. One pressure is simply the demand that is being exerted in the Australian community for product. There is a finite product but an ever-increasing demand. That comes from people who have changed their dietary habits. Most Australians would appreciate that historically we have been great meat eaters, but over the last couple of decades, with increasing links between the health debate, agriculture and fisheries, we have seen a significant shift in the consumption patterns of ordinary Australian households. Fish is a very important part of the local diet. I was raised a Mick, if I can use the vernacular, and of course we had fish every Friday. It was a part of our diet for religious reasons. But for most Australian consumers I think we have seen a gradual shift for health reasons to fish as a source of protein and a source of certain essential vitamins and minerals, and of course the demand has increased.

We have also seen environmental pressure with our oceans. We have seen the rise of marine parks and the ever-increasing areas that are now designated as marine parks, the conservation of  fishing resources and the ecology of regions. That is a fit and proper development in Australian society, but the inevitable result of having those areas quarantined for environmental purposes is that it has put pressure on existing fisheries and other areas. Given the degree of fishing effort, there is a displaced effort that must be accommodated or else people have to leave the industry. That is another reason. The other reason that some fisheries have come under pressure is illegal fishing. That is an issue that I will address in the context of this debate.

Having made those remarks, let me comment on the $220 million that the government allocated in November 2005 to secure Australia’s fishing future. The opposition does not have a problem with the fact that the government is introducing a structural adjustment package for the industry. As a broad principle we think this is a good thing, and $124 million of this additional expenditure in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 is related to this adjustment package. I note the elements of this package, and I will outline them for the benefit of the committee. The centrepiece of the package is $150 million for a one-off capped fishing concession buyout focused on reducing the high level of fishing capacity in those Commonwealth fisheries that are subject to overfishing. Here we are talking about fisheries that generally occur between the three and 200 nautical mile limit off Australia’s coastline. The buyout is a necessary measure, but there have been considerable problems associated with the tender process and the buyout provisions under the structural adjustment package. I will refer more specifically to that later in my remarks. The following is taken from the minister’s press release: The centrepiece of the package is $150 million for a one-off capped fishing concession buyout focused on reducing the high level of fishing capacity in those Commonwealth fisheries that are subject to overfishing. Here we are talking about fisheries that generally occur between the three and 200 nautical mile limit off Australia’s coastline. The buyout is a necessary measure, but there have been considerable problems associated with the tender process and the buyout provisions under the structural adjustment package. I will refer more specifically to that later in my remarks. The following is taken from the minister’s press release:

A further $70m in complementary assistance will be available for other activities including:

• $30 million to offset the impacts of reduced fishing activity on onshore businesses most directly linked to the fishing industry (e.g. fish processors, ships chandlers) as well as other targeted assistance including;
• grants of $5,000 and $3,000 respectively to skippers and crew who lose employment as a result of the catch cuts to offset the costs of job seeking, relocation and retraining;
• $1,500 per fishing or directly related business to offset the costs of obtaining professional business advice on their best options under the package;
• $20 million to establish a Fishing Communities Programme aimed at generating new economic and employment opportunities in vulnerable regional ports affected by reduced fishing activity;
• $21 million to offset the cost of AFMA management levies and for improved science, compliance and data collection.

I am grateful for that advice on the elements of the package.

Let us take those elements of the package, because they are the substance of the matter under discussion in this appropriation bill. The problem that the opposition and the industry have with the centrepiece of the package—that is the $150 million buyout—is of course the tender process.

Let me just explain some of the problems associated with that and the declaration of marine park areas and the displaced fishing effort that is attempted to be accommodated in this provision with the buyout. As far as the marine protected areas are concerned, the public consultation process was to be undertaken in January and February of this year with declarations at the end of 2006. So we will not know until the end of 2006 who is likely to be affected by these declarations and, therefore, who might well be eligible under the tender process to apply for assistance under this package. The problem with the business exit assistance packages, as I understand them, is that tenders were opened in late January, tenders will close 10 weeks after that in mid-April and port meetings to explain the tender process only began in February this year. So here we have a process in train where the elements of the consultation process are out of kilter with what the government is attempting to do in this provision.

Going to the $30 million to offset the impacts of reduced fishing activity on onshore businesses and the $20 million to establish a fishing communities program, as an opposition we will be watching the expenditures under this provision with a very keen eye because we know the capacity of this government to rort these programs. I note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. I should not mention this but there is always fishy business going on down in the seat of Eden-Monaro. We have to look very closely at some of the expenditures under other programs that have already been made to the industry down there. Significant questions have been asked about those. But I will not go into those here except to say that, if past experience is any indication, this will be a licence to rort in some marginal electorates and coastal areas around this country. We will be watching these programs very closely indeed.

