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

Before debate is resumed, I remind the committee that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering orders of the day Nos 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Urban Development and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the Howard government’s 11th successive budget and predictably there is virtually no allocation for consumer groups and advocacy on behalf of consumers. Since its inception the Howard government has adopted a virtual scorched earth policy when it comes to consumers and advocacy and assistance for them. The Howard government abolished the consumer affairs portfolio and condemned its residue to the backblocks of the federal Treasury.

Consumer protection falls within the Markets Group of Treasury. In that section its purported ideal is defined as:

Well-functioning markets contribute to the achievement of high sustainable economic and employment growth and the wellbeing of Australians by enabling resources to flow to those parts of the economy where they can be used most productively.

Well-functioning markets [supposedly] operate when investors and consumers have confidence and certainty about the regulatory framework and can make decisions that are well informed and free of market distortions and impediments.

So in fact the concept is that the markets will solve everything; there are no difficulties and everyone will be happy ever after in having that access.

The Markets Group has four outputs. Consumer affairs fall within output 4.1.3, which is ‘Competition and consumer policy advice’. The Treasury portfolio budget statements for 2007-08 indicate that output 4.1.3 has had a budget increase from $13.61 million to $20.86 million. Those same budget figures indicate that for the last period, 2005-06, the output was $13.276 million while expenditure was $11.818 million.

According to the Treasury annual report of October 2006, the Consumer Affairs Unit promotes consumer protection and financial literacy. Activities seem to fall into five categories, including the provision of advice on consumer related matters—for example, the unit provided advice on the review of the Product Safety Framework—undertaking research for the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs; the provision of secretariat services to that Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs and to the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. The unit was the—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

The unit also acted as a secretariat for the Consumer and Financial Literacy Task Force, which was formed to establish the first national strategy for consumer and financial literacy in Australia. Other activities include providing advice to consumers on financial matters through the Financial Literacy Foundation and representing Australia at OECD meetings on consumer affairs and ensuring compliance with OECD guidelines. As pointed out, the Treasury’s most recent report reveals that only $11.82 million of the allocated $13.26 million was spent. However it seems that, whilst not spending its allocated budget, it has again received a budget boost of some $6.5 million to that total of $20.86 million. I understand that the increased funding is principally a one-off payment to the Financial Literacy Foundation.

Labor supports the provision of financial literacy information. We believe that financial literacy is essential in building up long-term financial security and wealth. But, in view of the Howard government’s attack on consumers and its total neglect of any policy development to counter the increasingly contested consumer market, we believe that that $6½ million would be far better spent elsewhere. Federal government funding for financial counselling totals a mere $2.46 million in the current budget. This funding is intended to cover the majority of the Australian continent. The handful of institutions that receive funding from the Commonwealth Financial Counselling Program are expected to provide the following services: negotiation—if someone with a loan, mortgage or credit card is having difficulty maintaining repayments, a financial counsellor can assist in negotiating with creditors to reach an acceptable agreement; advocacy—where a person feels overwhelmed by a personal financial problem and would like help in effectively communicating with government or non-government organisations, a financial counsellor can advocate on their behalf; bills—if someone cannot pay an outstanding bill, a financial counsellor can help them look at their options and explain what they can do; debt recovery—where a person has received a letter of demand, a summons, a warrant of execution or a judgement summons and is not sure what to do next, a financial counsellor can explain the debt recovery process and assist them to take the appropriate course of action; budgeting—if someone is having difficulty making ends meet, a financial counsellor can assist them to develop a budgeting plan to suit their own personal circumstances and gain financial management skills to enable them to take control of their finances; and bankruptcy—a financial counsellor can give information on bankruptcy and assist people to explore alternatives.

Clearly, these are essential services that must be provided. Again I repeat: the entire federal budget for this essential service is $2.45 million. In theory it is supposed to cover, as I said, virtually the total population of Australia. I now contrast this with the efforts of the Victorian government, which annually provides more than $6 million in financial counselling budgeting. Frankly, the Howard government commitment is a disgrace and this merely underpins the fact that this is a government dedicated to the big end of town that has lost contact with Middle Australia. It does not care about battlers and merely relies on the whims of the free market to correct any instances of poor market behaviour.

The 1995 Community Service Industry Training Board (Victoria) financial counselling training needs project, by White and Delaney, defined financial counselling services:

... as being the full range of intake, assessment, research, advocacy, advice, and referral, community education and policy reform, knowledge in bankruptcy, credit and debt recovery law, income maintenance and social security, personal financial management, the financial system, casework and administrative skills and professional ethics.

The current funding base with Consumer Affairs Victoria places financial counselling in a consumer rights-consumer law context, acknowledging the development of the profession towards specialised individual and systemic advocacy on credit and debt issues. The federal government, on the other hand, funds financial counselling through the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and hence places the sector primarily in a welfare context. Labor is not necessarily opposed to this; nevertheless, the highly successful Victorian experience leads us all to believe that financial counselling should be an arm of consumer protection as opposed to being another desperate last-minute welfare provision.

Getting back to the money allocated to the Financial Literacy Foundation, Labor has been on record as seeking to reverse this funding. We anticipate that funding will instead come from the financial services sector, which has the most to benefit from the funding. The ALP has no problems with private sector funding for financial literacy campaigns. We have already seen the ANZ Bank dedicate an enormous effort to their financial literacy campaigns. In fact, in October last, ANZ were actually recognised with the Prime Minister’s award for their work in this sector.

The funding of the Financial Literacy Foundation contrasts sharply with the minimal attention that financial counselling receives from the Howard government. It highlights their twisted priorities. Seemingly, when confronted with a choice of funding to enable people to keep their homes, John Howard has opted for a choice which educates people on how to build a portfolio of houses. As I indicated in a recent speech, the importance of financial counselling was driven home to me when a constituent approached me regarding the imminent loss of her home. She initially purchased it for less than $80,000 in 1987—$80,000. Today she owes lenders a total sum of $470,000. She is a single parent with little prospect of finding employment which could overcome or go close to meeting a fraction of her loan repayments.

This constituent’s debts began to accumulate after the breakdown of her marriage and subsequent numerous attempts to refinance. Her tale indicates a poor comprehension of debt matters and even poorer lending practices by numerous institutions that were only too happy to lend to her at inflated interest rates. Some of these groups actually rush to exploit the vulnerable, vague and naive. My constituent and her son will be evicted from her house within a matter of days.

I refer to this matter as I believe that, had she had access to appropriate financial counselling, many of her problems would simply not exist today—and she would not be on the verge of eviction. Sadly, in all her years of this poor financial management, she simply never came across a financial counsellor nor was directed or referred to one. Her story is not unique. There are literally thousands of Australians suffering from the very same problems. Sadly, my electorate seems to be one of the hardest hit. According to the Daily Telegraph, New South Wales Supreme Court figures for the top 10 suburbs for repossession include the Reid electorate suburbs of Merrylands, Auburn, Guildford and Granville. Also included are the neighbouring suburbs of Bankstown, Greystanes and Fairfield. So quite clearly there is a belt which, because of income levels, because of the period at which they actually financed and because of the collapse of the market in some of those suburbs, particularly Granville, has been impacted by these forced sales.

This makes a mockery of the claim by the Prime Minister that we have never been better off. Whilst the Howard government crows about the success in the economy, which was largely inherited from Labor and fuelled by the raw materials demands of India and China, there is an alternative reality of an out-of-control personal debt spiral. Steve Keen from the University of Western Sydney writes:

Australia’s household debt to GDP ratio has risen from 57 per cent of GDP in 2001 to over 86 per cent in 2005 or five fold from the mid 1970s. With the exception of a dip in 1985-87 period, when the Stock Market was the focus of a speculative frenzy in Australia, the housing debt to GDP ratio has been rising exponentially for at least 25 years. The focus of RBA concern today is therefore on borrowing by households.

Australian household debt was five and a half times higher in 2005 than it was in 1990. The American growth rate of eight per cent translates into 3.2 times as much household debt in 2005 as in 1990. So we see that the situation of Australia has markedly worsened as compared with the United States. Furthermore, whereas in the US debt weighs heavily on households and businesses, in Australia the pressure of debt is being exerted predominantly on households.

A potent indicator of the level of financial stress now being felt by Australian households is a ratio to household disposable after-tax income. This ratio has more than tripled since 1981. The explanation that this is due to falling interest rates ceased being viable about two years ago. The rise in debt has eclipsed the impact of generally lower interest rates since the early 1990s so that payments by households now consume more of household disposable income than they did when standard home loan rates peeked at 17 per cent in 1989, even though the average variable rate is now 7.5 per cent.

Since its election, the Howard government has presided over an almost threefold increase in personal household debt. The total personal debt in Australia has increased from about $46 billion in January 1996 to a staggering $133 billion in November 2006. The Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia reports that the December 2006 quarter saw a blow-out in bankruptcy numbers in all states except Western Australia. This includes a 30 per cent increase on the corresponding 2005-06 period in New South Wales and almost 28 per cent in Victoria.

Steve Keen’s analysis of rising personal household debt is underpinned by AFFCRA’s analysis showing that widespread use of credit cards for household and discretionary spending, driven by aggressive industry selling practices, has led to unhealthy financial thinking where card facilities are considered in the context of available credit rather than actual debt liability. Jan Pentland writes:

In the current consumerist hegemony and the increasing gap between the haves and have nots, where material goods can define self worth, easily available credit has been a trap for many clients of financial counsellors.

This budget clearly fails Australian consumers. The government’s priorities are twisted. The government is pouring millions of dollars into financial literacy campaigns when it is clear industry is already doing so. Where money is scarce it should be directed where it is most urgently needed. Financial counsellors are being increasingly called upon to deliver services to gradually more desperate Australian consumers. These and many millions of other Australian consumers need financial counselling around keeping out of debt. They do not need counselling on how to get rich.

I turn to other aspects of this budget. Obviously, one of the failings was answered by Labor in its proposal for skills training in the secondary system in this country. It is proposed that between half a million dollars and $1½ million be allocated to public and private schools throughout the country to do something about the skills crisis which has led to the plethora of 457 applications for entry to this country, the desperation of employers to obtain skilled workers and the use of 457 visas by some of them to undermine conditions in this country. Behind that, of course, we have the government’s failure on training, research and development in this nation.

I will provide some of the indicators, which unfortunately all go in one direction. Australia’s business expenditure on research and development in 2005 was 0.95 per cent. The average in the OECD was 1.53 per cent, placing Australia at a glorious 14th out of 22. The growth of business research and development shows a singularly poor pattern as well. The growth between 1984 and 1995 was 12 per cent and in the decade since then it has been 6.5 per cent. When we turn to the question of this country’s investment in knowledge, we find that in 2002 Australia’s investment in knowledge to GDP was 4.1 per cent. In a league table of OECD countries, Australia came ninth, which compares particularly miserably with Sweden, the United States and Finland. In high and medium-high technology manufacturers Australia is one of the lowest ranked countries in the OECD. According to OECD research in 2002—and I quote that because it is the latest available—we had 3.2 per cent of total gross value added and were ranked 26th in the OECD. We know, of course, the figures on the take-up of broadband, and that is why the opposition has had issues on that front. In 2002 the proportion of graduates in the science and engineering sectors—so vital for the future, so vital for an alternative to dependence upon raw materials and so vital to finding a solution after China and India have reached a point where they do not need as much from us—was 21.5 per cent of total graduates in this country, less than the OECD average of 23 per cent. In 2003, Australian expenditure on tertiary education as a proportion of GDP was 1.5 per cent and ranked seventh in the OECD. More importantly, the proportion that we are spending on tertiary education has declined over the period since 1995. I talked earlier about the debt burden on Australians because of their dependence on credit cards and their inability to have secure employment and income, and I talked about the way in which education is funded in this country. As I said, we have had a decline in overall expenditure. Similarly, in 2003 19.5 per cent of education expenditure was borne by the household sector, yet back in 1995 it was 13.5 per cent. So we have seen a massive increase in the proportion of education expenditure that is the responsibility of the household sector compared to general taxpayer expenditure.

Another area that causes genuine concern in my electorate is the question of dental assistance in this country. I quote the response of the Australian Dental Association to the initiative in the budget. It said the initiative was:

$377.6 million to be spent over four years to enable chronically ill dental patients to access dental services in the private sector.

As I said, issues have different impacts in different electorates, but in my electorate an issue I constantly hear about is waiting times at public access points at Westmead Hospital in Western Sydney, one of the larger hospitals in this country. It is an issue constantly raised by residents. I note that the response of the Australian Dental Association was that, whilst the initiative is a positive move, it:

... will only have a minimal effect on the waiting lists that exist in the public sector.

The ADA’s report also indicated that there are 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists and that it is disappointing that the budget does not really tackle the problem. We know, of course, that one of the first actions of the government was to abolish the existing Labor government initiative in that field.

I will briefly turn to multicultural affairs. We see an allocation of more money in this budget but, quite frankly, it is an allocation that is understandable and overdue. In recent years the government has reorientated the refugee humanitarian intake to Africa, to people from the Sudan in particular. Many of these people have been living in camps like Kakuma, in Kenya, for the last decade or more. They are families that are illiterate in their own language, let alone in English, and they and their children obviously have particular needs. It is understandable that at last the government has woken up to the reality that there is a need for a greater allocation for refugee humanitarian assistance.

But we do see in this budget a parallel allocation of $123 million to a new citizenship test. One has to question not only the logic of this but the way in which such a serious matter—allegedly in a subterranean way to combat terrorism—was allowed to be not acted upon by this government for a year and a half. After it became urgent they sat around doing nothing about the need for this citizenship test or the other demands in that sector. In the last month or so we have seen a mad rush of people to beat the test anyway, with unparalleled numbers of people applying for citizenship in the last few months. As I say, this allocation of $123 million for a citizenship test is very questionable. There is a chronic need to expend money on migrant English and to help people with orientation information before they arrive in the country. We need to give people an Australian experience for employment. Quite clearly, everyone on both sides of this House knows the problem that we have with people coming to this country, supposedly for employment, who are driving taxis or working in Pizza Huts. As I say, it is commendable that something is happening in respect of this allocation but, in the light of the size of the problem in recent years, it is not enough.

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the budget, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills. The 2007 budget shares the outcome of the coalition government’s good economic management with all Australians. It invests in families and invests in the future. For families, there are childcare benefit increases such that a low-income family with one child and full-time day care will be up to $20.50 a week better off.

But it is the tax cuts that have certainly received the most attention in my electorate. Tax cuts for those on average wages will be around $16 a week, and for someone on $30,000 a year around $21 a week. The level at which the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent cuts in will be increased from $150,000 to $180,000. If the threshold had remained at 1996 levels, the top marginal rate would have cut in at $68,000. What a difference! Now it is three times the level it would have been had the prevailing tax arrangements in 1996 been there.

But what has happened in previous budgets? Here is one example, and I am referring to the Age, which said that the most important moves in the 1993 budget were the deferral of the second income tax cut, worth $3.55 billion; increased petrol tax, worth $1.54 billion; and increases in wholesale sales tax, worth $1.34 billion. Not a budget anybody would have been excited about. That was the budget in August 1993. So people were not wondering how big their tax cuts were; they were wondering who was going to get hit—and, boy, they were hit, because the tax cuts were deferred. I think they were the notorious l-a-w law tax cuts.

But in the budget for 2007 the government has certainly delivered. Education vouchers worth $700 will be made available to children who need specialised assistance. Teachers who complete a summer school professional development course will receive a $5,000 bonus. It is a great incentive for teachers to update their skills. Eligible apprentices will receive a tax-exempt payment of $1,000 and a voucher of $500 to offset their fees for training. The thing that could never have been done by previous governments, a Higher Education Endowment Fund with an initial investment of $5 billion, will double existing financial investments and endowments for universities. A one-off superannuation co-contribution scheme will ensure that eligible persons who have contributed in the previous years will receive a $3,000 co-contribution from the government for every $1,000 that they contribute. There is a one-off seniors bonus of $500 to eligible seniors. Eligible carers will receive a bonus of between $600 and $1,000, and TPI and disabled veterans will receive pension increases.

There is a climate change initiative, with a rebate of $8,000 available for installing a solar hot-water system. There is a boost to AusLink and our road system. The government is also building and investing in infrastructure. In the next five-year round there will be a total of $22.2 billion available, including the Strategic Regional Program with $300 million, and supplementary funding of $250 million is to be paid direct to local councils before 30 June 2007.

