Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 cover expenditures in addition to those outlined in the government’s 2006-07 budget. The additional expenditures entailed in both bills total around $2 billion, which is a net figure of savings measures outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007. In Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 the government seeks additional appropriations of $1.8 billion, with savings in the order of $464.2 million, leaving a net figure of $1.37 billion to be appropriated. In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 there is an appropriation of some $637 million. As outlined in the minister’s second reading speech, these appropriations are designed to meet requirements that have arisen from the last budget.

I support the second reading amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Melbourne in this debate. When we look at these expenditures we see that they are not insubstantial and they call into question the government’s prowess in managing its budget. We have witnessed in this House year after year some chronic underspends by the government, enormous surpluses being generated that have not been accounted for at budget time and generally some expenditures that we on this side of the House take significant issue with. I refer to the blatant use of appropriations in the budget for advertising purposes, particularly in the lead-up to an election.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to an article that I noticed in the Australian today. The report, headlined ‘Howard $1bn pledges shortfall’, goes into some excruciating detail of the chronic underspends that the government has been involved in since it came to power and more recently. The reporter goes through the 2004 election commitments and we see that the announced cost for the 100 per cent Medicare rebate was $1.7 billion. The actual cost was $1.67 billion. There was a difference of $43 million. When we go to some of the other figures we can see they are quite substantial. For the mature age worker tax offset, a $1.039 billion program ended up spending $1.42 billion. That was out by some $38 million. There was a commitment of $2 billion over five years for the Australian water fund. The actual cost was $601 million, with an underspend of $399 million. For the 30 per cent childcare rebate there was an underspend of $455 million. The tax break for entrepreneurs was costed at $1.25 billion but $948 million was spent. That is an underspend of $302 million.

I mention these figures because we find that the government is very long on promises and beats up the amount of money it is spending on various areas in its budget. But, when you drill down in estimates, you find that it either has not spent it or has chronically overspent it. It leads one to question why, with the amount of money flowing to the highest taxing government in Australia’s history, we do not have a better accounting record of those expenditures. I canvass the economic situation that the government claims has been responsible for the enormous revenues that have been generated to the Commonwealth over the past 10 years. I remind government members that it was Labor that left them the rolled-gold economy that they now claim credit for. It was the Labor Party that broke the back of Liberal inflation—

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, come on!

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Hinkler scoffs at that suggestion. I invite him to read the historical record on inflation. Before Labor came to power in 1983, the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, John Howard, left Labor in government an inflation rate in excess of 10 per cent. We brought it down to under two per cent. We broke the back of Liberal inflation and we set the framework for the low-interest-rate regime that is currently being enjoyed by Australians. That is not a figment of my imagination; that is Australia’s economic history—and I am surprised that the honourable member for Hinkler would enter the debate on this point because he more than anybody else would know the facts. He would know that, when he came into the parliament—and I think it was in about 1993, when I entered the parliament—Labor in government had been grappling for a long period of time with the ill effects of Liberal inflation. At the time we left office it was below two per cent. That is a matter for the historical record. Australia’s economic history is there for all to see.

That current prosperity, which is related to the reduction in interest rates that has occurred over several decades, is directly attributable to the efforts of the then Labor government in breaking the back of Liberal inflation. That is a statistic that the government do not want to entertain much at all. As far as they are concerned the economic history of Australia started in 1996, when they came to power. But once again it is a matter of historical record that up to that particular point in time Australia had enjoyed a growth rate of some four per cent over the preceding four years—that is, Labor handed over to the coalition a rolled-gold economy; it was travelling along at a growth rate of four per cent with an underlying inflation rate that was certainly in single digits, very low and heading lower.

Of course, we can go to a lot of the other statistics—export performance and the job growth levels. I note day after day the coalition members on the floor of the parliament claiming great credit for the low unemployment rates in this country. They do have a weird way of defining who is actually employed. As we know, according to the official statistic quoted by the coalition, if a person works one hour in the couple of weeks preceding when they are surveyed by the ABS then that person is categorised as employed. We know the government has used many of its labour market programs to warehouse the unemployed in training schemes that are of dubious value—many do serve a purpose but many do not. We know there is chronic underemployment in the Australian economy—that is, that there are more Australian workers working part time than ever before. For the purposes of the survey, if you have a part-time job and work 20 hours then, according to members of the coalition, you are employed. I am afraid you cannot raise a family on 20 hours of work. You cannot pay off a mortgage on 20 hours of work.

Many people are working two and three jobs trying to juggle their family responsibilities just to put tucker on the table. Of course, along comes the coalition with a Work Choices bill that is designed to rip the insides out of the working conditions and wages and salaries of working people yet again. I note that the subject of some of these expenditures in appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 relate to the Office of Workplace Services. Members of the coalition parade themselves as paragons of virtue and defenders of the family while at the same time they rip the heart out of the income of households and they put enormous physical and financial pressure on those particular households. When you work three jobs just to keep your family together, then something suffers. It is the family that suffers, not only from the lack of money but from the fact that the parents are never home. The parents are never home as they have to juggle a whole lot of responsibilities to make ends meet in the household family income sense. At the end of the day, that substantially impacts on the family.

I refer to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and the range of measures for which the government has made additional allocations. I refer to the expenditure allocation of $74.2 million that has been made available to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to provide additional support to primary producers in drought declared areas and those who are really facing exceptional circumstances at this time. I note that $17.3 million has been allocated in taxable grants of up to $5,000 for eligible farmers, to give farmers the opportunity to get professional business and planning advice. This is a very important allocation. It is one that I would certainly not quibble with. At this time when some farmers have suffered quite catastrophic drops in their income, they need access to very professional planning advice as to either how they can cope over the next couple of years until there is a recovery or how they should exit the sector due to the difficulties that they face.

I note that today the government made an announcement which allocates some additional moneys to the sector for the purpose of assisting rural businesses. This important initiative will provide assistance to businesses in rural areas with employee numbers going up to 100 people. It is not just the people on the farm and in farm businesses that are having a tough time in rural Australia. The people in the many ancillary businesses that feed off the sector are going through extremely tough times.

I happened to be in the Riverina a couple of months ago and as I travelled around I saw the devastation of the drought: the dry dams, bare ground and the devastated grain crops that would not be harvested at all. On the way back, I happened to stop at a transport operator’s yard. I thought I would pop in to have a chat. I sat with the owner, who informed me that they had suffered a 90 per cent drop in business income. They had a fleet of trucks and were desperately searching for other business to at least keep the core business going. This gives you an idea of the devastation that has been visited on rural and regional Australia by this drought. I do not think too many people would argue with the sorts of expenditures that have been outlined by the government. They are ones that I would support.