And we put the minister on notice that the opposition will be watching him very closely. I take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Abetz on his elevation to this portfolio. I sincerely wish him every success. Really, he does not have a big bar to jump. To be successful in this portfolio he is really stepping over the bodies of two abject failures—the member for O’Connor, a former fisheries minister, and Senator Ian Macdonald, who did not exactly serve with distinction in the portfolio. Having said that, I give Senator Abetz a gentle warning to perform in this portfolio. I should put on the public record that the two scalps in the coalition are mine.

Government Members:

Government members—Ha, ha!

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable members are full of laughter at that. We on this side are full of laughter at the absolute incompetence of the member for O’Connor in the portfolio and Senator Macdonald. But it is no laughing matter for the industry, because they want this portfolio settled.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Randall interjecting

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Eden-Monaro was the person to put in. I have worked on committees with him and he has a bit of integrity on some of these matters. He is a person who knows the industry. Having said that, I wish Senator Abetz well. As I said, it is not a big bar to jump when you look at the performance of previous ministers in the portfolio. I am hopeful—as is the industry—that this minister will get away from the glib one-liners and headliners like ‘We’re on top of illegal fishing’, ‘We’ve got it all under control’ when, in fact, it is actually in crisis.

The $21 million to offset the cost of AFMA management levies and for improved science compliance and data collection is a sensible measure. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro, as a scientist, would appreciate the fact that, more than anything else, this industry needs good statistics on what is happening in fisheries so that we can tailor and target these structural adjustment packages more effectively to the people who need the assistance.

I mentioned before that there are several pressures on our fisheries. One is consumer demand and the ramping up of demand for the product in the marketplace. That has put pressure on the sustainability of the fisheries. The declaration of marine protected areas has meant that fisheries have been closed off and some sources of supply have been cut off. There has been displaced effort and that has put structural adjustment pressures on fisheries. But there is another issue that has put pressure on many fisheries—and some of those fisheries are the particular object of the moneys we are discussing today—and that is, of course, the issue of illegal fishing. I cannot believe that you can have such incompetence from a national government on an issue of such substance and importance to Australia.

Illegal fishing is not just a fishing issue. It is a border security issue; it is a quarantine issue. Where we have seen absolute and spectacular failure of government it is in this area. The Howard government can spend $1 billion and more on a war in Iraq, ostensibly to secure Australia, yet it cannot find the resources to effectively police our borders and to get on top of this issue. I will not go into the detail of some of the outrageous claims that have been made by government ministers as this crisis has deepened but, as we have seen with the AWB scandal, this is an area of staggering incompetence. It has been allowed to drift, and now we have enormous pressure on our northern fisheries as a result of the Howard government’s incompetence. The objective of this structural adjustment package is the sustainability of our fisheries. We have a problem in our northern fisheries and it is a direct result of this government’s incompetence.

In addition to that, structural adjustment pressures have come onto fishing operators through massive hikes in the cost of fuel and now, of course, the skill shortages in the industry are spilling over into higher costs that are also putting structural adjustment pressure on the industry. There is another matter I would like to mention in the context of this debate: the food labelling issue—an issue that is very close to fishermen. We have a lot of products coming in from overseas, and I think This Day Tonight has run a couple of programs on this. If the government were to look at doing something very constructive for the Australian fishing industry, it would tackle this issue head-on, get some clear labelling requirements and make sure that it got the state and federal governments together to ensure that on the ground there is a policing of these food labelling regimes so we can educate consumers about the products that they are consuming. Quite frankly, I am a great fish eater, but there are some fish I would not eat in a fit—they are laced with arsenic, mercury, lead and all sorts of things. In saying that, that is not denigrating the Australian product; it is basically the overseas products that have this problem.

I understand that the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council are meeting with the minister today. These are some of the issues that, no doubt, they will be raising with the minister, particularly that issue of illegal fishing. I hope that this minister takes it seriously and does not deal with the problem with a press release that says, ‘We’re on top of the problem.’ We have had a 75-metre boat, Chinese crewed, a mother ship of 640-odd tonnes—that is a lot of fish—fishing in our waters. This has to stop. We have to get a surveillance up; we have to get better coordination between the assets that exist at local, state and federal level; and we simply have to put more money in. This is advice to the government: cut the tens of millions of waste on advertising, put it into this task and do the nation a favour.

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up this bill, I thank the member for Corio for vouching for my integrity during his speech. I very much appreciate that he would do that. The House has been debating the additional estimates bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006. As is the practice with these sorts of bills, speakers have canvassed a whole range of topics in this debate and have generally had a focus on the economy. The opposition has moved an amendment in the second reading stage which, I am sure all members will understand, the government disagrees.