There are so many initiatives that it is really not possible to go through all of them. But I want to draw the comparison between the low expectations—and they had to be pretty low—pre 1996 for budgets and what we have now. I want to draw the comparison between what was delivered then and what has been delivered in one of the most outstanding budgets ever brought down by a federal government. In fact, in 1992, the then Treasurer, according to the Australian newspaper, ‘left the way open yesterday for new or increased taxes to be introduced’. The arguments these days are about how much the tax cuts are going to be. That is the bonus of having good economic management that a government can share with all Australians.

I would like to move now to some specific issues that affect my own electorate. I am immensely proud that in Mackay we have the coal exports from Dalrymple Bay, Hay Point and Abbott Point that make it the largest coal-exporting region on earth. In fact, we have had a 42.5 per cent increase in our gross regional product—the largest growth in the state. We have significant investor confidence in the mining industry within the Mackay region. There was $500 million in capital expenditure on mining projects completed in the last six months. To put this in perspective: there has been $882 million in capital expenditure spent on mining projects completed over the year to April 2006.

Major projects that are forecast are the $1.1 billion expansion of Dalrymple Bay coal terminal. That will increase capacity from 60 million tonnes to 85 million tonnes by 2009. There is mooted construction of a 120 megawatt gas-fired power station in Moranbah and a 300 megawatt gas-fired peaking power station in Nebo, at an estimated cost of $800 million over the period 2006-15.

Mining, for my region, is now worth some $8 billion. The percentage contribution to the Mackay economy is 61 per cent. The annual increase is 77 per cent. That is an extraordinary figure for one region in Australia. The percentage contribution that mining makes to the Queensland economy is only 12.4, but to us it represents 61 per cent of our gross regional product. That is an extraordinary dependence on the mining industry and one that we welcome. It has meant some growing pains for my magnificent city and region, but it has certainly meant great prosperity, jobs growth and opportunity in the region.

Are there any threats to this glowing future? There certainly are. In fact, one of them was on the front of the Courier-Mail newspaper. It said:

Greens Senator Bob Brown is calling for the death of Queensland’s $24 billion coal industry and thousands of jobs, demanding an end to all coal exports within three years.

Senator Brown, in an interview with the Australian, predicted:

Job losses, higher inflation and economic turmoil would come as inevitable part of paying for climate change ...

In an interview with the Australian yesterday, Senator Brown said the first thing that had to be done to ‘stop worsening the problem’ was to place a moratorium on additional coal exports. Senator Brown went on to defend his plans to shut down Australia’s coal industry, saying, ‘There will be bumps.’ I will tell you what those bumps will be soon. They will be most of the people in my region. The article quotes Senator Brown as saying:

... “there will be bumps”, but if plans were put in place to deal with the pollution within three years the country could “minimise the bumps”.

People in my area are not too pleased to know that they are bumps. But that has other implications because, while Bob Brown, the Greens senator, wants all coal exports stopped, he has said this will be achieved in the first term of a Labor government. One might ask how it is that the Greens can set the Labor agenda, but I will move to that shortly. I would like to comment on Peter Garrett, now the Labor shadow minister for the environment. He has cast off his cloak of dedicated environmental campaigner and declared that he is an elected politician who supports Labor policy, no matter how expedient it may be, and he will do what he is told. Garrett has said in relation to the coal industry expansion:

One of the greatest difficulties we face is that we have got to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of urgency, so I think it is completely understandable that there would be, of necessity, a huge amount of scrutiny on the business of expansions.

And then:

The automatic expansion of the coal industry such as we have seen in the Hunter region over the past decade is a thing of the past.

Make no mistake: ‘No automatic expansion’ is code for ‘No expansion, period’. And ‘No expansion’ is code for ‘Eventual phase-down’. All we have to do is add Bowen Basin and Central Queensland and we begin to see the enormity of the damage—or bumps, as Senator Brown puts it—that can and will be inflicted on the industry in my region.

What does this mean for the Mackay economy, which is 61 per cent dependent on coal? While the good Senator Brown is saying on national television that there is no such thing as clean coal and dismissing the whole argument as a mining-company-driven propaganda exercise, the Labor Party is going on about clean coal technology and promising a $500 million fund for research. Mr Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, claims that, when it comes to securing a long-term future for coal, we have got to secure a long-term future for clean coal technology. It is all very well to talk the talk, but you also need to walk the walk. As a government, we have already invested $1.1 billion in clean coal technology.

But the reality is that we have two scenarios: Senator Brown saying that the coal industry will be closed down in the first three years of a Labor government, and muffled assurances from the Labor opposition. Mr Rudd, for instance, flicks Senator Brown off by saying:

I think Senator Brown has got rocks in his head when it comes to that matter.

So there we have it. However, it is interesting to do a little research on some of these things. We have Mr Rudd saying unequivocally ‘Yes’ for coal, Senator Brown saying unequivocally ‘No’ for coal and Mr Garrett saying, ‘Well, sort of, maybe, sort of, yes, no, a bit difficult to sort out.’

So what is going to happen? Let’s have a look at what happened in 2004. In the 2004 election the coalition lost four marginal seats as a direct result of Greens preferences going to Labor. Those seats were Adelaide, Hindmarsh, Parramatta and Richmond. However, more importantly, the Labor Party retained eight marginal seats as a direct result of receiving Greens preferences. These were Ballarat, Banks, Bendigo, Cowan, Isaacs, Lowe, Melbourne Ports and Swan. What that means is that the total Greens preferences were greater than the winning margins. In other words, without Green preferences those seats would presumably go back to the coalition. I pose this proposition to people in my electorate: not only is there a compelling reason in terms of gaining seats but there is a compelling reason in terms of holding seats for the Labor Party to agree to the Greens’ agenda.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Dawson willing to give way?

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the end of my address.

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

I am not sure you are aware of the standing order, but it permits you to—

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, no. I have a lot more to say, thank you. The reality is that inevitably, as a result of Green preferences, we are going to see Senator Brown’s close-down of the coal industry prevail.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolute and total rubbish!

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even if we were concerned about that, we should remember that the target that the Labor Party has set for greenhouse gas abatement is a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. Thank goodness the Prime Minister has said that he is going to support coal industry jobs, coalmining families.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said he is setting up a nuclear energy industry!

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would now like to continue with the argument as to why attacking the coal industry is utterly futile. The only thing that that will achieve is exporting Australian jobs from my region. Senator Brown calls it ‘bumps’. People’s future and jobs are more than just bumps. If greenhouse gas emissions were completely closed down in Australia by closing the economy tomorrow, the effect on greenhouse gas emissions worldwide would be 1.4 per cent. That would have absolutely no effect on world greenhouse gas abatement. But the reality is that it would be economic vandalism on a region like mine and on Central Queensland.

I am glad to see the member for Capricornia is going to follow me, because she has a very big stake in this region as well. The futility of it would be that within a short 10 months China would have made up for the growth in emissions alone. Every 10 months China replicates the entire Australian electricity-generating system. Beijing alone puts 1,000 new cars on the streets every week. So China would have made up for our greenhouse gas abatement, but we would have suffered a mortal blow in our region. The way to go forward is to do what the coalition is doing, not to snuggle up to Senator Brown behind the scenes while refusing him and putting him down publicly. What the government is going to do is continue what it is doing now—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Danby interjecting

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The shadow duty member should be more courteous.

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which is investing in clean coal technology. There is the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate—six countries that have got together, accounting for more than 55 per cent of global output and 49 per cent of global emissions, and are forging a partnership to look at a way forward. So action plans are in place, and later this week we will hear from the Prime Minister’s task force on emissions, with a practical plan, one that will not create bumps, as Senator Brown says, in Central Queensland and the Bowen Basin coalfields, destroying the futures and the opportunities of young people in our region.

I want to look very briefly at the unemployment rate in Mackay in 1995 under the previous government. Unemployment peaked in January 1995 at 13.9 per cent, an absolute shame. At the end of the last year it was down to just 3.9 per cent. The Allen Consulting Group report that looked at the question of supporting, signing and ratifying the Kyoto protocol said that one of the areas that would be hardest hit by complying with Kyoto was in fact the Central Queensland coalfields. They predicted high levels of unemployment. We know what it was when the coal industry was much smaller and far less significant in our area. Labor got unemployment up to 13.9 per cent. Frankly, I shudder to think what it would be if they continued to seek Green preferences—and we know they have done a secret deal, only it was not much of a secret because it was in the Courier-Mail, a bit like the secret campaign being run on the government’s climate achievements in that furphy of a suspension of standing orders.

But that is the reality for our area—Senator Brown calls us a bump. We know that the coal industry is in the sights of the Labor Party and the Greens in the future. I am certainly going to make it my task to see that the futures of young people and the prosperity in our region is not signed away in a cheap preference deal by a citicentric government focused on Sydney and Melbourne votes in the latte-set areas.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member is prepared to accept a question, it is still within time.

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Brown has answered them all.

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

The parliamentary secretary declines to respond to your question, Member for Melbourne Ports. That being the case, I think the standing orders oblige me to proceed.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the member for Dawson is still here, I put some questions to her. The interesting question, while the member for McMillan is also still here, is how the member for McMillan feels about the member for Dawson’s support and John Howard’s strong support for a nuclear energy industry in Australia, because that is certainly the biggest attack on the coal industry that I have seen. When John Howard talks about replacing coal as a source of electricity in this country with nuclear energy, it is a bigger attack than anything I have seen from Bob Brown. I see that the member for Dawson has left the chamber and does not wish to get into that debate, which is the genuine debate about the future of the coal industry under a continuing Howard coalition government.

This is about the budget. This is the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the budget and what it means to my electorate of Capricornia. The thing that really struck me about the budget when the Treasurer was giving his speech earlier this year was that it was really a budget that was about plugging up political holes for the government—political holes that have been left behind after 11 years of the Howard government’s neglect of many essential services in our community and of essential infrastructure.

Of course, we have seen this before. Every election year, the Howard government discover a sudden interest in policy areas and services that they have ignored for years, and this year was no different. One of the obvious examples was in the area of dental health, where we finally saw the government throwing some money at dental health after spending 11 years since they cut the Commonwealth dental program telling us how this was all the states’ problem and the states’ responsibility. Now that it has become a political problem for the government, we see them accepting responsibility and putting money in—but, of course, only in a very narrowly defined way.

Similarly, the Howard government in its first budget made massive cuts to funding for universities, and universities have been struggling to come to terms with those cuts ever since. But all of a sudden, when we see the effects of that through falling productivity and through Australia’s shameful comparison when you look at figures from the OECD on education spending—Australia is falling well behind our competitor nations in the world—the Howard government seems to have realised that it is about time it started undoing some of that damage.

We know that John Howard is a clever and cunning politician and we should not be surprised that he is trying to patch up the holes. But, of course, it gets harder and harder for a government that has been in power for 11 years. If there are holes there—if there are important issues in the community that are not being addressed and problems that are out there—it is a sign that this government is not doing its job and has not been doing its job for the last 11 years. Those political holes are there because the government has neglected important areas of services and infrastructure.

Of course, being a clever politician—and a desperate politician, you might say—John Howard is not going to leave anything to chance. So, just in case throwing money at those political problems in the budget is not going to do the trick, he will give himself the best possible chance of winning people back by spending up big on political advertising. We have seen $850 million spent on political advertising by this government since the last election, bringing the total spending on advertising by this government since 1996 to close to $2 billion. That is just absolutely unprecedented in this country. When you put that up against the areas of neglect that they are trying to fix up in the budget, you can see that that $2 billion could have gone a long way towards fixing some of those problems long before 2007, only a matter of months before the next election.

The budget was all about plugging political holes for the government to get it through to the election, but, from the point of view of my electorate, it still left behind plenty of holes. The first one of those holes that struck me as I listened to the Treasurer’s speech—and it is too bad that the member for Dawson is not here to listen to this—was the failure of the government to put forward any initiatives to encourage and support the development of clean coal technology. For people living in Central Queensland at the heart of the coalmining boom, that is a major oversight, especially since the Treasurer spent so much of his speech doling out money derived from the resources boom that people in my electorate are working hard to create. If the government wants to spend the money coming out of Central Queensland mines, it should get serious about helping to secure the future of the industry, but there was not a cent in the budget for that. So there was the Treasurer spending the proceeds of the mining boom, and yet there was nothing in the budget to help the coal industry to meet the challenges it faces in a world that is looking to reduce its carbon emissions.

If the government wants to support the coal industry and the communities, both big and small, like those in my electorate that are built on the coal industry, then the government has to be part of finding ways to make the industry sustainable. Of course the budget just confirmed what we already know about this government: it has turned its back on the coal industry and on coalmining communities because it has embraced nuclear energy. Instead of working with the coal and electricity industries to develop clean coal technology, the Howard government is busy developing its plans for 25 nuclear reactors to be established around the country—and the member for Dawson has already put her hand up publicly to say that one of those can go near Mackay on the Queensland coast. I am sure her electors are just thrilled about that prospect.

Unlike the government, Labor understand the need for urgent action on climate change, and we recognise that reducing the carbon emissions from burning coal is essential if we are to make serious reductions in greenhouse gases. Right now, the technology is there to achieve that goal, but the political will and leadership has been lacking in a government that has ignored climate change and is now telling Australians we need to adopt dangerous and radical measures like nuclear energy, as a cover for its complacency and neglect. As someone who represents many coalminers, their families and communities right across the electorate of Capricornia, I am pleased to say that Labor is showing real leadership in this important area. Earlier this year Labor announced its national clean coal initiative, and the member for Dawson just endorsed that initiative in her remarks. It is a fund worth half a billion dollars which a Labor government would make available. We would ask industry to come up with proposals for clean coal technology projects and, by putting money in from that $500 million fund on a two-for-one basis with industry, we would be aiming to meet significant greenhouse gas reduction targets in our electricity generation industry. We would also increase Commonwealth funding for the CSIRO by $25 million over four years so that it can drive the national clean coal initiative. This is really forward looking for the coal industry, and it is making sure that that $23 billion a year in exports is able to be sustained into the future. We can continue to develop that technology here in Australia and export the technology along with our coal exports to the rest of the world, to those countries which realistically will be looking for ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the new environment where every country in the world is accepting a responsibility to reduce those carbon emissions and the impact on the environment.

One of the other great failings in this budget is in the area of broadband. I have to ask: when is the Howard government going to take this issue seriously? Once again there was nothing in the budget to improve the access of people in my electorate to high-speed internet. Meanwhile, Australia falls further behind its competitors in access to and the use of information technology. We continue to struggle along with what has now been confirmed in the budget papers this year as zero per cent productivity growth. The failure to invest in broadband is the surest sign of a lazy and complacent government that is happy to coast along on the crest of the resources boom while doing nothing to invest in the measures like education and world-class communications infrastructure that will secure our future prosperity.

This is a matter of equity and productivity. Why should people in Central Queensland be denied the opportunities that high-speed broadband internet makes possible—whether it is for improving their business, their kids’ education, health and financial services or any of the other potential uses of this important technology? I would like to give members two examples of the kinds of frustrations that I am coming across in my electorate from people who cannot access broadband—and that is hardly an unreasonable expectation in this day and age.

The first example is from Janine Bennett, who wrote to me from Eton, which is a gorgeous little town set amongst the cane fields just outside Mackay. Like many of the rural areas to the south and west of Mackay, Eton is experiencing fast population growth with the opening up of estates to cater for people who work in the mines further west or who just want the peace of semirural living. So it is a rural area but it is still only a 20-minute drive from Mackay, which is a major regional city. I received a letter from Janine, which said:

We were recently told that Telstra had updated our exchange and we could now get ADSL Broadband! Yehah! We all got excited, and yes we have been dial up all this time, not by choice but we live 30km out of Mackay ... Anyway we set out to join up and guess what?! We can’t get ADSL here, you know why? We have Pair Gain. What’s that you say? Yes so did we! Pair Gain is sharing a telephone line with your neighbour!

Janine goes on to say:

Even the Telstra staff laughs when they tell us!