However, I do take issue. The government continually bandies about this statistic that it has allocated $2.3 billion to drought assistance. Is it $2.3 billion over five years, four years or 10 years? We do not really know. We have drilled down in estimates, we have gone through all the government budget papers and we cannot come up with $2.3 billion. Maybe the member for Hinkler and some other government members might enlighten the parliament. In the first instance, I think some quite extravagant claims are made by the government. In the second instance, it never allocates all the moneys anyway and ends up returning a lot to general revenue.

The second matter I would like to draw the House’s attention to is the expenditure of some $120 million that will be provided for Operation Astute to restore peace and stability in East Timor. As we know, the people of East Timor suffered quite considerably through the Indonesian occupation. Subsequent to that, this new country to our near north has suffered from chronic political and institutional instability. The invasion by the Indonesians of this former Portuguese colony of East Timor in 1975—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

I was referring to the government’s allocation in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 to Operation Astute to restore peace and stability in East Timor. The Australia East Timor Association was formed in 1975. A branch of the organisation was established in Geelong in the early 1990s. The object of the organisation was to raise awareness of the atrocities committed by the Indonesians in East Timor and to lobby for East Timorese self-determination. For over a decade, the committee in Geelong highlighted the inhumane treatment that many in East Timor were receiving. They lobbied politicians, they wrote letters to the papers, they held street stalls et cetera. The public began to take notice of the issue with the release of John Pilger’s 1994 film Death of a nation.

Community groups in the Geelong area continued to remind the council and the public of the atrocities occurring in East Timor, and they included the Geelong branch of the Australia East Timor Association, the Geelong Catholic Social Justice Committee, Amnesty International and Oxfam CAA. After the Indonesian departure in 1999 community groups in Geelong remained committed to East Timor by helping the people during the reconstruction period, and the City of Greater Geelong formally ratified an agreement to establish a partnership with Viqueque. This was followed by the launch of a community-to-community partnership on 3 November 2000 by Sir William Deane, the then Governor-General.

Community groups, some of them having a long history of lobbying for and assisting the East Timorese, were asked to form the Geelong-East Timor Friendship Committee to link with Viqueque. The first meeting was held in February 2002, just prior to East Timor becoming an independent nation on 20 May. Viqueque is 195 kilometres south-east of Dili, with a population of 60,000. It is a poor district with many needs, particularly in the areas of health and education. Community groups that form the basis of the friendship group have done a lot to raise money and to increase awareness of the problems faced by that community. I commend the City of Greater Geelong, and in particular the then mayor, Councillor Barbara Abley, for overseeing the effort in East Timor on behalf of the Geelong community.

A whole host of measures have been taken in my community to assist Viqueque, and central to the organisation of that has been the efforts of one of my staff, Rosemary Nugent. I congratulate her on her ongoing commitment to the people of East Timor and for the work that she and her committee, the general Geelong community and other various groups have done in support of the East Timorese.

I also commend the government for the $39.4 million in this bill for protecting Australian families online. I think this is a measure that all people in the House can support. I did want in the time remaining to speak about the $14.6 million to be provided for the introduction of the formal citizenship test; however, I will just confine my remarks to congratulating the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council for another wonderful Pako Festa on the weekend, Geelong’s premiere multicultural festival, which I estimate was attended by some 100,000 people. It was a real success, and I congratulate all the staff of the Migrant Resource Centre and members of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council on their work in putting on this wonderful festival.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this appropriations debate today I want to talk about the city of Gladstone and how four issues swirl around Gladstone and will impact on Gladstone in one way or another. Gladstone, as you know, is the port city in the northern part of my electorate. It has a population of about 28,000, and the Calliope shire, with another 16,000, adjoins it. It is known as the port city to the world, as indeed it is. It is responsible for 12 per cent of Australia’s exports by volume, which is quite remarkable for a city of that size. Its main export commodity is coal. It has other export commodities, including alumina, aluminium, chemicals and timber, but it is essentially a coal port. It is Australia’s second biggest coal port. I will talk about coal, Kyoto, nuclear energy and infrastructure because all these things impact on Gladstone. It is a very good city. It is a city that does things well.

Recently, the Gladstone Observer, the local paper, polled its readers, asking them whether the coal industry should be restricted to protecting the environment, and 60 per cent of the respondents said no. That is not surprising, given that it is the economic powerhouse of Central Queensland and much of the wealth of Central Queensland comes from coal. Five years ago, the Port of Gladstone was exporting 35 million tonnes of coal. Last year, it was up to 43 million tonnes and, as it comes on stream with a new loader at Wiggins Island, it will move up towards 70 million tonnes.

If you look across Australia, you will see that coal is responsible for $24 billion worth of income to this country, $14 billion of it from Queensland. It is responsible for 130,000 jobs. That is a lot of jobs. All around Central Queensland, in the coalfields and in the great towns of Dysart, Moranbah and Emerald and so on, there are many coalmines and more to come on stream when the Surat Basin is opened up as a result of the recently announced rail line. At first, it was thought there might be five mines; it could be as high as nine. So there is a vast rail network and also many rail workers dependent on this. It is one of the most efficient rail systems in Australia. In fact, Queensland is the only state that has profit-making railways and a lot of it is pinned on the Central Queensland system.

Gladstone is also the hub of engineering. There is an engineering alliance, which is both a think tank and a practical group, that gets things done in and around Gladstone and its hinterland. We have a university, a TAFE and a group apprenticeship scheme, all heavily dependent on coal or affiliates of coal in one form or another. So you can understand that I am very sensitive about it. Another thing that flows from that is the varieties of coal. There are several varieties of coal, but we have a particularly clean, steaming coal that is much in demand from that area. By using that in the three powerhouses of Central Queensland—that is, Stanwell, Gladstone and Callide, which itself is in three subpowerhouses—you get a degree of reliability, a triangular grid, which you have to have for the aluminium industry. The one thing you cannot have with aluminium is a close-down of power, a freeze-up of the aluminium, as it is extraordinarily expensive. So it is an integral part.

Why we get these industries like aluminium and alumina and chemical companies and why magnesium and nickel have been active there is the low-cost coal fired power. So the answer is not to close these down but to get involved in technologies that reduce greenhouse gas. That goes to the design of powerhouses. As was said in question time today, the government is spending almost $2 billion on the whole climate change agenda, but $1.1 billion of that is for the development of low-emissions and renewable technologies.

In the 2004 white paper, the government spoke about $500 million for the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which was the subject of today’s question; $1 million for the Renewable Energy Development Initiative; and $75 million for the Solar Cities program. They are all important, but I concentrate on the first two because they are the ones that could be important to Gladstone. We really need to advance the cause of sequestration because that will be critical in maintaining that industry.