The bills request new appropriations of approximately $2.6 billion. The requirement for additional funding arises from: changes in the estimates of program expenditure due to variations in the timing of payments and forecast increases in costs; reclassifications; and policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget, most of which were described in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2005-2006 published in December last year. The bills propose appropriation for important activities including: $110.7 million for the workplace relations reform package and $104 million assistance to support the sustainability of Australian government managed fisheries—and the member for Corio spoke at length on that area. He criticised the government about assistance packages in a general sense, without being specific, but that seems to be the way the opposition works.

The member for Corio made reference to assistance packages in my electorate. I say to the member for Corio that he is welcome to come down to my electorate and talk to the many businesses and people who have benefited greatly from things like the Eden Region Adjustment Package, which was an absolute lifesaver for the town of Eden at the time the Heinz factory closed there putting something like 150 people out of work—150 people out of work in a town with a population of around 3,000 has a huge impact both on the town and on the region. I would be very happy for the member for Corio to come down and talk to all those people who have been able to get jobs as a result of some of those projects that have been funded. Sure, not all of them have been absolutely successful, but that is what happens in those situations. If you do not do anything, though, then nothing happens; but overwhelmingly they have been successful.

It is unfortunate that there has been criticism, exclusively from the Labor opposition, about some of those projects. A lot of the criticism is based on ignorance and a total lack of understanding of the projects that have been funded. The opposition, as usual, concentrated on the odd one that was not as successful as everybody would have liked rather than looking at the overwhelming number of projects that have been successful and that have provided work to many people in my electorate.

The fisheries package is a crucial package, and I was pleased to receive the other day a letter from the President of SETFIA, which is the industry association covering the south-east trawl, Fritz Drenkahn, congratulating the government and thanking me for my involvement in that package that the former Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Ian Macdonald, announced last year. Many fishermen will be out of work as a result of this. They know that. However, they also know that there has been a problem for some time of too many fishermen chasing too few fish. It will have a major impact, once again particularly in the Eden area but also in Bermagui in my electorate, when that number of fishermen are taken out. The flow-on effect will certainly be felt in those towns. That is why an assistance package has been put in place to help with that adjustment. The fishermen themselves will voluntarily hand over their licences as a crucial part of the package. I congratulate the government for that package and the new minister, Senator Abetz, I know, will carry on the good work of Senator Macdonald in completing that particular package.

There will be $52.4 million additional funding to meet the increased demand for the highly disadvantaged stream of Job Network services, an additional $304.3 million to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for exceptional circumstances assistance and $131 million for vaccines, antibiotics and protective equipment in preparation for a potential influenza pandemic.

Much of the debate has focused on the government’s economic record. The government very much stands by its performance. Since 1996, the Australian economy has seen a long period of sustained strong growth; in 2005-06, it is forecast to grow by three per cent. During this sustained period of growth, the unemployment rate has been reduced, while inflation and interest rates have been kept low. The official interest rate has fallen from 7.5 per cent in March 1996 to 5.5 per cent at the present time. I know that in my own electorate it has gone from between seven and eight per cent back in 1996 to now well below five per cent and as low as 2.5 or three per cent in some areas. At a current rate of 5.3 per cent, unemployment remains the lowest since monthly labour market statistics were introduced in February 1978. Inflation remains moderate and appears to be well under control. The CPI rose by 0.5 per cent in the December quarter 2004 and increased by 2.8 per cent through the year.

There are also major achievements in the government’s fiscal management. The government has reduced net debt by $84.3 billion. We all remember the $96 billion debt left to us by the former Labor government, $84.3 billion of that having now been paid off, bringing it down to $11.5 billion in 2004-05. Net debt is expected to continue to fall over the forward estimates and by 2005-06 we expect to eliminate the Australian government’s net debt position and turn it into a net asset position. Just think of all of the interest that was being paid on that debt each year—so many billions of dollars when we first came into government that is now being able to be directed into areas like health and education. This means that Australia is amongst the countries with the lowest government net debt levels in the OECD. For example, as a share of GDP, Australia’s net debt level is well below the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and New Zealand.

The government does not support the second reading amendment proposed by the honourable member for Melbourne. I am not going to respond in detail to the opposition statements, except to say that the government stands by its achievements in economic policy and in placing the Australian economy where it needs to be to respond to coming challenges. The government has overseen a fiscal strategy that has helped to deliver strong economic and employment growth coupled with modest inflation as well as sound fiscal position. The additional estimates appropriation bills reinforce the government’s reputation in budget and economic management. They request funding for important initiatives to maintain government activities and to contribute to the strong performance of the Australian economy. I commend the bills to the House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.