I am sure people are thrilled by that response from Telstra! As I have explained to Janine, I have tried everything in the past to help constituents caught up in Telstra’s pair gain scam but to no avail. There is no doubt that Telstra has a lot of explaining to do to customers right around Australia when it comes to its use of this shonky second-rate equipment. But that is letting the government off too lightly for its role in the shameful state of broadband in this country. The fact is that Janine should not be battling with Telstra to get ADSL. In 2007 in a country as prosperous and advanced as Australia, she should be connected up to real broadband, delivering speeds of 12 megabits per second or higher. Of course, that is Labor’s plan.

The second example that I will give to the Committee is even more damning of the government’s record. A month or so ago I visited Swayneville State School. It too is located in an absolutely picturesque setting surrounded by bush and cane fields. Again it is rural but hardly remote, no more than 10 minutes drive from Sarina and 45 minutes from Mackay. The staff and parents of the school were successful in obtaining a grant from the government’s Investing in Our Schools program. During my visit the principal, Mr Ken Nichols, showed me the IT equipment that the school had purchased with the money. It is very impressive stuff and it is quite obvious that this opens up enormous potential for teachers to add value to the work they are doing in the classroom.

But before the government rushes to pat itself on the back for the grant it provided to this school, here is the downside. At Swayneville school there is no access to broadband, so in many respects the IT equipment that is there at the school is almost a tease. It offers possibilities to students and teachers, but so many of those possibilities are out of reach because of the limits of the dial-up internet connection.

After visiting the school, I made inquiries with Telstra and the answer just goes to show how far off the pace the government is on this important infrastructure priority for Australia. Here is part of the email from Telstra:

Shinfield—

which is the relevant exchange—

was one of the exchanges that Telstra identified for broadband enablement using the Federal Governments Broadband Connect program. A project was initiated to broadband enable this exchange however the federal government advised us that as of the 13 March 2007 the subsidy based funding available under Broadband Connect had reached its limit. The Government has since put in place transitional funding guidelines for the period 2 April to 30 June 2007.

And it goes on:

As it is the Government subsidy that enables Telstra to upgrade exchanges to ADSL in rural and remote areas where it otherwise would not be commercial, Telstra has no choice but to put a hold on further exchange upgrades until it can claim subsidies for customers connecting to those exchanges.

The email from Telstra goes on to say that it is now tangled up in negotiations with the government over definitions in the transitional guidelines for the Australian Broadband Guarantee program.

I do not want to go into the detail of all that except to call on the government to get in and sort that out quickly. But the point is that we should not be tinkering around with these piecemeal responses to what is an urgent national infrastructure priority. The technology exists to link 120 students at Swayneville school and all the other students in my electorate to the best educational resources in the world, but the government has failed to ensure that our infrastructure keeps up with those possibilities.

The government is still tinkering around with its latest broadband program—the Australian Broadband Guarantee. This is the latest in a long line of programs aimed at bringing Australia out of the Dark Ages when it comes to broadband speeds and access. But we know from international comparisons and statistics that Australia is still lagging behind most of our competitors when it comes to broadband. The Howard government has to drop its bandaid approach, which has seen it handing out bits and pieces of funding—some might say pork-barrelling—to projects scattered around the country. Equity and our future prosperity demand a nation-building approach to this task of bringing Australia’s infrastructure into line with the rest of the developed world.

Labor’s plan for a national broadband network will deliver high-speed broadband to the entire population of Australia. It will overcome the problems experienced by Janine and her neighbours in Eton and a lot of other constituents of mine throughout Central Queensland—all those people who are currently stuck with pair gain lines. It will give kids at Swayneville school the same connection to the world of the internet as kids in Rockhampton or Sydney.

Labor’s plan for broadband is to deliver a national fibre-to-the-node network that will deliver a minimum of 12 megabits per second to all parts of Australia. That is a speed more than 40 times faster than most current speeds available today. That will result in benefits such as slashed telephone bills for small business; enhanced business services, such as teleconferencing, video conferencing and virtual private networks; and enhanced capacity for services like e-education and e-health. The economic benefits are also enormous. We just cannot understand why the government has been dragging its heels on this important piece of infrastructure for so long. The estimates are for an additional $30 billion of national economic activity a year. It will make Australian small businesses more competitive. Some figures show that in Queensland alone true broadband access will boost the state economy by $4 billion and create 1,200 new jobs.

So it was obvious that the budget was plugging political holes and really not demonstrating that this government has a plan for the future. It has a plan for the future over the next three months, that is for sure—it is all about getting elected at the moment—but is not really serious about lifting Australia’s productivity and maintaining our competitiveness and prosperity.

I said at the start that those people in Central Queensland listening to the budget would have heard all that money going out. All that money can be traced back to the mining boom, a lot of which is happening in my electorate. There is one mining town in my electorate—I am sure in all mining towns we could find communities and projects that could use money—that has a particularly urgent need at the moment, and that is the town of Clermont. Clermont is a mining town, but it is a bit different to other mining towns in the Bowen Basin in that it has a higher proportion of elderly residents living in the town. At the moment there is a large and unmet demand for aged care in the town of Clermont. This is very serious because, while Clermont is about an hour away from Moranbah, it is about three hours from Mackay and four hours from Rockhampton, the other major centres. So when places are not available in Clermont people really are faced with putting their loved ones into facilities quite some distance away from the town, which is quite heartbreaking.

At the moment Monash Lodge, the aged-care hostel which operates in Clermont—a facility that was established in partnership between the community and the Belyando Shire Council—has an application before the government under the Regional Partnerships program to build an additional six units to try to meet some of that demand for aged-care places in the community. The community has been incredibly proactive about this, and I think it is very much a reflection of the respect and affection that the community holds for the elderly people in the town. The community has raised $300,000. This community has had its ups and downs over the last few years, but it has managed to raise $300,000 towards this project. I know that the application has been looked upon very favourably by the relevant area consultative committee and I ask the federal government to take a very close look at this.

This issue has a very human face. I received a letter from Peter Murphy back in April about his mother’s inability to gain an aged-care placement in Clermont. She was waiting for nine months in a hospital to get a place. This is a very real problem in the town of Clermont. The town has been incredibly proactive in dealing with this problem, and I call on the government to use the surplus to meet these urgent needs in communities like Clermont.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity today to discuss a number of issues regarding the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills. I would like to begin by congratulating the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, on delivering yet another excellent budget, the reception of which has been remarkably positive. Not only does this budget deliver for every Australian; it also provides for the financial security of our nation in years to come. This year’s budget provides an underlying cash surplus of $10.6 billion as well as personal tax relief and funding for investment in our nation’s future in projects such as education, agriculture and infrastructure.

This year’s budget has been described as ‘the best received on record’, as the ‘something for everyone budget’, and as ‘delivering many pleasant surprises for many Australians’. But budget nights have not always been synonymous with pleasant surprises and positive reactions. There was once a time when budget night meant tax hikes and increased pressure to stretch the family earnings. Indeed, this government inherited a $96 billion debt, compliments of Labor Party incompetence, when it came into government in 1996. But, since then, the responsible economic management of the Howard government has brought this nation out of debt and created the financial security we enjoy today. It is for this reason that the Howard government has been able to produce yet another surplus budget. I would, therefore, also like to compliment the Prime Minister on the excellent management of what is now a $1.1 trillion economy.

As I have already outlined, the response from the Australian public to this year’s budget has been overwhelmingly positive and this has been particularly visible from those in the electorate of Hume, which I have the honour to represent. I was glad to announce this year’s federal budget in my electorate as a bonanza for all Australians. This is a description which the local media ran with because this budget truly delivered for all, no matter what their income, occupation or residence. As a nation we have never been in a more prosperous situation. However, we live in a country with unpredictable weather patterns and in some areas an often ruthless climate. No-one knows this better than the many farmers in my electorate who have been struggling with the worst drought on record for more than 100 years. The prolonged drought continues to place significant pressure on the resilience and strength of farmers and their families in Hume. Like many other farming communities around the country, these battlers are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the physical, mental and financial challenges this drought has created.

Lack of significant heavy rainfall in much of the drought affected areas of the Hume electorate has also placed considerable pressure on many small and large businesses which service the agricultural sector. The government has recognised the severity and devastating effect the current drought has had on farmers as well as businesses. This is why this year’s budget continues to provide a range of support programs and various services to assist farmers and rural businesses to help ease the burden of the drought.

It is a terrible understatement to suggest that these services are anything short of essential for farmers to manage the financial and emotional strains this drought has created. Every day I receive phone calls from farmers in the Hume electorate who report their increasing frustrations with trying to eke out a livelihood so ultimately dependent on rain. It is therefore pleasing for me to be able to reassure these farmers that the government understands the struggle that they face and has acknowledged the difficult circumstances that their families continue to endure. As part of this reassurance, this budget provides an additional $314 million over three years in exceptional circumstances assistance, including $273 million for primary producers and $42 million for small businesses who service primary producers. This will bring the total expected exceptional circumstances spending to $688 million in 2007-08, which is in addition to the $428 million spent in 2005-06 and an expected $740 million in 2006-07.

Countless farmers wake up every morning to face the huge emotional burden inflicted by another daunting day without rain. Depression and anxiety are becoming widespread throughout many of our farming communities. The number of farmers we lose to suicide increases with every month that passes without rain. This is why the Australian government has provided $13 million over two years to expand counselling and support services, to establish a drought assistance hotline and to provide information to farmers in the region. The new Mental Health Support for Drought-Affected Communities measure will provide crisis counselling services for distressed individuals in drought declared areas, and education and training for clinicians and community leaders. It will also increase the capacity of communities to respond to drought related psychological trauma.

In a local newspaper report, New South Wales Farmers Association President Jock Laurie is reported as being heartened by the additional $314 million for the continuation of exceptional circumstances funding. In the same article he is quoted as saying:

Farmers also welcome funding to establish a School of Dentistry and Oral Health at Charles Sturt University, which will help address the chronic shortage of dentists and oral health workers in rural NSW. For some time the association has been calling for access to comprehensive dental facilities for people in rural areas as well as programs to attract and retain dental health workers and appropriate training facilities and incentives for dentists with rural backgrounds.

It is essential that access to services such as dentists and medical practitioners is retained in our rural and regional communities. Currently there are limited rural training opportunities for dental students to undertake clinical training outside major metropolitan areas. However, people with an interest in rural dental practice will now have the opportunity of undertaking and completing their training in regional New South Wales, as funding will be provided to Charles Sturt University to construct dental education facilities, with 240 new training places for dental and oral health students over five years. Rural communities will significantly benefit from more dentists practising and training within their regions. Significant difficulties have also been recognised in recruiting and retaining GPs in rural and remote areas. The Australian government has recognised this and continues to provide funding for incentive grants, such as the Rural Retention Program, to encourage GPs to move to and stay in rural and remote areas.

While farmers throughout the Hume electorate continue to pray for more rain, what little rain we have seen often creates adverse effects on many roads in Hume which are magnified by the inexperience of many drivers in wet conditions. I am also well aware of the increased number of my constituents who now commute long distances to jobs in towns and cities because of the drought. I am deeply concerned that when we do eventually see this drought break we will see an increase in fatalities on our roads. In February this year a report appeared in the Goulburn Post summing up my concerns. I shall read a segment from that report:

The weekend’s rain may have been a blessing to property owners in this area, but it has create havoc on the Hume Highway. Seven separate accidents occurred within the space of three days, and all were within 50 metres of each other on the notorious section of road near the Carrick and Towrang intersection, 10km north of Goulburn.

As many of my parliamentary colleagues are aware, I have been lobbying for improvements in this particular section of road since 2003. I was therefore greatly pleased to announce, a week after this article appeared, that a $7.4 million project to improve the road safety at Towrang and Carrick roads would finally commence. These improvements will make it easier and safer for traffic from Towrang and Carrick roads to turn onto the southbound lanes of the Hume Highway.

The Australian government will also contribute $60 million in 2007-08 to the Coolac bypass in the electorate of Riverina. The government is fully funding the bypass, at a cost of $179 million. The bypass involves new dual carriageways over almost 12 kilometres of the highway. An adjacent four kilometres of the highway will also be realigned. I raise this particular initiative because I have had a significant interest in the Coolac bypass for over a 19-year period during my time as a state member of parliament and more latterly as the member for Hume in the federal parliament. I congratulate the member for Riverina for her persistence in ensuring that this funding was made available.

This Australian government acknowledges that high-quality, efficient transport infrastructure is essential to Australia’s productivity, economic growth and future prosperity. It also acknowledges that increased funding is needed to reduce accidents and make roads safer. The government is, however, continually frustrated by stupid state government legislation which slows down the construction process. The tragic death of three people in the Yass-Murrumbateman area on the weekend is a clear indication of the considerable need for continued investment in improved safety on our roads. While the government has announced the duplication of the Hume Highway in southern New South Wales, it is up to the state government to start implementing the use of this funding to help decrease the number of people who are killed on our country roads. Their inability to expedite the construction phase of major road projects is an indictment of their incompetence in utilising federal funding. To assist in dramatically reducing road fatalities on our major arterial road corridors, it is essential that when money is made available we expedite the lead-up processes for planning prior to the construction of those roads to ensure that the construction phase is carried out without unnecessary obstructions or delays.

The government has announced that, under the AusLink national network project, contributions will be made to reconstruct and seal Main Road 248 West in the Upper Lachlan Shire. I was very pleased to announce that funding, because when I was a state member the Greiner government in its wisdom saw fit to undertake a project called the three by three project, where 3c per litre of fuel was allocated to local government municipalities over a three-year period to help them catch up on the backlog of roads that were 60 years old and needed some reconstruction to make them safe for people to drive on.

The 152 local councils in New South Wales will also receive $85.6 million in 2007-08 from the AusLink Roads to Recovery program. That is a fantastic program because it recognises the significant contribution that local government makes to its road program; it was finding it very difficult, through its rating processes, to keep funding up to ensure that those roads were kept up to standard. The unincorporated areas of the state will receive $600,000 from the program. In addition, councils will receive $156 million in untied local road grants.

New South Wales will receive $14.3 million in 2007-08 under the AusLink black spot program, which will fix about 93 priority crash locations. I am very pleased to see that many local government areas in the electorate that I represent have taken the initiative to identify and put in appropriate evidence to that program to ensure that they receive funding to assist them in fixing up those black spot areas, where accidents occur reasonably regularly and, more importantly, in contributing to safe road environments for young people, who seem to be having an increasing number of accidents in those black spot areas.

The government will also continue its substantial financial assistance to local governments for the maintenance and preservation of local roads by providing $3.2 billion over the five years from 2009-10 in untied local road grants. This increased funding will contribute to the reduction of deaths on our roads by making them safer. Unlike the New South Wales RTA, local government road building is both efficient and expeditious. That is why the federal government is continuing its Roads to Recovery partnership with local government.

It is estimated that by the year 2020 the number of Australians over the age of 65 will have doubled, from two million to four million—undoubtedly, a number of us in this place will fit into that category in the not-too-distant future—and we will have to provide adequate assistance to maintain that ageing population. The continued support of our elderly requires careful economic management and planning now. This budget provides funding of $1.6 billion to secure the future of aged care for Australians. This funding further reforms the aged-care system to increase the availability and fairness of aged care over the next five years.

We also need to be able to support our current older Australians, our retirees, our pensioners and our veterans. We must continue to respect their dignity and the important contribution that they have made to this country. That is why the budget has delivered for older Australians through additional payments for seniors, carers and veterans. This budget will help to improve the standard of living of veterans and war widows.

In Hume we have a number of branches of the organisation Legacy. This organisation provides a uniquely Australian service through its provision of financial, emotional and social support for the loved ones left behind by those who gave their lives to serve our country and defend our freedom. It was therefore with great pleasure that I was able to notify the president of one of our local Legacy branches of the remuneration this budget provides to many of his Legacy ladies. This includes a one-off non-taxable bonus payment of $500 to more than two million senior Australians.

The Howard government has acknowledged the invaluable contributions that carers make to our communities and has recognised the valuable dedication of this generally unpaid work. A payment of $1,000 provided to carers who receive carer payment—an income support payment for people who are unable to participate in the workforce full time as a result of their caring responsibilities—has therefore been delivered. Recipients of the income supplement carer allowance, which provides assistance to people who provide daily care and attention at home to a person who has a disability or severe medical condition, will also receive a lump sum payment of $600.

In addition, recipients of carer allowance receiving the $600 payment who also receive a wife pension or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs partner service pension will also receive a payment of $1,000. I would like to congratulate and commend the quick implementation of these payments by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Mal Brough. This has ensured that funding is benefiting our older Australians as soon as possible.