The other great threat to the industry, of course, is Kyoto. If Kyoto is to go ahead in its present form—and I choose my words carefully; I said ‘in its present form’—then Gladstone will not be a beneficiary. We have signed Kyoto but we have not ratified it, and not without good reason. The United States, China, India and Korea, all industrial competitors of ours, have not signed; nor would China or India as developing countries be required to have very strenuous targets—in fact, not any targets initially. So what we have is about 46 per cent of the capacity of the world’s industrial countries not recognising Kyoto in one form or another. So what a silly situation it would put Australia into! In Europe there are another four or five countries that are not meeting Kyoto targets, and there is one in Asia. Spain, Italy, Germany and Japan are responsible for another 11 per cent. Take 11 per cent and add that onto 46 per cent and you are up around 57 per cent. Why would Australia walk into a trap like that? That would be tantamount to trying to run industry in Australia with one hand tied behind your back.

The other thing it would mean is that, effectively, in putting a premium on power that drives all that industry in Gladstone, it would export Australian jobs offshore. That would be the effect. The member for Brand, Kim Beazley, knew that when he came to the last election. He came out with this line: ‘We’ll get special arrangements for Gladstone.’ Everyone knows that, once you put your signature on the dotted line, you are into the Kyoto agenda. I do not think Australia should do so until those emitters that are emitting 46 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases and the other 11 per cent that are not getting anywhere near their targets do something about it. Then I think there is a case for us to get involved.

It is clear that a lot of the European countries are not meeting their targets. Just to name a few, for example, as I said before, we have Germany, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands and then, in our own area, Japan and New Zealand. Then we have Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. We are going to sign up when we are probably one of the few countries in the world that are going to meet our target. What sort of dills would we would be to do that?

I am not against a whole range of measures to improve the environment. I favour wind energy, I am a supporter of biofuels and ethanol, I am a supporter of gas sequestration and I am a supporter of using gas as a substitute for coal where it is appropriate. So let us have an end to this fear campaign that is being driven around Gladstone.

Of course, it reaches its high point in Gladstone—there is a union campaign now to call me Nuclear Neville. I just want to make my position very clear in the parliament regarding what I have to say about nuclear power. I think it is an informed debate that all Australians have to have. I am not saying I would sign up to it, but I am saying we need to have a strong debate. We need to ask whether nuclear power is an economic and safe alternative for Australia. Can we, with 22 million people, really sustain nuclear power? It might be that we cannot. Might it have some strategic importance feeding, although not necessarily in the area, the Melbourne and Sydney basins? Is it competitive with coal in Australia? So the economic and safety argument obviously has to be the first one.

The second part of the debate is that we have 40 per cent of the world’s uranium—and Canada has an almost equal amount, another 40 per cent—and we should be asking how we harness that important resource that in the future may be one of the great saviours of the planet in the sense that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can look at the countries that have oil, particularly those in the Middle East and in the central and northern parts of South America. The oil cartel in those countries impose a tremendous premium on the rest of the world. While I am not suggesting that Australia should act in a similar manner, if we have the new resource for the next generation, should we not be thinking of how we can value add to it? Should we not be enriching that uranium in Australia and selling it on the overseas market to those countries we know will use it responsibly, to those that are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and not just willy-nilly? We could be an influence for good in the sense that we would control the manufacture of the enriched uranium and we would sell it to those countries that were going to use it appropriately and, in that way, value add to the product in Australia. That is the second debate we need to have.

The third debate is: if there is going to be nuclear power in the future, how do we ensure that Australia handles it properly? How do we store it? Of course, the federal government is looking to a site in the Northern Territory to do that. Geologically, Australia has some of the best places in the world for a repository and perhaps, as part of this debate, we should be asking whether there is a future for us to do that.

The other question we should ask as part of that nuclear debate is whether everything is as dangerous as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl or whether the world has moved on from there. The answer is, yes, it has. I do not know if honourable members were watching  a science program on the ABC the other night that dealt with a new technology, known as pebble bed nuclear reactors, that Dr Dennis Jensen, one of our own members, is across. In pebble bed technology, the uranium is encased in a ceramic and in that way you have many minireactors as part of your reactor. That particular technology is infinitely safer than anything that was at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

We really have to ask ourselves whether we are looking at the science in this country well enough. Have we informed ourselves or do we say what Peter Beattie said: ‘It is never going to come to Queensland. We will introduce a bill through the parliament and we will never have nuclear power in Queensland.’ I think that will be a bill that the Queensland government or a subsequent Queensland government will regret and will probably have to change. This sort of populist approach is quite silly. I am not here and now on this day advocating that we should go to nuclear power, but I am advocating that we have an informed debate that is not simply driven by fear.

Australia was pretty responsible with emissions in the period between 1990 and 2004, but we can probably do better. During that period, our economy grew by 57.9 per cent whereas our emissions grew by only 2.3 per cent. Some might say that 2.3 per cent was still not so hot; nevertheless, if we could continue to bring that down, that could become a very important thing for all of us.

I do not think I am alone in asking for a debate on this. On 7 June last year on 2NM the member for Hunter said, ‘There is a case for adding value to it’—meaning uranium—‘in the form of nuclear power generation.’ I am not as fearful of nuclear power generation as some people are. It is true that most of Europe uses it. I am not having a crack at the member for Hunter—I think he has been commendably honest. I would like to think that in a bipartisan way we can talk about this and see if we can have a range of measures—sequestration for coal, perhaps nuclear power, wind power, hydro, gas; we need to have a suite of these things including solar power as well in our homes—and in that way make life better for all Australians and particularly for a place like Gladstone. I do not think we will ever see nuclear power in Gladstone because with its abundance of steaming coal it would probably be the last place you would go to put nuclear power.

Finally, I want to talk about infrastructure. The future of Gladstone also depends on being able to control its infrastructure. We have this idea that the companies can pay for the infrastructure. If they want to go to Gladstone, they can do that. But, of course, in point of fact they do not. There you have 28,000 people, which is a very small rate base, having to accept industries of $2 billion, $3 billion and $4 billion in value and the roads and rail connections and all of that. Although the companies pay for some of that, the downstream effect in the communities, whether it is in civic centres, libraries, health services, roads, water or sewerage, is that it puts cities like Gladstone under enormous pressure—a pressure far beyond the capacity of the rate base to handle.

Even though Gladstone will not be in my electorate after this federal election, I still have a great sense of responsibility and I will fight for these things right up until I leave the Gladstone area. We have to get more arterial roads into that area. One of them in particular is called Kirkwood Road, which comes off the Bruce Highway. Back on 7 June 2004, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, announced AusLink. One of the things in the initial AusLink statement was that the port city of Gladstone would have a special AusLink corridor. I believe that corridor should come in from Benaraby on the Bruce Highway, across the southern suburbs of Telina, Emmerdale and New Auckland of Gladstone and go across the Callemondah overpass and along a road known as Red Rover Road to the powerhouse. That will not mean a lot to members, but in effect it is an arced bypass road right across the southern part of Gladstone.