People older than 75 make up approximately 70 per cent of veterans, and as this population continues to age it is vital that they receive a high level of support to ensure they achieve the highest possible quality of life. The Australian government remains committed to providing top-quality, comprehensive health care and appropriate services to help veterans and war widows manage their daily lives. An allocation of $10.4 million to increase fees being paid to veterans home care service providers will ensure that veterans and war widows can continue to receive quality in-home respite care service, helping them to live independently in their own homes for longer. Veterans with a disability receiving the special rate and intermediate rate pensions will also have their fortnightly payments boosted by $50 and $25 respectively, thanks to a $159.6 million budget allocation.

One of the most immediate responses I received in my electorate was from constituents wanting more information on the government’s increases to the Photovoltaic Rebate Program. In fact, it was at 9 am on 9 May that the first of many constituents contacted my office inquiring how they might be eligible for this innovative rebate. The Australian government has invested around $52 million in the Photovoltaic Rebate Program, which is part of the government’s broader commitment of more than $340 million to solar technology. The funding allocated in this budget will increase the rebate for solar panels on homes from $4 per watt up to a maximum of $4,000 to $8 per watt up to a maximum of $8,000. Australians have recognised that as individuals they can make a difference to the sustainability of our environment. This rebate program means that more households, schools and community groups in Hume will have a greater opportunity to take an active role in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as well as reducing their electricity costs. In Hume the doubling of the rebate for solar panels has provided an even greater incentive to many of my constituents to install solar panels on their homes. I have urged all my constituents to take advantage of the Australian government’s new $150 million solar power package and apply immediately for the increased rebate.

I also congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, for ensuring the quick implementation of this program. Managing Australia’s $1.1 trillion economy requires experience and discipline. This government therefore continues to make the necessary and often difficult decisions in Australia’s long-term interests so that it can lock in prosperity and build security and opportunity for all Australians.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Life is sometimes full of certain symmetries, and today’s speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills has a symmetry with the very first speech I gave in this parliament nearly 11 years ago. It was an appropriation speech, my first in the House. My wife, Shirley, is with me tonight, as she was then, for the last appropriation speech I will make in this House.

Many people are no doubt aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, as you are aware, that I will not be the ALP candidate for the seat of Blaxland at the next election. When preselection for Blaxland was announced, a good friend wisely advised that I should do what Paul Keating counselled Bob Carr to do at one stage: stand in the middle of the road and dare them to run me over. It is sad to report that I am but political road kill. This is a matter of great sorrow, of course, and regret not just for me but for everyone in Blaxland who has so strongly supported me since I was preselected by popular rank and file ballot in May 1996. My loyal branch members will recall that I won the ballot emphatically with 131 out of 205 votes, 64 per cent of the primary vote. The other 74 votes were pretty evenly split between the other two candidates.

During the last 10 years, despite a truly massive campaign of ethnic branch stacking against me and despite the recent electoral redistribution in the seat of Blaxland being deliberately designed to cut out my power base in Condell Park, I would still have convincingly won a rank and file preselection in Blaxland. I know this because I did the numbers and I can count. I proved that conclusively in 1996 by predicting the exact result of that rank and file ballot.

Most of the other Labor seats in New South Wales have been allowed to have rank and file ballots, but not Blaxland. Taking the decision out of the hands of qualified local branch members and putting it into the hands of the national executive was deliberately done to stop me being preselected again. Despite this process being chosen, I was offered and accepted another three years as the member for Blaxland on condition that Ms Tania Mihailuk would replace me in three years time, that I withdraw the existing two charges against her and not put in the further charges and that, together with the member for Bankstown, I help to rehabilitate her locally.

These were very demanding conditions, given what Ms Mihailuk had done over the past decade and given that I did not believe that she would ever be fit for any public office. But I was not in a position to determine the outcome of a national executive vote, so I very unwillingly agreed to this compromise. This deal was then put to Ms Mihailuk. She flatly refused to wait another three years and demanded that she be made the preselected ALP candidate for Blaxland immediately. Three ALP participants in this process have independently corroborated Ms Mihailuk’s refusal to accept the compromise deal.

Another candidate was then asked to nominate, but Ms Mihailuk was given until the next day to convince me to give up in her favour. Despite a series of stratagems, she could not do so and could not have done so until hell froze over. I made it absolutely clear that I had accepted the compromise under great duress but would honour it even if no-one else would. I made it utterly plain to ALP head office that Ms Mihailuk should not profit from the decade of deceit, illegality and destructiveness she had unleashed in the seat of Blaxland. I was determined that if I were denied the right to continue to represent Blaxland for the ALP then the author and perpetrator of so much disloyalty towards me and towards genuine rank and file members should not become my successor in the seat of Blaxland.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to interrupt the member because I have sympathy for what he is saying, but we really should get back to what we are here to discuss, which is the appropriation bill.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the parliamentary secretary and I have some sympathy, although in the presence of the member and his wife, whom I admire, I want to be able to wish them all the best in their future. This debate has always been permitted to range over any matter of public administration or public interest and, whilst I would wish that I could bring it narrowly to a point of definition—plainly this is not a subject that I, as a member of the party myself, wish to have canvassed in this way—nonetheless I do not think that within the standing orders in this debate I can prevent the member from continuing.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another candidate, Jason Clare, was then selected and appointed through the national executive mechanism. This is exactly what happened and it is the unvarnished truth. I know just how deep the anger and hurt is for anyone who has supported me for such a long period of time as the member for Blaxland. I have effectively looked after the people in the seat of Blaxland for 22½ years: the first half by managing the office of Paul Keating and the second half in my own right as the member for Blaxland. There is no greater honour I can imagine than being chosen by rank and file ballot to represent the ALP in the seat of Blaxland. I treasure the experience. I have had opportunities to speak strongly and forcefully not only for every ALP member in this seat but for all the people who live in Blaxland.

For me, the political tragedy is that I will no longer be able to do the job that I have done to the very best of my ability in the federal parliament on behalf of the people of the Blaxland electorate. This was a job I aspired to, was apprenticed at and one for which I spent most of my life preparing. I acquitted myself as well as I could and I am proud of the work that I have done. I am also proud of the loyalty and support given to me by so many ALP branch members, despite the disloyalty of some. There have been difficult and demanding circumstances over the last decade when branch members were faced with the destruction of their branches by massive ethnic branch stacking, large-scale rorting of branch attendance books and instances of intimidation, thuggery, standover tactics and hooliganism. Genuine branch members have been rightly outraged that this has gone on unhindered, are very dejected that I will no longer continue to represent them, but are very grateful that the agent of so much destruction will not profit from it in any way. Let the matter rest there.

I said at the outset that my wife is with me, and there is no-one that I have to thank more than Mrs Shirley Hatton for the way in which she has supported me throughout my political career. I was a nice little teacher when she first met me. I think it has been downhill ever since for someone who is also a teacher and a great teacher of mathematics and the social sciences. Shirley and I decided that if we were going to make a go of this then we would do it together, and she came to Canberra with me. She has worked with me for almost all of that time and, in doing so, she gave up a great deal. She gave up the collegiality of the teaching experience. She gave up the warmth and love of her students and the immense respect that they had for her. That is an immense amount to give up, because life here in Parliament House is often very lonely, particularly for people who are staff. She has brought great gifts to this place and, as every member of the spouses group knows, Shirley has been an active member of that across the parties ever since I first came into this parliament. She will be missed for far longer and more deeply than I will be missed from this place because she has been able to straddle the divide between government and opposition and to bring true help and friendship to everyone she has met. The respect in which she is held is very deep and very sincere. I want to thank all of those in the spouses group who have helped to make Shirley’s time here such a pleasurable one. We have got to know very many people from across both of the major parties and the National Party as well.

Secondly, I want to thank my family at large—my mother, my brothers, all my aunties and uncles, the members of my extended family—for not only the faith they put in me but also the work they put into my original by-election. I also thank them for the help they have given me over the years, not only in the branches but also at election time, and for consistently, throughout the entire time, pulling me up, telling me what is right and what is wrong, how to improve my game, and what was wrong with either what the government was doing or what the opposition was doing. No-one can survive in this game without the support of their family, and my family has been a group of utterly true believers, certainly in me, certainly in the cause that I have espoused. For them, this is a matter of some particular hurt that my run will end here.

As I have had loyalty directed towards me from my family and from my wife, my staff have also been utterly loyal. You cannot ask for anything more in this game. Its greatest failing of course is disloyalty, but its greatest joy is loyalty. Mrs Veronica Webb has been on my staff since I started, but I was smart enough to grab her when the seat of Bass Hill was lost after a 22.32 per cent swing against Labor in 1986. I managed to get her to work for Paul Keating, and Veronica has been in the office of the member for Blaxland for the last 20 years after running the seat of Bass Hill for Neville Wran, running his electorate office, for 13 years. Veronica—a fantastic electorate secretary and an immense asset both to Paul and to me, as she was to Neville—has had a triple blow this year. She lost her son from cancer; a few months after that she lost her husband, Ray; and now, with this particular instance, it is a triple blow for her and very difficult. I could have not done the job I did—working for Paul for 11¼ years or in my own right—without Veronica’s immense capacity, great openness towards people and tremendous depth and her capacity as an electorate secretary and as my great friend. Thank you to Veronica.

To Shirley who has also worked on my staff and put up with me over all these years: I thank her greatly. Justin Lee, who was with me for two interesting and tempestuous years, was a fantastic staffer; he is still a tremendous friend. He is doing very well in the New South Wales public service. Ray Webb, Veronica’s husband, also worked for me for a number of years and did a sterling job carrying out many of the great mundane matters that we have to deal with. Mike Bailey worked with me for almost a year. He is now working for Bankstown council. Councillor Ian Stromborg has been with me now for a year or so and done terrific work. John Alam has been with me on a part-time basis, and now full-time. On my relief staff, Ingrid Winter is currently working on that relief staff and, formerly, both Kath Wheatley and Kath Creighton gave tremendous service to me and also to the electors of Blaxland.

I had immense privilege serving on the committees of this parliament, initially the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which I added the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources and then, when it was broken up, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources. In this parliament, I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, where I am deputy chair of the Defence Subcommittee and I am also on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee. In this parliament, of course, I am the Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources and I am on the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library. Throughout a number of years now, I have been on the Presiding Officers Information Technology Advisory Group, of which I am deputy chair at the moment.

In all of those committees and all the work we have done, the strongest part of this parliament has been proven: in working with people across the parties one gets to know that, one, we are all human beings and, two, the essential benefit of the nation is at the core of just about everybody who comes into this place. In working together on common problems we are in a position to try to solve those problems and to put forward reports for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Also it is a test of just how deep this parliament’s resources are, not in cross-party debate but in that immensely useful work that happens in committees. None of it could happen without the committees’ resource staff, who do the lion’s share of the work, as is the case with the clerk and the clerk’s staff in the Department of the House of Representatives. We could not exist and do our work were it not for them and the way in which they facilitate the House and the Main Committee operating. Likewise the Parliamentary Library—if that were not there, we would be all very poorly off.

I want to go to the very broadest of the questions with these appropriation bills and some of the things that are missing. This is a salt and pepper budget. It is a sprinkle here and a sprinkle there—a something for everyone budget, as the member for Hume said. It is almost like Joh when he was feeding the chooks. Take a handful of wheat, throw it out and hope that a bit will sprout up here and there and not only the chooks might be fed but they might be happy and then do the right thing later.

This is a budget that does those sorts of things but it is also a budget that is expressive of the decade or more in terms of what happened before. To go to the core of what this government is about and why it is in trouble at the moment, you only have to go back to the National Commission of Audit, that yellow covered book that told the story of the decade afterwards. The fundamental line in it said that the Commonwealth government’s role was such that it should not deliver a single direct service to anyone in Australia. That was the fundamental philosophy of the National Commission of Audit. The government spent a hell of a lot of time trying to expressly put that into place. They have not been able to run away from it fully, but they have run as hard as they could over a long period of time.

You get the end product of that over a decade where people see what is really missing. The two fundamental areas were picked up in the deputy leader’s speech. One was the whole question of skills and skilling Australia. You cannot do it on an ad hoc basis. At the moment we have an adhocery where we are pulling in people under the 457 visa. We have hundreds of thousands of people who have been filling the gaps that are there in Australia. The initiative announced by the member for Griffith of the insertion of trade schools and trade training facilities into every school in Australia is directed towards the fact that we need to train young Australians, as I have said many times in the past. We need to put our minds to it. We need to realise that it is the most significant thing we can do, not only for all those young Australians who otherwise will not have a trade in the future but also to regenerate Australia’s trade and professional base. We mightily need to do that because the crisis is here—and it is grave—and it is still growing. But we need to tackle that with a greater intensity.

The second thing that the government has attempted to address is the area of broadband. Countries like Korea and the Netherlands are way in front of Australia in terms of putting in effective broadband big pipes to enable information to be pushed from one end of the country to the other. Labor’s proposal is for fibre to the node. The Netherlands has already got fibre to the node, and it is now going beyond that to the next major step of taking fibre to every household in the Netherlands. Every household will have the capacity not only to receive services and information and so on but also to be a potential small business. Australia has a long way to go to catch up, but I think the Labor plan will do that. What we have not seen from the government over 10 years is a concerted program to address the problems in relation to broadband. Everyone has seen lots of sporadic and ad hoc attempts to deal with this, but nothing has got to the core of what needs to be done to make us competitive and to keep us competitive.

George Hegel in his book entitled The Philosophy of Right, which was written in the 19th century, said: ‘So ist die Philosophie ihre Zeit in Gedanken erfasst,’ which means, ‘Philosophy is its own age apprehended in thought.’ For a government, its philosophy is expressed in its budget. This is a pepper and salt budget, spraying bits all over the place to try to get this government re-elected. It does not have the fundamental vision that we need for tackling the skills crisis or the crisis in broadband provision. The federal opposition does have that vision. I wish them well at the next election, and I wish the member for Griffith well in his—(Time expired)

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I comment on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills, I would like to commend the previous speaker, the member for Blaxland, on his contribution. He has been an outstanding representative of his electorate, and it is a tragedy that very strong, capable, grassroots members lose their preselection through underhanded tactics. I believe, like the member for Blaxland, that when we come into this place we do so to represent our constituency. We do not come in here to represent our factions. We should be focusing, as he has done very effectively, on our own constituency. Unfortunately, he has paid the price, because of those who have been scheming in the back rooms. We need to look very closely at that. It is a warning to those on his side—as, I am sure, it would be to anyone in politics—not to lose sight of what we are here for. I am pleased to say that I do not believe that the member for Blaxland has ever lost sight of the fact that he is here for his constituency.

I think the place is richer for your contribution, and it is a sad and sorry day to see you leaving in the way that you have to. I am pleased to see that your fine wife is here to witness your contribution—your last on the appropriation bills. I will certainly miss you, and I wish you well. I just hope to goodness that people will see the errors of their ways and, at the end of the day, get back to what we are here for—representing our constituencies, not so much the party and certainly not the factions. You have paid a big price for it, and you will be missed in this place.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Getting back to the budget, I say again that it is one that we can be very proud of. In the final comments by the member for Blaxland, he said that we are spreading little bits all over the place so that everybody will receive a benefit. That is true: we are distributing it. The overwhelming majority of people across the broad spectrum will receive a benefit out of this budget. When I think back to pre 1996, I can recall that each time we had a budget we would sit in great apprehension, wondering who was going to get whacked this time. Whether it was going to be the smokes, or the drink or the fuel, we knew that one of  those excises was going to get hit. We also knew that wholesale sales tax was going to go up somewhere. Taxes were also likely to go up. They kept lifting the marginal rates of tax to try to cover some of the deficit.

How different it is now. For five consecutive years we have seen tax cuts coming back to the people. We are now in a situation where we have to be earning $70,000 to $80,000 before we are out of the 30 cents in the dollar—30 per cent—tax rate. It increases to $180,000 before we see the highest level, which of course is 45 cents. Some years ago, it was 47 or 48 cents in the dollar. So there have been significant changes and they are ones that we can be very proud of. This is all about economic management.

We have paid back that massive debt that we inherited when we came into this place in 1996. That is the reason we have been able to do some of the things we are doing now. It is not rocket science. Any suggestion that this is a budget where, because it is an election year, we are suddenly starting to give tax cuts to hand money back to our taxpayers is an absolute nonsense. As I said, we have been giving tax cuts for the last five years. I suppose the suggestion could have been made last year and the year before and the year before that. The same goes when we talk about giving additional money back to people like pensioners and carers. It is becoming an expected norm now that we do that. It is because we do not have that interest component of something like $8½ billion a year that we would have to draw out before we could look at returning one single dollar back to the benefit of the Australian taxpayer. When you look at it in that perspective, I think it has been an outstanding achievement.

There are some areas of the budget that I was particularly pleased to see and one of those is road funding. We have continued to maintain that with another $22½ billion going into AusLink. It is money that is certainly needed and it will go a long way towards rebuilding our national highways and national railways, which have been well and truly neglected for a lot of years. In my own area, work has already started on the flood proofing of the Bruce Highway. With the Tully sector, it has taken a lot of work to drag the state government in and to get them to focus on that area. It is an area that stops traffic completely almost every year—it is an annual event. It is not a matter of if it is going to happen; it is a matter of for how long it will impact on our region. At times we can have our main highway shut for six to eight days. That has a huge impact on our business community. We have set money aside for it. We are still, unfortunately, dependent on the state government and the Queensland main roads department to set priorities. The state government is setting priorities which I would love to see changed. We are also dependent very much on them building the roads, which they do quite slowly at times. If they are not able to deliver, it would be great if we could look at other ways of doing it. Possibly we could tender it out to other companies that could probably do it a lot more cost effectively and a lot quicker. But we have continued to put money in there; we have got money in the bank for those projects. There will be more needed but, with $22½ billion of AusLink money, I have got no doubt at all that further money will be quarantined as it is needed to ensure that that project is completed.

While I am on the subject of roads, a further $10 million has been allocated for the Peninsula Development Road to provide us with another section between Lily Creek and Crocodile Gap—another much needed measure. But we have to look further than just doing small sections like this. In recent years, the government also contributed a $5 million component into upgrading the road from Kennedy Creek to Laura River. This government contributed funds to support people in Cape York who were impacted by Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Monica. Money was also put into a scoping study for the entire Peninsula Development Road—which is some 450 kilometres long—to identify how long it would take and how much it would cost to weatherproof the road so that we do not have problems every year. That information has been slowly dribbling in from the state government. It should have been here in December. We are still waiting on a final word. We have some work in now, but it again highlights the concerns. You wonder whether or not they are being deliberately slow in providing this information. But, once that information is available, given the amount of investment we have in AusLink, I would certainly like to see an amount set aside for the full weatherproofing of the Peninsula Development Road.

I was also pleased to see the additional funding going into the black spots program, which has been an outstanding success in my electorate, along with the Roads to Recovery funding which will continue. On top of that, $250 million will be made available in this financial year for strategic regional programs. I think that is great to see. Some $83 million of that is being made available in Queensland. I guess that just highlights the need that we have in that area for these programs.

Moving away from roads, another measure which I was very pleased to see was the Higher Education Endowment Fund. This is something that is really visionary and is really looking towards building for the future. The plan is to invest some $5 billion into the fund with the intention to continue to grow it into the future and also have it available for private contributions for those who would like to do so. That will certainly ensure an ongoing stream of significant funding that will help to keep our universities right up there at the cutting edge.

Speaking of the cutting edge of universities, James Cook University, which has campuses in both Townsville and Cairns, has benefited immensely from this government over the years. Some years ago we allocated funding for a medical school which is now turning out its first doctors. What is particularly special about this is that the overwhelming majority of young people who are training as doctors are actually staying in our region; they are not moving into the metropolitan areas. Something like 70 per cent of those being trained at and graduating from our university in Townsville and Cairns are actually staying in the area. The other thing in which I take a tremendous amount of pride is that we are seeing our first Indigenous doctors graduating from these courses. On top of that we have a satellite program in the Torres Strait and students are also graduating in nursing, which I think is very special to see. Again, these people are staying in the communities and helping to build on that local base that is needed to provide the health services in our region.

After the medical school, we were then successful in funding a veterinary school in Cairns—again, funded by this government. I was particularly excited to see in this budget a $65 million commitment over a four-year period to establish the new regional dental school at Charles Sturt University. I think that this is money very well spent in regional New South Wales. The reason I am excited about this is that James Cook University in Cairns have only very recently submitted a proposal for a dental school in Cairns. They have put up an outstanding submission, one that I believe is very credible and certainly deserves serious consideration. I believe that it will get that consideration because what is unique about our region—this is something that I was made aware of—is that tropical dental health is very different to dental health in other areas, as is dental health in remote communities and in the Torres Strait. There is a whole different gamut of issues that need to be dealt with and there is a speciality there in itself.

Given that we have such a chronic shortage of dentists in Northern Australia, I think this will provide a great opportunity for us to be able, as we have with our doctors, to train local dentists, get them into our community and retain them in the community. I would hope that in the process, as we are working through this proposal to get this dental school established, we will get a commitment from Queensland Health that all of the training places that are necessary will be provided by Queensland Health in our northern hospitals to allow these students to be able to complete their courses.

The other thing when we are looking at the initiatives on dental health is that it is good to see that, for those chronic cases of need, you will be able to access dental care through Medicare. It is certainly a start. We have been criticised over the years for withdrawing from the program, but of course we never ever withdrew from dental health. There was an agreement for a short-term program to try to catch up and allow the state governments to catch up. That program was fully funded and at the end of that program the states were expected to continue, as they should, and provide that service. But we see that that has not occurred and we have some horrific waiting lists out there, particularly in Far North Queensland. To provide the $2,125 for an individual to be able to get that emergency care through a private dentist and through Medicare I think is very important. I am pleased to see that that has happened.

There is also $1 million being spent helping individuals particularly with their lifestyle issues in relation to diabetes. As you may be aware, diabetes is a major issue up in my electorate, again particularly in the communities. We have invested money there in the past in educating people in relation to lifestyle and identifying early indicators of diabetes. We have a wonderful doctor up there who travels around the Torres Strait. I could not begin to count the number of limbs of individuals that he has saved because he has been able to deal with their diabetes much earlier. We are seeing a lot fewer people in the area losing limbs to diabetes than we saw, say, 10 years ago. This $100 million initiative is going to go a long way towards continuing the good work that has been done by Dr Singer over these years.

Another program that is very important up in the Torres Strait is a $2.1 million program over three years for mosquito control. Japanese encephalitis is a problem that we have up there. It can be fatal. We also have issues with dengue fever, which is another mosquito-borne virus. So it is important that we have these initiatives to help minimise the risk. Generally, the budget has been welcomed in my electorate—very much so. The $500 for pensioners certainly helps them to meet annual costs in particular. They can now come up with the money without having to draw on their pensions. The carers allowance is also important. We have recognised the value of carers. It becomes, again, an annual event. I know for those carers it is not just a matter of the money but the recognition that they get for it. Looking at greenhouse issues, another great initiative is the doubling of the solar panels rebate to $8,000. It really makes solar energy a serious and an affordable option. If you have a rebate of $8,000 on a $14,000 investment, it is a serious option. With the rebate from your solar hot-water system et cetera, you can actually look at having solar as your main source of power and having your mains power as a backup. That has certainly been welcomed in my area, as has the continued commitment and additional money that is going into the NHT. In an area where we are sandwiched between two World Heritage areas, it has been of great benefit. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired)

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the cognate bills. These budget bills seek $59 billion for the ordinary annual operating services of government, $10.1 billion for tied grants and other funds to the states and $170.7 million for the three parliamentary departments. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2006-2007 also seek $554.9 million and $259.2 million respectively in additional appropriations. I support Labor’s amendment, which condemns the Howard government for failing to secure Australia’s long-term economic fundamentals, despite record high commodity prices and rising levels of taxation. Perhaps most disappointing is the way in which the Howard government has let this nation’s productivity levels flag so alarmingly. The 2007 federal budget papers indicate that Australia’s productivity growth will decline from the end of the next financial year. Australia’s productivity actually went backwards for the first six months following the commencement of Work Choices and is presently at just 1.5 per cent compared to a historical average of 2.3 per cent. Amazingly, we have a boom economy where productivity has stalled. What a mockery that makes of the assumptions underlying Work Choices. One of those assumptions was detailed in former Minister Andrews’s second reading speech on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, when he said: 

A central objective of this bill is to encourage the further spread of workplace agreements in order to lift productivity and hence the living standards of working Australians.

Work Choices has done nothing to lift productivity and, while that may be a surprise to the government, it is not a surprise to us. That is why our amendment condemns these extreme industrial relations laws, which lower wages and conditions for many workers and do nothing to enhance productivity, participation or economic growth.

A real approach to lifting economic growth and productivity would be to invest in infrastructure—not only hard infrastructure but also knowledge and social infrastructure. In terms of hard infrastructure, though, Newcastle provides a striking example just off its coastline in the form of a coal ship queue of some 60 ships. The coal chain from the Hunter Valley mines to the port of Newcastle is incredibly complex. Over 300 jobs were lost in the region recently when coal companies scaled back production in preparation for the reintroduction of the capacity-balancing system. The real problem in the Hunter is that demand exceeds infrastructure capacity, but the political problem has been the failure of this government to take sufficient responsibility for infrastructure audits, planning or funding. For the Hunter Valley coal chain there is no simple solution. Investment is needed at the mine heads, in the rail assets that move the coal to Newcastle, in the rail lines themselves, in coal loader terminals and deepening of the port. Every one of the managers and owners of the coal chain infrastructure, government and private, needs to continue to improve their contribution and commitment. It is not simple, but it is vital for our nation’s productivity that we get it right.

Similarly, with the fastest growing regional airport in the nation, Newcastle has a growing need for investment in road and rail infrastructure to link our region to the nation and to the world. Again, several players could do more, but without federal government leadership the outcomes will be less than desired. In the areas of social and knowledge infrastructure, Labor condemns the Howard government for failing to attend to the long-term relative decline in education and training investment, thereby undercutting further workplace productivity. Funding for education as a proportion of GDP is expected to decline to 1.6 per cent next year, down from two per cent in 1995-96. Our overall investment in education puts this country in 18th position on the OECD tables. This is simply not good enough from a government that has had 11 years of economic good times in which to invest in productivity gains through education.

After Labor launched our education revolution this year, the Howard government has finally decided to play catch-up in this budget, and we welcome that. But we are not the only ones who are suspicious of the Howard government’s sudden so-called commitment to education. Ross Gittins wrote last week:

... I’d have said the one thing Howard wasn’t on about was education. Not at any level—school, vocational education and training, or university.

Gittins goes on to remind us that under Whitlam in 1974 about 27 per cent of Commonwealth schools grants went to private schools and about 70 per cent to government schools. This was roughly in proportion to each sector’s share of students. Now, under the Howard government, public schools get 31 per cent of the money while private schools get 69 per cent. This is despite the fact that public schools still have two-thirds of students. I have no problem with Commonwealth funding to private schools and I am committed to Labor’s policies of maintaining that funding. But I do think we can do better in our commitment to government school funding, the choice for two-thirds of our students.

One of the big budget headlines was the government’s plan to put $5 billion into a Higher Education Endowment Fund, the interest on which will be used each year to fund university capital works. Again we welcome that commitment, but it will certainly not fully repair the damage to universities after 11 years of neglect. Distributed across Australia’s 38 universities, the fund might provide an average of $8 million a year per university. To put this into perspective, the University of Newcastle identifies that it needs to invest about $140 million in infrastructure over the next five years, and $40 million is perhaps all the endowment fund can provide. A key proposal is for a joint clinical research centre with the Hunter Medical Research Institute. This proposal is costed at $90 million, and we were disappointed to see nothing for it on budget night, especially given that half a billion dollars was shared around 14 other medical research institutes. However, I am pleased to note that the government went a small way to rectifying this with a $3.5 million grant under the Capital Development Pool program a few weeks later. But we are still $34.5 million short and we will be seeking those funds so that our researchers can keep punching above their weight, as they have been doing for some time. I also have concerns about the ability of smaller regional universities like ours to attract funding under the endowment fund. With universities required to provide matching funds to increase their chances of getting a grant, I am concerned that it will be those richer universities and those with already established alumni and philanthropic networks that will benefit the most. I hope that will not be the case and I will strongly support the right of regional campuses like the University of Newcastle to compete on an equal basis with the sandstone universities.

I spoke in the House the day after the budget and gave an indication of my disappointment with other aspects of the education budget and of the benefits of Labor’s education revolution. Since then, Labor has announced further planks in that revolution: firstly, the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Program to work with the states and territories to promote the study of languages such as Japanese, Indonesian, Mandarin and Korean in high schools; and, secondly, the 10-year $2.5 billion Trades Training Centres in Schools Plan, which will see new trades centres built in Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools—not a replacement for TAFE and not a competitor for TAFE, but preparing young people very early with the best facilities in their very own schools. These two programs are part of Labor’s comprehensive approach to fixing the Howard government’s skills crisis by training our people to compete not only in the towns and cities of our nation but also in our increasingly globalised world.

There is no more potent symbol of globalisation than the internet. It has become indispensable for students, for businesspeople and for families. Unfortunately, the Howard government’s failure to provide national leadership on a high-speed national broadband network symbolises just how out of touch it is with the way Australians work, play and communicate. Since 2000 in the Hunter, the number of businesses with their own website has almost doubled and the number which place and receive orders over the internet has more than doubled. Eighty-one per cent of households now have a computer and 63 per cent of them use it daily. Household internet access in the Hunter has almost doubled to 71 per cent since 2000. However, only 48 per cent are connected via broadband. Sadly, there are people in my electorate, in suburbs like Shortland and Thornton, who still cannot access ADSL broadband. The government is not interested in dealing with this issue, only in applying bandaids like its metropolitan broadband black spots program, which spent $1.3 million on administration and only $200,000 on providing broadband services. That is keeping us very busy in our electorate offices.

Labor believes that government should be in the business of nation building and that is why we are committed to establishing a national broadband network in partnership with the private sector that will be up to 40 per cent faster than most current speeds. Labor is committed to bringing high-speed broadband to every household in this nation. Australians need a national high-speed broadband network to boost productivity growth and build long-term economic prosperity once the mining boom has subsided. But the Howard government has squandered the mining boom, as evidenced in this nation’s persistently large current account deficit and booming foreign debt. At a time of record high commodity prices, the budget’s prediction that the current account deficit is set to blow out to a record $65 billion, or six per cent of GDP, is a sure sign of missed opportunities. We are living through the greatest resource boom in living memory, yet every year for the past five years we have been importing more than we export. We have had 60 monthly trade deficits in a row.

Part of the way in which we can foster export success is by expanding and encouraging research and development to move Australian industry up the value chain. Unfortunately, this government is spending less on public research as a proportion of GDP, down from 0.4 per cent of GDP in 1996 to 0.29 per cent now. Growth in business investment in research and development has also slowed under the Howard government, growing at less than half the rate it enjoyed under Labor. Our vision to correct this slide includes 10 Enterprise Connect innovation centres to connect businesspeople with ideas people. These centres will be supported by innovation councils for key sectors to develop long-term strategic approaches to improving productivity. Labor will restore the Chief Scientist to a full-time position and we will bring responsibility for innovation, industry, science and research within the one department.

The government’s package, while containing some worthy initiatives, does not actually offer a coherent vision. Its Australian industry productivity centres appear to be a copy of Labor’s Enterprise Connect centres, but with less money. Its extension of eligibility for the premium R&D tax concessions is welcome, but it does nothing about red tape or the issues around the tax offsets $1 million spending cap. Similarly, while there is $32 million over four years for small one-off commercialisation grants with a streamlined application process, applicants for the other $200 million a year in commercial-ready funding are stuck with the existing red-tape burden, a burden that actually turns many people away from applying. The Building Entrepreneurship in Small Business program has been extended, I see, but for only one year, until the end of 2008-09. So I am not convinced by the government’s global integration statement and I am not sure the innovative businesses and manufacturers in my region, that are looking for real support to compete globally, will be convinced either.