I found to my surprise that, when I went to push this, the state government opposed it, despite the fact the Labor candidate in the last state election was asking me to join him in getting Kirkwood Road built. I found out after the election that the local main roads department does not even favour it. We have to start talking honestly about these things. Gladstone and cities like that are not going to progress unless we do something about it. Shortly the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services will table a report. I cannot talk about the content of that report, but I can tell you that, from the evidence we received, there are port problems in most of Australia’s major port cities—access problems—and those are problems we must address in the future. Gladstone needs to be at the top of that list.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the appropriations debate today I want to speak about the neglect of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been in government for 11 years—his government has been in place for 11 years—and over that time many of us on this side of the House have highlighted the number of different ways that the government has failed to show concern for the plight of working families, particularly putting pressure on working families and the costs of their living. Today I want to talk particularly about the Prime Minister’s failure to appreciate the importance of dental care to working families, his failure to appreciate the impact of dental care costs on the budgets of working families and his insistence on blaming the states for problems that he could have helped with, that he should have helped with and that he must now take concrete steps to fix. Sadly, in this budget and when talking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007, there is nothing relating to dental care and nothing that is going to provide any relief to working families.

It is obvious to all of us on this side of the House that dental care is an area of incredible importance to a person’s overall health. It is an area that has suffered outrageous neglect under this government—although I think ‘neglect’ is the wrong word given that some of the actions appear to be more malicious than simply careless. Before 1996, as many in this House would know, there was a Commonwealth dental program. In 1995-96 it involved a $100 million investment in dental health and it helped to ensure that Australians could get the dental care they needed when they needed it. This was a great Labor government initiative.

In the two years following the introduction of the Commonwealth dental program—

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question.

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

Will the member for Gellibrand give way?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to deliver my speech first. If the member wants to wait and ask a question at the conclusion of that, I will be happy to answer it then. In the two years following the introduction of the Commonwealth dental program, eligible cardholders who received publicly funded dental care reported less frequent toothaches, waited a shorter time for a check-up and were more satisfied with the dental care that they received.

But in 1996 the Howard government was elected and immediately set about dismantling that dental program which had helped so many Australian families. It did not just slash the funding for the program; it abolished it entirely. One of the Prime Minister’s first acts as Prime Minister was to abolish a program which made health care more accessible for Australian working families. It was a sign of things to come. Of course the move had predictable effects. We now have around 650,000 Australians on waiting lists for public dental care. That is over half a million Australians who are waiting for their teeth to be fixed. Many of them are in pain, some suffer infection, some suffer tooth loss and some of these Australians cannot eat solid foods. Some have difficulty swallowing and some have trouble speaking.

These dental issues are serious issues which have serious health implications. They also have serious social implications. Dental problems can affect your appearance and speech and can affect mental health and quality of life. Many Australians with severe dental problems suffer social anguish, no less real for perhaps being a little less obvious. There are people in Australia who have difficulty going out with their friends for fear of being laughed at because of the state of their teeth. They cannot go out to dinner. They choose not to go to their friends’ place because they will not be able to eat dinner and some of them choose not to engage in their favourite social activities for fear of embarrassment.

Just a few weeks ago I spoke to an elderly gentleman who loves to dance. He loves to dance almost more than anything and yet his teeth prevent him from doing so. He is embarrassed by the state of his teeth, so he does not want to dance despite the fact that dancing is the aspect of his life that brings him the most joy. He has been waiting for 2½ years for treatment. Here is a clear example of how health problems can easily lead to other challenges in life. We cannot allow the government to pretend that dental health and general health are not related. Teeth cannot be separated from the rest of our bodies or from our peace of mind. Cut a person off from his hobbies and you cut him off from his support networks. It is the role of government to do all it can to help Australians who need our help—Australians who need but cannot afford dental care most certainly fall into this category.

Labor is not the only voice in this debate about the acute need for the Commonwealth to play some role in dental care. Highlighting the poor oral health of people on low incomes, ACOSS has now called on the federal government to ensure that all people on concession cards have access to a free basic course of dental care every two years. The Health Services Union recently launched its campaign for Medicare to cover the cost of dental treatment for Australians aged under 18 and over 65 as well as low-income earners. The Australian Dental Association, in its prebudget submission to Treasury, has called for a Commonwealth funded oral health program to increase access to care for those who are economically disadvantaged and in need of dental care.

Labor is currently examining a range of options to help working families get the dental care they need. We are committed to establishing a Commonwealth dental program to provide the assistance and support that the community needs. ACOSS, the HSU, the ADA—all, like Labor, recognise the need to improve the oral health of the Australian population. We all recognise the need for the Commonwealth to take a leadership role. We may have different approaches, but we all recognise the fundamental responsibility for the Commonwealth to play a role in improving the dental health of all Australians. We will work with these organisations to keep the pressure on the Howard government to act in this area.

Do not think for a second that the fact that this government has allowed over a half a million Australians to languish on public dental waiting lists does not have a dramatic flow-on effect for the rest of the health system. The longer you wait for care for small treatable dental problems, the more likely you are to see those small treatable problems develop into large, less treatable, more intransigent dental problems which might lead you to the hospital gates. It is no coincidence that between 2000 and 2005 the number of six-year-olds admitted to private hospitals for rotting teeth rose by 95 per cent. In other words, the number of six-year-olds with dental problems serious enough to have to be treated in hospital almost doubled in those five years. Over the same period, the number of children under 12 admitted to private hospitals for rotting teeth rose by 42 per cent. These children are suffering more than they need to, in many cases because they did not get preventive treatment early enough. Not surprisingly, this has flow-on effects for the adult population. The oral health of Australian adults is ranked third worst in the OECD. Young adults aged 18 to 24 have on average about five teeth with untreated decay. This demonstrates a crazy degree of neglect in a largely preventible area of health.

Labor believes that all Australians deserve to have the dental care they need when they need it and in enough time to prevent small problems becoming bigger ones. But that is not the case right now. For many Australians it is not the case for at least two reasons. Firstly, public dental waiting lists are horrendously long. Over half a million people are on waiting lists, some for many years. That is unacceptable and I have made that point clear already. Secondly, thousands of Australians simply cannot afford to pay for the dental care that they need. For a low-income family without private health insurance, dental care is expensive; for many working families, it is simply unaffordable. This is a government that claims that it cares about families. It pretends to be sticking up for family values and then fails to come through for families any time that it actually matters—in this case, when a child is suffering from tooth decay. We need to look after those Australians. In doing so, we will not only help suffering Australians; we will also save our public health system many millions of dollars by avoiding serious diseases that could have been treated earlier.

Making sure that low-income families can get the dental care they need when they need it is not only the compassionate thing to do; it is also economically responsible. But the Prime Minister has two responses to the dental crisis facing Australian working families. The first response is to blame the parents. On New Year’s Eve, instead of saying that, as leader of the Commonwealth, he was prepared to do something about the parlous state of dental care, the Prime Minister lectured parents on the need to stop their children from drinking bottled water. Fluoridated water is an important preventive measure but it is not the whole of the matter. We must acknowledge that not all parts of the country have access to it. Drinking fluoridated tap water would certainly help many people in the future, but it will not solve the dental care accessibility crisis or the dental care affordability crisis, and it will not do nearly enough to tackle the waiting lists which are keeping hundreds of thousands of Australians waiting years to have somebody do something about their aching teeth.