As in the area of innovation, we see in this budget no real reform of our health system to equip it for a future focused on prevention, early intervention, and an ageing population. Despite some welcome initiatives like the new funding for medical research, a new dental school and the Royal Flying Doctor Service grant, the government’s health budget is little more than a grab bag of assorted programs with no consistent message or policy direction. Australia’s healthcare system is being damaged by this government’s ongoing neglect. All the government has to offer the Australian people are short-term political fixes. But these are the same so-called fixes which have created spending blow-outs in key program areas while all the time failing to address any of the critical structural weaknesses around preventative health, medical workforce shortages and rising health costs. This budget falls well short of resolving our most pressing health problems.

The government’s proposed budget scheme for dental care is a good example. The decision of the government to rip out about $100 million from the public dental sector when it abandoned the Commonwealth dental program in 1996 now sees 650,000 Australians waiting for much needed dental care. Having spent the last 11 years steadfastly denying that it has any responsibility for dental care, the Howard government has now finally decided to put some money back into dental care. Unfortunately, its idea of a Commonwealth dental health program is extremely limited, reaching only those with a chronic disease, provided it can be demonstrated that their chronic disease will be made worse by their dental condition. Although the program will be welcomed by those who qualify, the point is that very few Australians, fewer than 6,500 people, will actually qualify. Moreover, this is the same program that the government said would cost $15 million but that has only been able to spend $1.6 million in the last three years. Why spend another $370 million on a program that, for the last three years, has failed to spend the money already allocated to it? Why not use this money to help people who have been on the dental waiting list for years?

Regrettably, the health budget was silent on many of the pressing needs for people in Newcastle and the Hunter region. There was no Medicare licence for the PET scanner at the Mater Hospital. This situation makes people turn to Sydney when they certainly need immediate local treatment. There was no good news for the refurbishment of our dementia resource centre either.

Another issue we feel very strongly about in Newcastle is climate change. As a coalmining and export centre, our region is at the pointy end of climate change. We know we are a part of the problem but, as a recent Hunter Valley Research Foundation survey found, our people also want to take steps to contribute to climate change solutions. Unfortunately, there are no large scale practical measures in this budget to help our nation or my region to effectively deal with climate change. In contrast, Labor has already announced that we will ratify the Kyoto protocol, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, give households low-interest loans to help install energy efficient measures and help the states fix leaky water mains and pipes.

Of great interest and benefit to my region is another visionary Labor program: the national carbon capture mapping and infrastructure plan. This is one of the first three projects to be funded through the $500 million national clean coal fund. Labor is committed through this fund to protecting jobs and industry in our region while also acting to combat climate change. It is a delicate balance but it is a vital one that the Howard government is failing to even attempt to achieve.

Speaking of failures, the government’s budget stands condemned for failing the test of transparency and accountability. The government squandered $66 billion of taxpayers’ money to get itself re-elected in 2004 and it has continued to spend the nation’s prosperity like there is no tomorrow. The budget papers show that the government received an extra $53 billion over four years over and above what was estimated six months ago and is spending almost all of it. Total government policy commitments in this budget amount to $72 billion over the next five years, $6 billion more than their 2004 election spending spree. I think those figures would horrify the Australian public.

Even more worrying, however, is the lack of transparency in budget documents, with loose outcomes and outputs, a deficient Charter of Budget Honesty and insufficient attention to intergenerational costing issues. Labor is committed to reform in this area, ensuring the full transparency and full reporting of financial transactions to the parliament so that all Australians can see where their money is going. I think the Australian people deserve nothing less, but I know every member of parliament here finds it very difficult on budget night to find the information easily, readily or reliably when they first look at those budget documents.

To conclude, there are some projects that the Newcastle community has been sweating on for some time. I was pleased to see $220,000 in the budget papers allocated for a study on the accommodation needs of our Family Court. This is a start, and the community will keep advocating for improved facilities for families who come from all around the region to use this vital service. But, of course, we have been asking for a Federal Court and that is what we would like to see.

The budget confirmed the extra $4 million for the refurbishment of Fort Scratchley, one of Newcastle’s iconic historical sites and one that has sadly been in a state of decay. The community, the Fort Scratchley Historical Society and our civic and political leaders have finally shamed the government into action on this, six years after it was promised. We are also still waiting for a commitment to upgrading Energy Australia Stadium, and I urge the government to match the commitments that have been made by federal and state Labor to this important project.

Although we in Newcastle are still waiting for important projects, the nation as a whole is still waiting for a budget with a vision for future prosperity beyond the mining boom: a budget that invests in our people through education and invests in our nation through infrastructure, a budget that does not shift blame and cost to states, a budget that acknowledges that Australia is part of a rapidly changing and developing global environment. This certainly does require a change in government to one that is proactive, takes responsibility and shows leadership in the economic fortunes of this country.

John Cobb (Parkes, National Party, Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills and to congratulate the Treasurer on the 2007 budget, his 11th budget. There is one thing that cannot be denied by anyone: you can only deliver a budget like the 2007 budget when you provide for the families of Australia by giving them certainty and allowing them to do the production and make the money that our country needs. Obviously a budget like that can be delivered only when the economy is in particularly good health. This is a budget that will not only maintain the nation’s economy in good health; it will also make a particular contribution to health outcomes for people right across Australia, including western New South Wales. I note in passing that measures to improve the health of the nation—in fact, health policy in general—were noticeably absent from the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply.

I have to say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, as somebody who is certainly welded to the heartland of country Australia in the central west and the far west of New South Wales, I am particularly pleased that $65.1 million is being put towards establishing the Charles Sturt University School of Dentistry and Oral Health in Orange and in Wagga Wagga, with dental education clinics at Albury, Bathurst and Dubbo. This new school will be a focal point for students wanting to train in and practise dentistry in country areas. For the first time, kids who are interested in rural dental health will be able to study dentistry out in the country regions. A dental school in Orange has been talked about in the region for probably the best part of five years, so how is it that we are able to get it now? I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: the member for Macquarie, Mr Kerry Bartlett, and I—two members of the government who were both looking at having Bathurst and Orange in their electorates at the next election—put our heads together when we were approached, and we said, ‘Yes, this is something that has to happen. This is something that is necessary for country New South Wales and dentistry.’ We went and spoke to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Minister for Education, Science and Training and other members of cabinet, and I am very proud of the fact that our efforts have borne fruit and a dental school is going to be a fact of life next year in the central west. I think I have to make the point that this sort of thing—proposals that are not just talked about but actually come to fruition—can only happen when members of the government are involved. I also note that backing up this initiative is $12.5 million of funding that will support up to 30 annual clinical places for dentistry students in established rural training settings.

I also welcome the commitment in this budget of an extra $156.6 million to help the Royal Flying Doctor Service to continue to deliver vital services for people in western New South Wales and in Australia generally. The flying doctor is very precious to country people, particularly isolated people. In my region, in places like Menindee, Wilcannia, White Cliffs and Tibooburra, where there are enormous distances to travel and where there might be only two stations in 100 kilometres, it is a lifeline. I am very proud to be part of a government that is continuing to fund outback health. As a representative of the people who actually live out there, I can assure members that there is nothing romantic about falling sick or suffering a major injury if you do not have a service such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which we are funding. This government’s solid and continuing support for the Royal Flying Doctor Service will be noted right around Australia. I can assure you that our own Flying Doctor Service, based at Broken Hill, which looks after western New South Wales, south-western Queensland and north-western South Australia, is noted and appreciated by everybody.

The people of western New South Wales also welcome the additional start-up grant for the new MRI facility that we established last year in Dubbo. It will now be funded by the government. So far this facility has not been a profitable one, but our government is making sure that it has plenty of time to establish itself in the region. We will be funding it for over two more years until it can establish itself in the region. This is part of a program that, since 1998, has expanded access to Medicare eligible MRIs from 18 units to 115 units. I think I should repeat that: during the term of this government—in fact, since 1998—we have gone from 18 MRI units around the country to 115 units.

While talking about health in regional Australia, I should mention other issues such as a new rural clinical school to be operated by the University of Melbourne. This will be a school with a difference. It is going to put graduates into regional practices spread around New South Wales to do their training. So they will learn and actually do their training while at practices in selected areas, where the practice can provide the sort of supervision and training necessary, so that those doctors will learn the rewards of practising out in the bush and will want to stay there after they have graduated. There is also $8.5 million to boost the visiting optometrist scheme in very remote communities, increasing both the number of optometrists providing services and the number of communities covered; almost $10 million to provide grants for another 400 new doctors to practise in rural and remote areas under the Rural Retention Program; an additional $4.3 million to expand to another 32 locations around Australia the rural women’s GP services—which gives women the opportunity, when they need it or desire it, to be attended to by a female GP; and, very importantly at this time, a $30 million commitment to provide mental health support and crisis counselling specifically targeted at drought hit areas around Australia. Unfortunately, we still have many areas, especially in my electorate, that come under that umbrella.

But health is not the only area that the budget has addressed. AusLink has been a big winner in this budget. AusLink is important to Australia generally, but is particularly important to export industries and to rural Australia. The AusLink program is Australia’s biggest ever infrastructure program. It deals with rail links and roads—not only main roads but also local roads, because our government recognises that everything we export starts its journey on a local road.

I congratulate the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Deputy Prime Minister, on the budget’s immediate injection of $250 million to the strategic section of the Roads to Recovery program. Roads to Recovery is probably one of the best road or transport programs that we have ever had, funding not via state governments which are going to hive off 15 or 20 per cent, as they always do, but going directly to the councils to spend as they wish on their local situations. I think that when Labor discovered that Roads to Recovery was so popular they said they were not going to scrap it—because they certainly were going to scrap it in previous elections. But suddenly they have realised that it is a bit hard to face up to one of the outback councils like Carrathool or Condobolin and say, ‘Yes, we know that has been wonderful money for you but we are going to take it away.’ Suddenly Labor have realised that this is one of the most popular programs for transport ever done and they have backed off.

I think the point about Roads to Recovery is that it provides funds directly to local government, going around the state government and the RTA which love to tell councils what they must do rather than accept what they want. The strategic program, which is part of Roads to Recovery, allows councils to get together and make a decision that they want to have a strategic road which might move tourism by putting in a bypass, and I am very happy to say that, as a result of that $250 million which is coming into this financial year, there are councils in my part of the country that can start work immediately on sorely needed programs. I guess the councils I first think of are Narromine, Parkes, Lachlan and Carrathool which have roads that have been totally neglected by the state Labor government in New South Wales. For example, there is the road from Lake Cargelligo to Hillston, which is a regional road and therefore a state responsibility, and the road from Narromine to Tullamore, which is also in a bad way. I am very happy to say that, out of a project cost of $10 million, under the strategic roads program, we are offering those four councils $6.6 million to put with their $3.4 to improve their roads. There is the upgrading of Main Road 354, replacing a timber bridge on the Bogan River between Tullamore and Narromine. This will not only provide a different route for tourism and for people going from the south-west to the north-east, it will also eventually mean that trucks will be able to travel without going through all the towns they have had to in the past and without loading up the major routes. The Cowra shire also will be able to get on with sealing part of the Billimari Road just north of the town to improve access for heavy vehicles to the Blaney and Parkes freight hubs, and the Cabonne shire can replace an old timber bridge on the Renshaw-McGirr Way between Parkes and Wellington to provide access from the Cabonne and Wellington shires to the Parkes road and rail hub.

There are three things I know about these projects. Firstly, the Labor Party will probably get around to saying something about pork-barrelling and that the money should not be spent. Secondly, and despite Labor’s taunts, it remains a fact that these works are sorely needed in this part of New South Wales, the central west and the further west, and will contribute very much to the efficiency and the safety of all residents and people using roads in the region. These projects will very much help the movement of export industries or simply of goods travelling to Dubbo or to Sydney. Labor’s roads or regional affairs shadows will never be game enough, as I said earlier, to front up to any of our towns and say, ‘You should not get this money,’ because it is sorely needed. People in these towns have stood in line for a long time and they were not getting any assistance from the state. I am happy to say that we were able to help them out.

I would like to close with a few observations about reactions to this budget. There was one comment from a young man of 45 in particular that caught my attention.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very young.

John Cobb (Parkes, National Party, Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, sorry, he was younger than that. He was only 25, because he had only been out of school for something like seven years. He was asked by one of the local media what he thought about the Treasurer’s 11th budget and he said, ‘Oh yeah, it’s okay I suppose.’ He was asked who he would vote for in the election and what he had done in the past. He said, ‘In the elections that I have been involved with I have always been a coalition voter.’ He was then asked, ‘What are you going to do this time?’ He replied, ‘Oh well, I don’t know. I’m getting a bit bored with them. I don’t know whether I mightn’t think about Labor.’ I thought: ‘That is very interesting. It is fascinating.’

This young man of 25 has been pretty fortunate, I must admit. Since he left school he has not really had much of a problem getting a job. In fact, certainly in recent years, he has never had to worry about getting a job. This young man may have borrowed money to buy a car and, perhaps, even at 25 he may have—and I hope he has—made an investment in a house. Whether he is paying interest on a car or a house or whatever it might be, interest rates have always been well down in single digit figures. In his education and health, life has been pretty good to him, really. In our part of the world the Commonwealth has done everything you could expect it to to try and prop up state responsibilities as well as to keep interest rates totally under control and to ensure that this young man could get a job—and he can get a good job and has never been better paid for it. Probably never has a man of 25 had more disposable income. I guess he is finding that a bit boring.

If he wants life to be a bit more exciting then I do not doubt it will get more exciting if there is a change of government, but I am not quite sure about the excitement that he will get out of it. We only have to look at history to know that what I say is 100 per cent true. The chances are that two or three years after a change in government it will get very exciting because he will then almost inevitably be looking at higher, double-digit interest rates to pay for that car and house—that will be a bit more exciting. If he then decides that he wants to get a second job, or even hang on to the one he has, to help pay for his car and house, it will be even more exciting because there is nothing surer than that it will be one heck of a lot harder to get a job—a primary job let alone a second job—with a change of government. When interest rates go up and businesses start going to the wall again, it is going to be exciting, but I think the stress and the strain that go with it might get rid of some of that excitement.

It is a fantastic budget, but you can only have budgets like that when the economy is under control, when inflation is under control, when people have jobs, when you have record low unemployment and when you have record wages and record amounts of disposable income. I think we have to take our hats off to the Treasurer and to a government that has produced a budget like this.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008. I do so having listened to the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, who is a good bloke, but I disagree with him on a number of matters. It was interesting that the assistant minister chose not to make any reference to either the environment or water resources, but I do accept that this bill provides the opportunity for members to speak on broad matters. Nonetheless, it was instructive to see the assistant minister not refer to his portfolio for 20 minutes.

We are of course in the middle of a very significant debate in this country. We are in the midst of a critical debate about where we want the country to go and what sort of society we would like to live in. I think the industrial relations debate, at least, is certainly a significant topic, a significant area of public policy that provides voters with a choice as to what sort of society they wish to live in, the way in which they would like to treat citizens and the way in which they would like to be treated in return. On any reckoning, the government has, by its introduction and enactment of Work Choices legislation at the beginning of this term, really explained to working Australians that it has very little regard for them at all. There is no doubt that the government has sought only this week to mitigate the adverse reaction to Work Choices by introducing amendments to the legislation, but Labor contends that that is not going to fundamentally alter the problems inherent in the Work Choices legislation.

The fact is that the Work Choices legislation was introduced after the election without any notice to the electorate before the election. In September 2004 the Prime Minister announced the industrial relations policies of the government, and there were no references to the major provisions of Work Choices legislation that was then introduced subsequent to the election. So the Prime Minister, having discovered that he was a beneficiary of an election result which provided him with a majority in both houses of parliament, chose then to introduce legislation in the area of industrial relations that did not resemble in any way the policies that were put to the electorate in September during the election campaign. The Australian public, as they will from time to time, chose to respond in kind by making it very clear to this government that these laws are unfair, extreme and, indeed, unacceptable to this country.

As I say, there has been a political stunt by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations this week to pretend that the fundamentals of the legislation introduced into the parliament in December 2005 have altered and that all of the nasty bits, all of the pointy parts of the legislation that would adversely affect working Australians, have disappeared. That is not the case. The efforts to amend the Work Choices legislation will not alter the fact that the prime reason for the introduction of such legislation was to ensure that the balance was shifted radically towards one group in society and against the other group, if you like—that is, shifted in favour entirely towards employers and against and away from employees. Any tinkering that may occur from this point on—and the tinkering that has occurred this week—will not, in any way, mitigate in any fundamental sense the adverse effects of the legislation.

I think the Australian public understand that. I think that they are aware that the Prime Minister, for more than 30 years, has had an obsession about critically weakening employee organisations that are registered pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act. These are unions that have been representing working people in this country for more than a century. I think it is common knowledge that the Prime Minister has had an obsession with and an enmity towards those organisations. It is almost an initiation test for anyone who wants to succeed in the Howard government to show how much they hate unions if they want to be promoted into the executive or into the cabinet—and this is not going to change. I think the Australian people understand his views, which have been well known for more than 30 years. It is a little late now to attempt to convince the voting public that the Prime Minister has had an epiphany and has woken up recently and thought: ‘Hold on a second, I think I have been a little unfair here. I reckon those unions deserve to be at least recognised as representatives of some working people—if employees choose to belong to them. I think it is only fair that employees have a right to bargain collectively in good faith with their employer.’

What is interesting about the whole notion of collective bargaining is that, if 50 per cent of the workforce in the United States wish to bargain collectively, they do so. The same is the case in Canada, in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom. The right to collectively bargain is enshrined in probably all of those countries that we see as being comparable to our own in economic development and cultural association. We are the odd one out in having legislation dictated that prevents employees bargaining collectively with their employer, even if a majority wish to do so. I accept—and Labor’s policy dictates—that if a majority of employees do not wish to bargain collectively, they will not have to do so. An employer would not have to bargain collectively if it were not determined by a majority of the workforce to do so. I think that is only fair. I think there has got to be a critical mass of employees that wishes to do so.

We have said that there should be a set of decent awards to underpin people’s employment conditions. We cannot always rely upon the market to hold up people’s wages sufficiently. There are occasions on which, and certain sectors in which, that will occur more often than not, and that is a good thing. But there are occasions also in economic downturns or in certain sectors where there has to be some floor. The floor of employment conditions is not only so that employees will be treated decently but also so that employers will know what the minimum is.

Having listened to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations talk about his fake fairness test, I think it would strike fear into the hearts of many small businesses. The amount of regulation that has now been placed on top of already existing industrial relations legislation and small business regulation is going to frighten small businesses. This notion that you can set up an army of industrial policemen across the country to scrutinise every individual statutory contract in this manner is unheard of. It never occurred before Work Choices. For 10 years AWAs were permissible under the Workplace Relations Act 1996—with a ‘no disadvantage’ test I might add—but that was stripped away by the Howard government as soon as they had a majority in the Senate. But there was not the massive bureaucratic overlay that is now being introduced by the government. Small businesses should be concerned because it is overregulation. It will make it more difficult for many businesses—particularly those of a small and medium size—to enter into agreements in that area. Labor is opposed to Australian workplace agreements. We do not support them.

That is not to say that there are not some AWAs out of which people are doing okay or doing well. There are some industries where the demand for employment is so great that employees could spit on their hands and shake the hand of their employer and that would be a strong enough contract. They will not need written contracts because the demand for them is so great. No-one can undermine an employee’s employment conditions if the demand for their labour is so great. In the mining industry you will see that demand for fly-in fly-out engineers, but that is not as a result of AWAs. That is as a result of a particular set of high skills that are scarce and of people finding themselves, for example, in remote areas of the country and undertaking work with that set of skills.

I understand that there are certain AWAs that pay above the market rate—of course there will be some. Certainly managers who are on AWAs are treated reasonably well more often than not. But the thing that the government seems not to have understood, at least until the polling got really bad—whether it should be believed or not is another question—is that AWAs have been used to subvert minimum conditions in the last 18 months. Statutory individual contracts are being used to hurt the lowest paid in our community: cleaners, labourers in certain industries and many childcare workers. We are finding that low-paid workers are going below what was a minimum industry standard and those instruments are being used to strip away penalty rates for people doing shift work, weekend work and excessive overtime.

We have heard a lot from the government about this notion of the common law contract and of a company that provided 45c compensation per hour, but you really have to look at the nature of a business, whatever it is, and if the business employs people on night shifts or across the weekends or excessively works people beyond their ordinary hours then those people should be compensated so they are not worse off. Clearly, if there was any removal of conditions of employment, there would be less compensation required if those particular conditions were not being used because of the nature of their work.

But what has been happening with AWAs since Work Choices was introduced is that low-paid workers have been stripped of penalty rates, overtime conditions, public holidays and other conditions, making fundamentally worse not only their pay but their conditions of employment, their quality of life and their control at their workplace. These things happened. They happened under the watch of the Howard government and they happened because of the deliberate enactment of legislation that was designed to do exactly that, to cut those conditions. For the last 18 months the Prime Minister has been defending the consequences of that particular piece of legislation. He got up in question time and said that nothing was going on, that nothing adverse was happening to people or that it was something that had to happen. It was a case of, ‘If you want to have a strong economy, you have to have some losers as well as some winners and, so long as there are more winners than losers, who cares?’ That was the sort of attitude that was being displayed by the Prime Minister.

Of course, that is not the case. You do not have to choose between fairness and flexibility. You do not have to choose between having a productive economy and fair employment conditions for Australian workers. You can have both. The government believed that you could not and now they have found themselves in the position this week where they have chosen to introduce a piece of legislation to mitigate the effects of Work Choices. We will support that legislation because, in certain circumstances, it will help some people. I believe that. I think this change has occurred because of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon the government by the opposition and certainly by the public’s concerns for working Australian families. But we should support the legislation because any improvement, however negligible, should be supported. It would be playing politics if we were to oppose it.

The fact is, though, it is not a sufficient remedy to fix the problem. To do that you have to repeal the legislation for Work Choices as a whole. It is not enough to repeal the name. It is not enough to banish the title from the lexicon of the government. You have to repeal the legislation fundamentally. What has happened here is that we have again had the typical Orwellian approach by the Prime Minister, who tends to say one thing and do another, who tends to call things one thing and mean another. We have had the Prime Minister and the government choose to say, ‘Well, let’s make sure we banish the words “Work Choices” from all of the advertising’—and this is after spending $55 million of taxpayers’ money on government propaganda to promote the legislation. That is what we have witnessed over the last 15 months—$55 million of taxpayers’ money telling us how great Work Choices is. And now the government are going to spend millions more saying this time they really mean it. But it was instructive that, in continuing to spend the money, the government had to intrude and effectively say to its call centres assisting people with their industrial relations inquiries that they were not to use the words ‘Work Choices’, although the Prime Minister used to cry ‘Work Choices’ from the rooftops. Call centre employees are now forced not only not to say ‘Work Choices’ but also to deny that they ‘do not know’, when they are asked a question, even if they ‘do not know’ about the legislation. Incrementally, these sorts of things begin to weigh heavily upon the public. I think the public are amazingly tolerant and quite patient, but they will not accept a government that treats them so shabbily and with contempt. I think the government have shown their capacity in that regard, and particularly in the area of industrial relations because of their ideological blind spot.

If you had listened to the government and even if you had read some of the media reports, you would have thought that AWAs covered 95 per cent of employment contracts in Australia, not five per cent. Seriously, if you had listened to or read some of the media commentators’ comments on Labor’s IR policy, and certainly if you had listened to the rhetoric of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Prime Minister, you would have thought that 95 per cent of employment arrangements were made under the instrument of an AWA. But five per cent is the total; 95 per cent is the remainder. Ninety-five per cent, which I would say is an overwhelming majority, are under either collective agreements, union agreements or non-union agreements, which is Labor’s policy, or common law contracts, either intersecting with an award or being above an award. Those are the bulk of the conditions of employment; they are wrapped up in those conditions, not in AWAs. I think the failure of this government is to not understand that in the end the Australian people expect fairness in their workplace. They expect the government to of course run an economy and make sure it is productive, but also to make sure that we all share in that and that our citizens are not treated badly, either in the workplace or beyond the workplace. I think the government has failed at that. I will talk more specifically tomorrow on the bill that has been introduced in the House, but in the end this particular fake fairness test will not convince any member of the Australian public.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on these appropriation and budget bills, I would like to address some issues of national economic policy, some of the measures within the recently brought down budget and some of the programs that are now possible and are operating at a national level. Of course, I also want to draw on how those programs are operating in and benefiting my local electorate of Casey, in outer suburban Melbourne—covering the outer suburbs from Croydon through the Yarra Valley and into the Dandenong Ranges.

The budget provides a window into the government’s level of financial responsibility, its economic management and the opportunities that that provides. It is useful in a budget debate such as this to look at where the nation’s finances have come from and where they are today and also to look at the opportunities that are provided today and where the opportunities will be in the future. I think it is instructive to look back on where the federal budget has come from because it is of enormous relevance. At the end of the day, a budget provides opportunities on the ground in each and every one of our electorates. It is not a remote thing spoken about here in Canberra; it affects people’s lives, families, small businesses and the job opportunities on the ground in the electorates we represent. When you look back on the budgets of 11, 12 and 13 years ago, it is a vastly different financial story. The budgets that are handed down today, and this budget was no exception, have surpluses. Net government debt has been paid off.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Hall interjecting

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland is difficult to identify in a line-up but, if she will interject, let me remind her of the havoc her party caused. In 1996, this country had net government debt of $96 billion.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the member.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Casey wish to take an intervention?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My question is: would you like to explain to the Australian people how they benefited when the Prime Minister was Treasurer and interest rates were 22 per cent—and, at the same time, acknowledge how the Labor Party brought those interest rates down?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will happily explain to the member for Shortland how interest rates rose to 17 per cent for mortgage holders under the Labor government and how—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Hall interjecting

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

You have had your intervention, Member for Shortland.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure what is wrong with the member for Shortland. She obviously has something quite wrong with her tonight. But let me just—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member withdraw that. I can assure him that I am in perfect health. I really find the aspersions he is casting upon me to be very insulting.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was merely pointing out—

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

Is the member for Shortland calling for an apology because she is offended by those remarks?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am calling for a withdrawal.

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

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister consider withdrawing that statement?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to withdraw, but I make the point that, in a debate on the budget bills in the Main Committee, it is quite extraordinary to find, in the first minute or two, the member for Shortland incessantly interjecting and disrupting a speech I am trying to give on behalf of my electorate. In this debate, we are all trying to make a speech on behalf of our electorates. I find it quite extraordinary behaviour from the member for Shortland. But, clearly, she is quite sensitive about the previous Labor government’s economic record. I have no hesitation in outlining that economic record to this chamber. And as I was saying before I was hysterically interrupted, the previous government left Australia with a $96 billion—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask him to withdraw ‘hysterically interrupted’ because he was not hysterically interrupted. I ask for a withdrawal.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard your point of order. If the member for Shortland finds that statement also offensive, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to withdraw.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I happily withdraw it, and I again make the point that it is passing strange that she who interjects regularly to disrupt a speech is so sensitive and requires a withdrawl. But as I was saying, I have no hesitation in reminding all members of this House of the economic circumstances Australia faced in 1996. Government debt had grown from $30 billion to $96 billion. This had real consequences. It arose because of successive Labor budget deficits. In the last five years of Labor government, net government debt rose from $30 billion to $96 billion and the real consequence of this was that the interest bill on that debt was $8½ billion each and every year. That was $8½ billion each and every budget that could not be spent on the priorities that members opposite particularly say they care so much about—priorities like health and education. As this government went about paying off that debt, taking the budget measures necessary to pay off net government debt through budget surpluses, we were opposed every single step of the way. That is an important point. The past conduct by Labor administrations is a window into what their future conduct would be if ever they had the chance to run the nation’s economy. Back in those days taxes were higher; now we have had successive tax cuts that back in 1996 would not have been imaginable. This budget again cuts tax, it again increases higher education spending, it again increases healthcare funding, it increases childcare funding, family assistance, environment funding, road funding—the list goes on. When we each look at our local electorates and the citizens we represent, we can see the real benefits of that on the ground in our local communities.

I had the pleasure of being able to announce $400,000 of AusLink funding for a major road upgrade in Seville in the Yarra Valley. This is a road upgrade that the local community have been wanting for 20 years. It is part of the $250 million contributed to the AusLink strategic regional program. In Seville that is something that has been on the plans for a long period of time but is only possible as a result of strong economic management and a budget that provides the funds for these resources. In a similar way, Casey recently received $525,000 to fix four critical accident black spots, the biggest of which is at Walmsley Friendship Village, where $266,000 will be spent creating a traffic diversion and a roundabout on an intersection of Colchester Road and Greeves Drive in Kilsyth. This comes on top of the $739,000 for seven other projects which have been completed.

There is another area where the budget is providing funds and programs that simply did not exist under the Labor government. I refer specifically to the Community Crime Prevention Program, which all members of this House would be quite familiar with. The federal government announced this policy in the last election to fund local community groups to combat and deter crime through important locally based community programs. I know members opposite have had these grants in their electorates, and they were welcomed. But they were not possible and they did not operate in the past simply because they could never get the budget right.

If we had Labor’s economic management of a decade ago, you would not see the $150,000 that has been provided to Lilydale to introduce security cameras, which has seen a 70 per cent reduction in crime in the Lilydale township, or the recently announced $150,000 for the Croydon main street traders, which will see cameras installed on a similar basis to deal with some significant local crime problems in Croydon. While I mention that, I pay tribute to the Croydon Main Street Traders Association President, Monika Myers, and Senior Constable Julie Simpson of Croydon police, who worked so hard to put that program together. Additionally, a little over $80,000 has been provided to Mount Evelyn to do a similar thing.

In 1996 the unemployment rate in Casey was a little over 6.5 per cent. Today it is 3.5 per cent. We know that at a national level there are two million more jobs than previously existed. The unemployment rate is in the fours—something that, again, would have unthinkable at the height of the Keating Labor recession of the early 1990s, when unemployment hit 11 per cent. On top of that, the strong economic management has seen unemployment come down and job opportunities increase. Work for the Dole programs are working very successfully in the Casey electorate. I particularly make mention of the Chapel Cafe in Lilydale and the Grace Community Nursery, also in Lilydale.

One of the most successful education programs that has been introduced at a local level in all of our electorates has of course been the Investing in Our Schools Program. This, like the Community Crime Prevention Program, was pledged at the last election and has been introduced. We have had three rounds of funding already that have enabled school communities to determine individual projects themselves, to determine priorities for their local schools and to put in applications and receive funding for them. All in all, as a result of strong economic management in Casey, 101 projects have been funded in 49 schools, to a total of $5.7 million.

I will just briefly, in the time available, mention two of those schools. The first is Rolling Hills Primary School. I had the pleasure of meeting the leadership group and the principal, Terry Spottiswood, out at Rolling Hills Primary School recently. They have received some important funding and they have used it for a weather channel and some environmental programs, which are working very well in the school. The second school is Birmingham Primary School, in a different part of my electorate, in Lilydale. They were successful in receiving $96,000 for the construction of shade structures and playgrounds. I was also recently at that school.

Croydon Secondary College received $150,000 for a band room, which shows the diversity of these projects. Croydon Secondary College has a specialised music department and a well-renowned band that plays on Anzac Day and performs in the Anzac Day march. The funding for this band room was the fulfilment of a 10-year ambition of the school. It was instrumentally coordinated by Mrs Vivienne Doolan, who manages the various bands and the marching band at the school. They, as I said, were able to fulfil this ambition through the Investing in Our Schools Program. For me, to go and perform the official opening and see that dream that they have and those new facilities that will stand the school in good stead was indeed a great pleasure. As I mentioned just a minute or two ago, the band members from Croydon Secondary College marched in the Anzac Day parade of 2007. It is the 17th year that the band from Croydon Secondary College has marched on Anzac Day.

In concluding, I want to mention each of the band members, whom I had the pleasure of meeting just recently at the school. They are: Tiffany Pickthall, Catherine Lushey, Jessica Morrison, Danielle Cornwell, Sarah Sly, Naomi Rushford, Ben Gray, Christine Morrison, Bianca Meacham, Hayden Wintle, Michael Horner, Matt Seabrook, Duane Dinham, James Venville, Brent Dinham, Carly Bronson, Ellen Anderson, Alison McCallum, Rachael Berka, Alex Birch, Philip Why, Bevan Emmett, Jessica Gravenor, Benjamin Horner, Maddi Dundon, Harley Bradbury, Joanne Houldey, Keith Houldey, Grant Rushford, Tim Bradbury, Keiran Lightfoot, Mallory Wintle, Shannen May, Chris Lightfoot, Dylan Breed, Glen Pickthall, Jaron Why, Jack Shields, Tyler Hayward, Aisha Francis, Logan Lillis and Paul Healey. I congratulate each of them for the wonderful contribution they made on Anzac Day. I know the local RSL was particularly proud that the secondary college just up the road performed such a critical role on Anzac Day.