The Prime Minister’s second response to the dental crisis is to blame the states. This is an approach that we are becoming very familiar with it. He does it on health, he does it on education, he does it on water. Any time there is a problem that he could have or should have acted early on—and he has now been in government for 11 years and is looking pretty tired on these issues—he simply blames the states. Just a couple of weeks ago he said again that he believes that dental care is not the responsibility of the Commonwealth government and that the waiting lists around the country are entirely the fault of the states. It beggars belief that his decision to cut $100 million a year from dental services has had no effect on waiting lists. This is the blame game that we have come to know so well, and it has several clear steps: the government fails to do something that it should have done, a problem becomes apparent, the government denies the existence of any problem and, finally, the government blames other people for its own failings. In this case, the Prime Minister is not content with having just one scapegoat; first he blames the states and then he blames parents as well.

A couple of weeks ago Tony Abbott agreed with his Prime Minister, saying that dental care was the states’ problem, not his. But at the same time he acknowledged that dental care was inextricably tied to other health issues. These two statements, placed side by side, just cannot make sense. Labor’s point is that dental care cannot be easily separated from other health issues and, as such, it makes sense for the Commonwealth to take some responsibility for dental care. This is just another example of the government’s illogical, inefficient approach to health care. Despite overlaps, inefficiencies and 11 years of problems in the health system, they resist calls for reform and instead resort to blaming others for what are clearly their areas of responsibility. Tony Abbott also has his facts wrong—

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

Order! The member will refer to members by their titles.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon. The Minister for Health and Ageing also has his facts wrong. He said in an interview two weeks ago that ‘public dental services have always been a state responsibility’. But of course that is not true. We know, for example, that there was a Commonwealth dental program which this Prime Minister scrapped when he was elected. But quite apart from that, and perhaps the minister at the table might be surprised to hear it, the health minister is also unaware of very basic facts about his portfolio. For example, there is a provision in the Constitution—section 51(xxiiiA), if the minister would like to look it up—which makes it abundantly clear that the Commonwealth does have the responsibility and power to act in this area. No-one in this chamber should for a minute think that I do not believe the states share some of this responsibility. We are not talking about whether the states have any responsibility; we are talking about whether the Commonwealth plays any role in fixing what is a national problem.

For the government to pretend that they have no national responsibility on this issue, that they somehow do not have the power and that it has never been an issue for them, is absolutely ridiculous. Not only that, but the health minister, in his desperation to make the point that it is the states’ fault, also managed to mislead parliament, claiming during question time that state funding of dental services had fallen from $374 million to $327 million per year. In fact, the most recent data—easily available to anyone who bothered to look for it—showed that state government expenditure has actually increased to $503 million per annum. The state governments had to step up their investment after the Commonwealth deserted them in this field. But without Commonwealth investment it is ordinary Australians who lose. We can argue across the table as much as we want in this place about what the states should do and what the Commonwealth should do, but the bottom line is that the Commonwealth is not contributing any money to try to fix what is a national problem. Every person around this chamber, including the two members sitting opposite, know that there are people in their electorates who cannot get the dental care that they need. It must be embarrassing to be in the government ranks and saying: ‘We don’t have anything to do with fixing it. We are not prepared to even contribute in any way that might make a difference to those waiting lists or to the access that working families have to the dental care that they need.’ So desperate, it seems, is the minister to sheet home the blame for the national dental crisis to the states that he is prepared to use outdated, incorrect figures to buttress his case. He is not going to get away with that sort of pretence. He cannot do that. He can say that the states share some responsibility, he can put pressure on them to do more, but when the Commonwealth entirely washes its hands of this issue it is pretty hard to take it seriously.

Dental care is an important aspect of overall health. Poor dental care causes pain, it causes embarrassment and it costs our health system millions of dollars through lost opportunities to catch small problems before they become big problems. The government have simply washed their hands of this issue. They cut $100 million a year from dental care and, in a spectacular act of dubious logic, have managed to convince themselves that the awful state of dental health in this country is nothing to do with them. They have not convinced us and they have not convinced Australian working families.

The Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition have offered solutions. The Leader of the Opposition has committed to making dental care more accessible to low-income families. Labor is determined to help solve this problem, but the government are intent only on washing their hands of it. This is in the face of a growing number of Liberal backbenchers, government backbenchers, calling for their own government to act. Members know what is happening on the ground. They know that their government is failing people who need this dental care. We have now seen a range of members who sat on the blame game committee that issued a report recommending the Commonwealth re-establish a Commonwealth dental scheme. That was signed off on unanimously, with the majority of that committee being government members. Still we see nothing from the Prime Minister.

We have seen in the media calls from other backbenchers to take some action in this area. There are a number of ways that the Commonwealth could help solve this problem, but it is determined to do nothing. For the government to ignore this issue and to pretend that it is entirely and solely a responsibility of the states is irresponsible. This is costing us not just in health dollars but also in damage in particular to children whose teeth could have been fixed, who did not need to go to hospital to have their problems solved but who have been forced to do so by the government’s neglect.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

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

Is the member for Gellibrand willing to give way?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it not a fact that the Keating government’s four-year program was a catch-up program which was completed by the coalition and was not in the forward estimates of the Keating government?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that government backbenchers are prepared to ask about a Labor program that was in place. They are prepared to acknowledge that there was a Commonwealth program in place to help the states in dealing with this issue. If you want to make a comparison: the Prime Minister is saying that he will do nothing about this situation. He is not prepared to take the leadership that a previous Labor government took in helping to solve this problem. It did not say it will blame the states or point the finger at someone else. It is a great pretence by the government to say that it is just a state issue. The Commonwealth has a role to play in this, but it is not prepared to play that role. It should be prepared to play that role because, every day in our electorates, people are suffering from the Commonwealth’s refusal to be involved.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 and address some of the issues in these bills that relate to my responsibility as the shadow minister for veterans affairs and defence science and personnel. I want to talk about the recent tenders conducted by DVA with respect to the provision of veterans home care and community nursing services.

Firstly, the recent tender for the provision of veterans home care services: the Veterans Home Care program provides a wide range of low-level home care services designed to enable veterans and war widows and widowers to maintain their health and wellbeing and remain living independently in their own homes. The program provides care services to more than 70,000 veterans and war widows to assist them in living in their own homes for longer. These services include domestic assistance, personal care, safety related home and garden maintenance and respite care. This is a very important and worthwhile program that gives real help to the veterans community.

In June last year a nationwide tender process was undertaken for the delivery of veterans home care services. This is the first time such a review has occurred since the start of the program in 2001. I have some very real concern about the way this tender process was conducted. Naturally, as a result of this tender process, some existing assessment agencies and service providers did not have their contracts renewed. This in itself is not a problem, although it did raise issues for the veterans community that I feel were not addressed by this government. One of my concerns is that there was a lack of consultation among the users of the Veterans Home Care program. Most veterans first heard of a change in their providers and, therefore, carers via a letter over the Christmas period.

By their very nature, the recipients of veterans home care are vulnerable and are suffering from physical and/or mental frailties. To learn of this change at short notice caused understandable anxiety among those receiving this letter at an already stressful time. At the recent estimates round, the department was asked what consultation took place with the recipients of these services. Mr Ken Douglas, the general manager in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs responsible for service delivery, replied, ‘I am not aware of any specific consultation that we undertook during that tender period.’ Mr Douglas did say that consultation occurred among the National Treatment Monitoring Committee and the National Ex-service Round Table on Aged Care, but these are bodies that the recipients of the service have probably never heard about. It is no wonder that the recipients of this care did not know what the changes would mean for them.

The government should have explained these changes better. The veterans community deserved much more than a mere letter at short notice over the Christmas break making them aware of this change. Better consultation with the recipients could have prevented a lot of undue anxiety, stress and concern. What worries me most about this tender process is that throughout it the government failed to acknowledge the importance and value of the relationship that often exists between carers and veterans.

Many veterans have been with their carers for five years or more. Over this time they have formed a relationship with and an understanding of each other. Obviously, carers who have worked with veterans over such a long period better understand their needs and also provide a warm friendship—the value of which cannot be underestimated. There is no doubt in my mind that the new providers will be providing the same tangible services to the veterans community. However, the intangible value of long-term relationships and companionship that is so important among the vulnerable was ignored by the government.

During the Christmas period, my office heard from many veterans about their concerns in respect of this tender. We heard from Sid Lucas, a 105-year-old veteran from Rosebud in Victoria, who was concerned about losing his long-term carer, Chris. Sid had known Chris for a number of years and could not imagine not having him around. There was also William Young, an 83-year-old veteran from Mount Martha in Victoria, who was concerned about losing Glenda, another long-term carer. Both still have their carers as their new providers are yet to find replacements, so they are still waiting and are still worried. These are just two examples of veterans who contacted our office and wanted their concerns to be publicly noted as they felt they were being ignored by this government. I have heard of more that have been affected in the same way, including a younger veteran who required these services due to a disability he suffered. That veteran has two young kids that he has to support. He was worried what the effect on his kids would be when his carer changed as she had grown close to the kids and provided them with much-needed help.

The minister has publicly stated that the tender round had nothing to do with money. If that is the case, I question exactly what criteria could have been used to determine who the new providers would be. I would have thought that the value of existing relationships between carers and veterans would have been high among any criteria for a contract of this sort. Instead the government seems to have focused solely on the provision of tangible services. I believe that this was a mistake. It does not reflect the reality that a number of those receiving this service have special needs, are often vulnerable, both physically and mentally, and benefit greatly from having a companion that understands what they need. This government needs to understand one thing and understand it clearly: carers are not just cleaners; they are companions. Instead of conducting a tender process that would have been more suited to a tender for mere cleaning services, this government should have recognised the value of carers. There should have been greater consultation, and the value of long-term relationships between carers and veterans should have been recognised.

In a situation similar to that of the veterans home care tender, a national tender for the provision of community nursing services was conducted last year. Community nursing is a service provided in the person’s home to restore health following illness, to allow a person to maintain the best level of independence and to allow for dignified death. This service is available for gold card holders where the person has a clinical need for the nursing and has been referred by a local medical officer. For white card holders the condition requiring nursing must also be an accepted disability. This is a very worthwhile and valuable program for the veterans community. At the time of the tender, concerns were raised among some veterans and providers about the lack of consultation provided. There were also concerns that new providers may not provide the same type of service that had previously been provided. The government typically dismissed all of these concerns.

I want to read from an email that I received from the daughter of a veteran from northern Tasmania. She remains very concerned about the services her father is receiving from one of the new providers that were selected in this tender. I will leave out the name of the new provider. This email has raised a number of concerns which, I have been told, had been raised with the minister and department on a number of occasions. The email says:

I have had to prompt the new Provider re my father’s due dates for catheter changes (September 25th); with our previous service provider all aspects of Dad’s care was always organised and projected, and always attendance times were negotiated.

My father had a fall on Friday 22nd September. As a result he required 2nd daily dressings. I advised the new provider of this, but was told there would be no available nurse until the afternoon of Monday 25th. I question if unavailability of nursing staff breaches the DVA contract requirements, as service is supposed to be 7 days per week.

On October 2nd I requested for my father to have an earlier shift for Wednesday October 18th, as he was due to be admitted at 8.00 am for day surgery. The new provider advised me some days later that his roster had been altered for an early start for Wednesday 11th October (one week early). Bearing in mind that veterans do not require mistakes such as this to be made by their providers; not all have family members “on tap” to pick up the mistakes.

On Sunday 5th November the support worker arrived 1hr & 15 minutes late for the morning shift. This is not the first time this has happened. There is never an explanatory phone call, so I can only wonder at the new provider’s policy and expected protocol in this situation (this is cause for concern re mobility, fluid and medication issues).

On Thursday 18th January 2007 a similar instance to the above point occurred, whereby a worker still hadn’t arrived one hour after her expected arrival time. After the incident on 5th November I requested, at the very least, for the new provider to give me a courtesy call if this was to happen again. But no call to explain was given, again I had to phone the provider to discover what was happening for my father that morning.

This is completely unacceptable and I urge the minister to properly consider the issues this correspondence raises.

I have talked about two national tenders that the department has conducted over the last year relating to very important services provided to the veterans community, namely the Veterans Home Care program and community nursing services. In both cases the government failed to consult properly with the recipients before a change in their service. They have failed to acknowledge the value of existing providers’ experience and knowledge and the intangibles that form over time with existing providers. This is an insensitive and out of touch government. In both of these cases these problems could have been averted.

I accept that new tenders may have been required but if, as the minister insists, this has nothing to do with money, why not include the intangible values that attach to long-term providers in any evaluation of potential tenderers? Also, in both cases the government could have conducted tenders for all new services required. By this I mean that existing carers and nurses could have remained in place with their clients until their services were no longer required. Any new clients could have been provided with a carer or nurse from the new providers following the tender round. This would have ensured continuity of service and provided the department with a chance to re-tender to new organisations.

Finally, the government could have consulted much better with the actual recipients of these services. In fact, if it had listened to and consulted with the community, it would have heard from them that the two suggestions I have just outlined would have helped to solve their problems. I know this because it is from the veteran community that I got these suggestions after listening to their concerns and anxieties. This government needs to pick up its performance in relation to its tendering of these services. It should stop treating the veterans as mere economic units and start listening to what they really want and need.

This brings me to the current review of the chaplaincy services in South Australia. I have recently outlined my concerns with regard to this review—firstly, that the churches are not included formally as members of this review and, secondly, that the review will be used to reduce the level of funding for this vital service. Despite Labor calling on the government to include the churches as representatives on this review, the government has failed to acknowledge the benefits that this would have. There is no chaplaincy expertise on the current review panel. I cannot understand why the government will not allow the churches to play a formal role in the review, especially considering that they fund a portion of the chaplaincy services provided.

If I were to be cynical I would say that it would seem that the government specifically does not want this type of expertise as it has already made up its mind on the issue. At the recent estimates round the department head, Mr Sullivan, would not offer any guarantee that the funding for this service would not be reduced. The actual providers of this service describe it as: ‘Spiritual care provided in a person-centred manner to patients and their families and to staff who are in crisis due to illness or other life troubles. It involves deep listening, compassion, wise counsel, prayer and spiritual religious rituals that support the person in the midst of difficult circumstances.’ From this description it is not hard to see how valuable this would be to the veteran community.

I have made my view on this clear before and I will restate it now: chaplaincy services play a major role in the rehabilitation of veterans and their families. I strongly oppose any reduction in these services, especially given the unique rehabilitation and mental health challenges that are often faced by our injured veterans. Apart from this current review into these services in South Australia, I have concerns surrounding possible reductions to the chaplaincy funding provided to other states, especially Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. I will continue to seek information from DVA on any proposed funding cuts to these services anywhere in Australia.

I want to finish by outlining some of the positive work done by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to protection of the Kokoda Track. We are all aware of the mess the government has made of the works and maintenance of Anzac Cove in Gallipoli. Labor has been chasing the government with regard to concerns it has over the potential impact of mining and logging on the Kokoda Track. Only after Labor raised this issue on a number of occasions did the government act by sending a delegation to Papua New Guinea to investigate the issue. We are still to learn of the actual outcomes of this delegation. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition released his policy on this issue on 21 January this year. I will now read from his announcement:

A Federal Labor Government would campaign at the United Nations to place the historic Kokoda Track on UNESCO’s official world heritage register list to ensure its protection.

I have spoken to the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare, to offer Australia’s support for the world heritage listing.

As we approach Australia Day and our thoughts turn to our national identity, I would like to see the 96-kilometre historic Kokoda Track receive permanent and final protection.

The formal UNESCO listing would complement a master plan released last year by the Kokoda Track Foundation ... which proposes a Kokoda National Memorial Park and the development of a sustainable echo-trekking strategy.

A Federal Labor Government also commits itself to working with the KTF to find ways to protect the historic site. Listing on the UNESCO world heritage register would help to protect against threats such as mining exploration and logging.

In addition to political and diplomatic support in the World Heritage Committee—

Labor—

could also provide the PNG government with technical assistance and expert advice and support of the lengthy and detailed listing process.

Critical to this plan would be ensuring that people from all over the world can continue to visit and trek through this historic site.

Kokoda is not a war. It is certainly not a holiday. It is a pilgrimage.

A World Heritage Listing for Kokoda would be a cause for celebration for all Australians as we approach Australia Day.

Last year, there was a strong and heartfelt national outcry about a mining exploration plan near the Kokoda track—and we never want to see the track under threat again.

Kokoda is beginning to take its place alongside Gallipoli in Australia’s military history.

The bravery of the young men who fought on the Kokoda track was crucial to our survival during World War II. In 1942 Australian troops fought one of their most difficult battles on the track as they halted the Japanese advance towards the PNG capital, Port Moresby, and Australia’s northern coastline. The Australian Army sustained heavy casualties in the campaign, with approximately 625 killed and over 1,600 wounded. In addition, the Army sustained more than 4,000 casualties as a result of illness caused by the difficult conditions on the track.

The bravery and the symbolism of Kokoda must never be forgotten—or disturbed.

I would like to see Australia and PNG work together to protect this historic Kokoda track for future generations.

This was a positive step forward that I warmly welcome and it stands in stark contrast to the government’s general inaction in this area.

There continues to be a number of very important issues facing the veterans community that are currently not being addressed adequately by this government. I have outlined my concerns in regard to some of these issues and I will continue to raise concerns about a wide range of issues throughout this year. The concerns I outline go to the core of providing for the health of our veterans and their families. The government needs to be doing better in this area. I am also pleased to outline again the action that Labor has taken in respect of the protection of the Kokoda Track. The Kokoda Track holds an important place in our military and cultural heritage and I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has taken action that will help provide for its future protection.

I would also be remiss on this occasion not to take a minute to just cover one other issue in relation to the Kokoda Track—that is, the recent comments by the defence minister with respect to this issue. In his defence, the Minister for Defence maintains that he was not comparing the nature of the military action on the Kokoda Track with that in relation to Iraq. I take him at his word and I have no doubt that that is in fact what he meant. However, I have to say that I think it was an incredibly insensitive intervention by him in the first place in a deliberate speech to link the situation we face today to what occurred on Kokoda. The minister has to understand that major events in our military history such as Kokoda cannot be used in the manner in which he sought to. The fact of the matter is that the circumstances around what occurred at Kokoda have a special place in our history here in Australia where there are many veterans who survive and live on with the events that occurred, the injuries that they sustained, the memories that they have and the loss of many of their comrades. For the minister to endeavour to raise that in the context of recent circumstances I think was unfortunate and ill-advised. I note that it has been commented on by the RSL, by veterans themselves and by many others in the community as being not the thing that he should have done. I certainly endorse the fact that he should think more carefully before he uses such analogies in the future.

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

I am pleased to bring what has been a lively debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 to a close. I would like to thank all of those members who have made a contribution. The debate has touched on a wide range of issues of interest to members, including the general state of the economy and issues emerging in members’ electorates as well as more general policy issues such as policies to address climate change. The additional estimates bills seek appropriation authority from the parliament to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget. The total appropriation being sought through the additional estimates bills this year is somewhat in excess of $1.8 billion and arises from changes in the estimates of program expenditure and from policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget.

The initiatives for which funding is sought in these bills reflect the government’s continuing commitment to maintaining stability in our region, enhancing our national security, investing in families, investing in a more skilled and dynamic workforce, investing in alternative transport fuels and providing additional assistance to those suffering the effects of the drought and those receiving structural adjustment payments following measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

I will now take an opportunity to outline the more significant measures contained in the bills. Australia must be prepared to respond and help where necessary with respect to stability in our region. The appropriation bills provide funding to substantially strengthen the Australian Federal Police’s capacity to respond to international crises, particularly in our region. An additional $64.7 million will be provided to the AFP to fund Australian police deployments in East Timor, including the contribution to the United Nations integrated mission in East Timor, and to expand the international deployment group by about 114 personnel in 2006-07. The expansion will allow the AFP to respond more quickly and comprehensively to crisis situations and will help to strengthen law enforcement capabilities across our region.

The increase in the AFP deployment complements the initiative to increase the size of the Australian Army. An additional $46.2 million will be provided to deliver stage 1 of the Enhanced Land Force initiative to increase the size of the Australian Army by one light infantry battalion. This will ensure that we have the capability to act in a manner commensurate with our regional responsibilities and to contribute to coalitions in areas further afield. In addition, it is proposed to provide $49.6 million to implement a number of innovative recruitment and retention initiatives to ensure the Australian Defence Force is able to attract and retain the people that are essential to the maintenance of our defence capabilities. It is also proposed to provide $139.4 million for Operation Astute to restore peace and stability in East Timor, plus $49.7 million to acquire protective equipment to enhance the security and effectiveness of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. These provisions will ensure that the government can continue to provide the right mix of law enforcement and military responses to emerging challenges in the region.

With respect to investing in our families, we are committed to educating children and families and legislating and regulating to reduce the dangers lurking on the internet. The appropriation bills propose funding to create a national filter scheme to provide every Australian family with a free internet filter as part of a comprehensive package of measures to crack down on the scourge of internet pornography. The National Filter Scheme is the centrepiece of the government’s Protecting Australian Families Online package, which is the single biggest commitment to protecting families online in the history of the internet in Australia. This is not only in respect of pornography but also for young people being contacted on the internet. The filter will assist in protecting young children with respect to so-called chat rooms. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts will be provided with $34.9 million in 2006-07 to commence implementation of the initiative, which also includes measures to provide Australian libraries with free filters so that computer corners at libraries across Australia will be child friendly.

One of the biggest skills challenges we face as a nation is to improve the basic skills of our workforce. Almost a third of Australians aged between 25 and 64 are without year 12 or an equivalent qualification. The government’s Skills for the Future investment program will help build a more highly skilled and responsive workforce to support Australia’s long-term economic growth. As part of this program, the Department of Education, Science and Training will be provided with $38.6 million to support people aged 25 years and over who do not have year 12 or an equivalent qualification. Each year, up to 30,000 vouchers valued at up to $3,000 will be made available to individuals in this group to undertake accredited literacy, numeracy, basic education and vocational certificate II courses. These work skills vouchers represent a major investment in closing the gap between the skills rich and the skills poor in our community and are a symbol of the government’s commitment to individual advancement and economic opportunity. The department will also be provided with $15 million to promote career opportunities under the Skills for the Future initiative.

The government’s energy white paper established a balanced framework for supporting alternative transport fuels. To capitalise on Australia’s liquefied petroleum gas resources and to accelerate investment in alternative fuels as well as provide motorists with more and cheaper fuel options, the government has introduced measures to encourage consumers to purchase new LPG vehicles and to convert existing vehicles to use LPG. An additional $136.1 million will be provided to the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to implement the initiative, under which individuals who purchase a new factory-fitted, LPG-powered vehicle for private use will receive a rebate of $1,000, while individuals who convert their car to LPG for private use will receive a rebate of $2,000.

Australia is currently in the grip of the worst drought on record and, more than ever, farmers are struggling. The appropriation bills propose funding for additional assistance to farmers suffering the effects of this drought. An additional $12 million will be provided to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for exceptional circumstances assistance and an additional $14 million to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for interim income support. In areas that have been exceptional circumstances declared for more than three years a further $17.3 million will be provided as taxable grants of up to $5,500 for eligible farmers to obtain professional business and planning advice. The department will also be provided with $30.9 million to assist former and current tobacco growers to move into other business activities.

The government is committed to providing structural adjustment assistance to people in the fishing and fishing-dependent industries who are affected by rezoning in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The government will provide an additional $84 million for the Great Barrier Reef structural adjustment package, including $27.4 million to enhance the package. Enhancements include changes to ensure that the assistance covers the approved full cost of restructuring a business, a further 20 per cent increase in payments for approved applications for business restructuring assistance, extension of the provision of financial and relationship counsellors to the region for a further 12 months and measures to expedite the assessment of applications.

I wish to emphasise that the capacity of government to respond effectively to areas of need, such as in the areas I have just outlined, is only possible because of our continuing strong management of the economy and ongoing economic reform. The 2006-07 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook reported that the economic and fiscal outlook for Australia remains sound, although the economy is being affected by a severe drought. Since 1996, the economy has enjoyed a long period of sustained growth. In 2006-07, it is forecast to grow by 2½ per cent. During this sustained period of growth the unemployment rate has fallen to 30-year lows, while inflation remains moderate. The consumer price index fell by 0.1 per cent in the December quarter 2006, to be 3.3 per cent higher than a year ago. The December quarter outcome was the first fall since the March quarter 1999 and reflected a sharp fall in petrol prices. In the period ahead the CPI is expected to grow at a moderate rate, reflecting the unwinding of high fruit and fuel prices and an easing in underlying inflationary pressures. The fiscal outlook continues to remain sound. The government expects an underlying cash surplus of $11.8 billion for 2006-07, which is marginally stronger than the 2006-07 budget forecast. Surpluses are also forecast over the forward years.

These projected underlying cash surpluses emphasise Australia’s sound fiscal outlook at a time when many of the major advanced economies are continuing to experience significant deficits. The continuation of the government’s sound economic management will ensure that Australians continue to benefit from the higher standard of living that comes with low inflation, solid and sustainable wage growth, very high levels of labour force participation and the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. I note that the OECD’s recent economic survey of the Australian economy commented that Australia’s recent macroeconomic performance continues to be impressive and that living standards have steadily improved since the beginning of the 1990s and now surpass all G7 countries except the United States.

Commonwealth net debt was eliminated earlier this year, falling from a peak of 18.5 per cent of GDP in 1995-96. Net worth is projected to be positive for the first time in 2008-09. The government transferred $18.6 billion to the Future Fund last month. That amount consisted of the first instalment of the 2005-06 budget surplus of $10 billion and a further $8.6 billion, which was the first instalment received by the government from the sale of Telstra. This amount is a significant contribution by the government to the Future Fund to help meet the government’s superannuation liabilities. By addressing superannuation liabilities, the Future Fund will strengthen the government’s financial position and help reduce pressures on the budget at a time when the government will be facing the spending challenges of an ageing population.

At the commencement of the debate, the honourable member for Melbourne moved an amendment to the second reading motion. The government does not support the proposed amendment. The reasons for that should be quite clear. I have already dealt with many of the specific issues that were raised in the amendment. The people of Australia have enjoyed unprecedented economic prosperity, thanks largely to the government’s impressive macroeconomic management. Through its commitment to sound financial management, the government has put the budget in surplus, retired government net debt and commenced saving for its future obligations. This will free the next generation of Australians to meet their own challenges, unencumbered by the legacy of past Labor governments, which spent way beyond their means. The government stands by its achievements in economic policy and workplace relations. We reject the unfounded assertion that the budget documents fail the test of transparency and accountability. These bills are important pieces of legislation, underpinning the government’s programs and reforms and deserve widespread support. I commend the additional estimates bills to the House.

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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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