The Howard government’s financial responsibility and economic management have allowed these programs to be funded, and they are providing real and genuine opportunities in our local community—opportunities which exist as a result of the measures that have been put in place over the last 10 years and which will be available in the future only with continued financial responsibility and economic management.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I rise with pleasure in this chamber to talk about the appropriation bills before us—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2006-2007. In talking about the budget that has been brought down by this government and on the comments recently made by the Prime Minister when he said, ‘Australian families have never been better off’, I want to reflect on the response of people in my electorate to the budget. One would expect that, given the amount of funding that is in the budget and the tax cuts, it would have been universally approved. Whilst polling by the media indicates that there has been some approval by the public, I have found in my electorate that the tax cuts do not really offset the interest rate increases that my electorate has been subjected to since the 2004 election. There have been four successive interest rate rises since 2004 and eight successive increases in official interest rates since May 2002. Why does that interest me?

According to the 2001 census, Holt has the highest rate of mortgages of any electorate in this country. They are good people in my electorate. A lot of young families have shifted to my electorate with the hope of building their families and building their lives. What they are seeing currently, and what they have been subjected to for some period of time, is an increased cost of living and the burdens that it is putting on them. These are quite substantial and should not be underestimated. When I talk with them about how they respond to the increased cost of living—which is something that is repeatedly raised with me—they reflect on things like health costs. New data released by the Department of Health and Ageing shows that health costs have continued to rise dramatically under this government. The average out-of-pocket amount of a visit to a GP has increased 12 per cent since the December quarter last year, from $16.98 to $18.99. The cost of visiting a doctor has more than doubled during the life of this government. That may not sound like very much to some people, but it is for families with young children that need to go to the doctor on a frequent basis. The average cost of a visit to a specialist has increased 20 per cent, from $33.56 to $40.10; and the average cost of obstetrics services has increased a massive 27.5 per cent, from $62.34 to $79.51. That again has particular relevance to my electorate, because in the city of Casey there are over 3,000 births each year. It is sometimes referred to as Nappy Valley, but it is the proud location of a large number of young families.

In reflecting on the implications of the increase in the cost of living, I refer to local community based organisations as third-party references. One is the Casey North Community Information and Support Service, which is very ably directed by Susan Magee. She refers to the impact of the increased costs of living, particularly health costs, and says that often clients do not access medical assistance as they are not able to pay the associated costs. Emergency relief that is distributed to assist with the costs of chemist products and scripts, for example, has increased from $2,346 in the 2004-05 financial year to $3,413 in the 2005-06 financial year, which is an increase of 45 per cent. That is a substantial increase. For this financial year to date the figures are approximately the same as for the whole of the 2005-06 financial year, so the level of assistance will increase again this year, obviously. The Cranbourne Information and Support Service, which is directed by Leanne Petrides, reports that they budget $250 per month for chemist accounts. In April this year they spent $401. This was primarily for prescriptions, but, worryingly, also included occasional assistance with baby formula.

According to ABS data, education costs rose by 4.2 per cent throughout the year to the March quarter. Let us look at the impact this has had on organisations like the Casey North Community Information and Support Service and the Cranbourne Information and Support Service. Susan Magee states that 52 families were assisted with school costs as a consequence of the increase in the costs of education in the 2005-06 year. In the financial year to date, 56 families have already been assisted with costs associated with education. Compare this to 2003-04, when 22 families were assisted. The Cranbourne organisation, in addition, spent $11,000 for its back to school program. It provided just over 100 local families with money to go towards the cost of textbooks, school uniforms, stationery and shoes. It is only the second year that this organisation has run the program, and it has had to spend $2,000 more this year. Unfortunately, it has had to turn 20 families away due to lack of funding. So there is something very serious happening as a consequence of the increase in the cost of living.

According to ABS data, over the last 12 months to the March quarter 2007 the cost of food rose by 4.6 per cent and the price of fruit rose by 14.9 per cent. According to Casey North director Susan Magee, more than $81,000 has been distributed this financial year through food vouchers and food parcels. In the month of April alone 186 people were assisted with food vouchers. According to Leanne Petrides in Cranbourne, in March 2007 they provided a total of 327 adults and 336 children with emergency relief—support with food, petrol, Met tickets and pharmaceuticals. Just over 19 per cent were first time clients, a 19 per cent increase in the number of people given emergency relief during the same month last year. There is something substantially bad happening in this electorate as a consequence of the increased cost of living.

Petrol is particularly pertinent to an outer suburban electorate like mine. The average price for unleaded petrol in Narre Warren this morning was apparently 129.9c per litre. The average price for unleaded petrol in Endeavour Hills this morning was 129.6c per litre. The average price for unleaded petrol in Cranbourne this morning was 130.3c per litre. According to the Australian Automobile Association, the average price of unleaded petrol in metropolitan Melbourne in January this year was 113.1c per litre. Local families have faced price increases of the order of 19 per cent since the start of the year. This has had a substantial impact in electorates like mine which are very car dependent.

Again the consequences of this price rise can be seen through the Casey North Community Information and Support Service. In April 2007, 275 people were assisted with the cost of travel, through petrol vouchers or assistance with the cost of public transport. In Cranbourne, the vast majority of Leanne Petrides’ clients are receiving Safeway vouchers which can be used for food and petrol. Thirty dollars is the maximum amount that she can give out in order to work within the budget. Anecdotally, Leanne understands that many of the clients are using some, if not all, of their voucher allocation on petrol and often have to toss up purchasing food, purchasing petrol, paying bills or buying clothes. There is something bad happening out there.

Look at rent, for example, and the substantial increases in the price of rent. Susan Magee from Casey North says that there is a dearth of rental stock in the region. Real estate agents have confirmed that rents are increasing as local landlords take the opportunity to benefit from the lack of rental accommodation in the area. Auctioning of rental properties has happened. This has not happened before in this area. She believes that landlords are now accepting offers of rent greater than what is being asked for. Leanne Petrides from Cranbourne sees many people who are struggling with rental costs. The rents have risen slowly but surely and there are many more people applying for each property. One client told her that there were about 60 people viewing every average property in Cranbourne recently—so many that they had to be taken through in stages. Another client recently moved into the area from interstate. Her family told her that she could not really afford it. They offered $20 above the advertised price for a rental property and became the successful applicants. Many more said they could not compete in a market where they had to vie with so many other people and where they cannot afford the advertised rent, let alone offer more. More people are now paying more than 45 per cent of their income in housing costs, either through rental costs or mortgage payments.

There are some further financial pressures that have been experienced. Susan Magee has seen family breakdown occur due to a range of issues. However, financial pressure appears to be a huge contributor at present. This is often followed by severe financial hardship as income is split across two households. This often results in health issues and, in particular, mental health issues due to stress. In Cranbourne, Leanne Petrides thinks that it is important to emphasise the fact that the vast majority of clients who come to her are ordinary everyday people who only come to her agency when in crisis. These are families who struggle with rent or mortgage payments, school costs, utility costs, food and petrol. The costs of these items rise insidiously and regularly, and people in our communities ‘are expected to just bear the brunt of this price shock’—her words.

On top of the financial pressure on families in my electorate is the issue of broadband. It is a real and substantial issue. It is an issue that is literally costing business opportunities in my electorate. What we hear and see is that there is basically no plan, no leadership and clearly no vision for this essential area—an area which will power the next wave of economic reform. In recent years, the Howard government have had a National Broadband Strategy, an Australian government action plan, a National Broadband Strategy Implementation Group, a Higher Bandwidth Incentive Scheme, a Coordinated Communications Infrastructure Fund, a Demand Aggregation Brokers Program, a metropolitan broadband black spots program, an Australian Research and Education Network, a Broadband for Health initiative, a broadband pharmacy program, a telecommunications action plan, Broadband Connect and the Broadband Guarantee. However, notwithstanding the myriad of programs that I have just detailed to this chamber, there are still significant numbers of families in my electorate that cannot access broadband. That is significant.

What Labor discovered through the Senate estimates process was that the metropolitan broadband black spots program has been an abject failure. For example, more than two years after this $50 million program was announced by the Prime Minister during the 2004 election campaign, government bungling has resulted in $1.3 million being spent on administration costs while only $200,000 has been spent on providing broadband services. It is interesting to see what The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, has said with respect to this. On Tuesday, 8 August 2006, Senator Coonan stated, ‘No-one is complaining about broadband speeds in metropolitan areas.’ She must not have come down to my electorate, I can assure you.

Just to assure Senator Coonan that a lot of people are complaining about the broadband speeds in metropolitan areas, I would like to detail—at their request—some difficulties that some of my constituents are having with broadband access. I will give you their names and their details. Elvis Bernard is a father of three in Narre Warren South. He applied for ADSL 16 months ago. In that time, he has made applications with all the major internet service providers. Sixteen months later, he is still not connected to ADSL. He was advised that he is too far from the exchange—around 4.3 kilometres and he had to be within four kilometres. He is 300 metres too far away to access ADSL. His three kids are of primary school age and they need access to this service for their school assignments. Instead, they have to contend with slow dial-up speeds on the internet. Elvis is a licensed custom broker and he could bring a laptop home and work on weekends and after hours by logging on to the company server remotely. However, this is not an option for him. It just cannot happen, because it is too slow to work effectively. Telstra have given him the option of a wireless service but this is not appropriate as he could end up paying hundreds of dollars a month, which he cannot and should not need to afford. He should be connected to ADSL.

Another constituent of mine is Elwyn Hutchings, a husband and father living in Narre Warren South. He applied in February 2007 for ADSL when he moved into his house. This may not seem like a significant delay but the house he moved into was five years old. So for five years that house has not been able to access ADSL. Telstra advised that he quite simply could not be connected. His 14-year-old daughter needs broadband to research her school assignments. Elwyn owns a small commercial cleaning business and dial-up is too slow and too frequently loses connection for him to do quotes, look for machinery and find government contractors and tenders on the internet. He advises me that all 13 houses in his street cannot access ADSL.

Brett Fox, lives in Hampton Park and has been endeavouring for the past 20 months to get ADSL connected to his home.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell Telstra to get on with it.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to ignore the rather condescending remark from the Minister for Ageing with respect to the problems of the constituents in my electorate. I hope it is recorded in the Hansard because it reflects his attitude and the government’s attitude to the problems of constituents in my electorate. I hope the Hansard records your very warm support for the difficulties that my constituents experience.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Holt, you will address your remarks through the chair, and there will be no further interjections.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will talk about Mr Brett Fox who lives in Hampton Park. He has been endeavouring for the past 20 months to get ADSL connected to his home. He works full time from home as a project manager for an electricity distribution company. He is responsible for people in the local area getting new or increased power supply. He remotely connects to various company servers to do his job. Faster internet connection through ADSL is critical to his work productivity.

There are a substantial number of other examples with which I could enlighten the Minister for Ageing and, if I have time, one of them that I will come back to is the issue of the high-tech company that may have to relocate out of Hallam as a consequence of the lack of broadband speed. But there may be one issue on which the Minister for Ageing, the member for Sturt, might agree with me, and that is the issue of internet filtering. Families across Australia are concerned about children seeing pornography and violence on the internet. They want governments to do more to protect children from this material. I presume I have the support of the member for Sturt on this particular issue.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could not agree with you more.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A news poll commissioned by the Australia Institute in 2003 surveyed parents with children aged 12 to 17. It found that 85 per cent were concerned about their children seeing pornography on the internet, 75 per cent said the federal government should be doing more and 93 per cent expressed support for mandatory filtering of internet pornography. Labor Party policy for mandatory filtering at ISP level is the strongest action we could and should take in this country to protect our kids. Even those who believe that adults have the right to view legal content in their homes would not accept taxpayer funded facilities such as public libraries being used for that purpose, especially when in a public facility children could be easily exposed to this material. In a particular library in my electorate, children are being exposed to this material because of the lack of a cohesive policy in this area.

Last year 62 members of the federal coalition signed a letter to the Prime Minister—and the member for Sturt may have been one of those who signed this petition—calling for a ban on the access to pornographic, violent and other inappropriate material via the internet. Senator Helen Coonan, dismissed these views as being ‘not well informed’. I hope, Minister Pyne that you were one of those people who signed the petition. The signatories believe the internet should be regulated in a similar way to other media. If adults wished to ‘opt in’ to access the material then of course that would be their right, but they would have to apply for their right of access.

We started a petition that requested that federal government funding to state and local government be tied to mandatory internet pornography filters being installed in public libraries and that federal government funding of childcare centres be tied to mandatory internet pornography filters being installed. We had nearly 5,000 people sign this particular petition. The government’s response after pressure from Labor and the coalition backbench was the national filter scheme. The scheme offered free filters to families and public libraries. It was announced in June 2006 but has not been implemented and nor, 10 months later, has an implementation date been set. The filter scheme will be backed by, we think, a very large public awareness campaign to educate parents about online dangers. The government has said information will be provided in online and printed advisements as well as through a telephone help line.

We believe genuinely—and I think we have cross-party support for this—that there are several flaws in the existing policy. I will tell you one reason in particular. The Australian Library and Information Association has been openly hostile to mandatory filtering. Therefore, the majority of libraries are unable to take up the offer of a free filter. Only one-third of households have internet filters on their family computers, which suggests that a reliance on end user filtering will be unlikely to protect children from harmful internet content.

Our policy of clean feed at ISP level is far more effective and deals with the problem directly. Even the member for Sturt would acknowledge that this is the Holy Grail of policy with respect to internet filtering. We need to filter it at the source. People in public libraries are basically coming to me and saying, ‘Well, it’s our choice.’ It should not be their choice. It is our choice, as the people who set standards in the community, to dictate what they should show in libraries. I think we should be nationally consistent with this. Therefore, in the time remaining, I urge Senator Coonan in particular to revisit her opposition to a proper policy on internet filtering and give children and families in my electorate the internet protection that they need.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 2007-08 budget continues to demonstrate the strength of this government’s sound economic management. After such an unprecedented period of growth and stability, I think it is all too easy to believe that the good times will keep on rolling, that the economy is a self-righting ship that will keep sailing through the night no matter who is at the helm. The truth is very different. The Australian economy is now worth more than $1.1 trillion, and this year’s budget is worth some $231 billion.

Australia has outperformed almost every other industrialised economy. The results of this are far more significant than just having a decent balance sheet, being an attractive place for foreign companies to invest in or having a AAA rating from Moody’s. Having a secure and stable economy means that the government can invest back into the community through tax cuts that benefit all Australians, through investment in skills, trades and higher education and through road funding and other infrastructure projects. It means that we can look after our senior Australians with increases to the senior Australians tax offset and with a continuation of the utilities payment, which recognises the needs of self-funded retirees when state governments are ignoring them.

It means that the government can continue to make up the shortfall of funding in our hospitals and schools—areas that are the responsibility of state governments. It means that the government can put money towards environmental projects that will actually help fight the challenge of climate change rather than produce empty promises like ratifying a UN agreement that has already been shown to be failing and promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in two generations time, as the opposition has suggested.

It also means that we can fund programs like the Volunteer Small Equipment Grants program. This grants scheme has been a great success in the electorate of Sturt. In the last financial year 46 local clubs and community groups have received over $91,000 in funding from the Volunteer Small Equipment Grants scheme for a range of equipment. The equipment ranges from something as simple as a collection of storage containers for the Glenunga Croquet Club to a vacuum cleaner for the Hectorville Sports Club or a PA system for the Florey Reconciliation Task Force. It ranges from a set of GPS units for the Athelstone Country Fire Service brigade—and I note that the Campbelltown Rotary Club very generously matched the amount of money put in by the federal government—to a barbecue and gardening equipment for the Payneham Cricket Club or a printer and telephone for Grandparents for Grandchildren. These are essential items that make the running of these organisations that little bit easier. While the individual dollar amounts for these grants might be small, as a member of many community groups I know how hard it is to find the money to purchase that item that the club often really needs.

I was also pleased to see additional funding for skills training, apprenticeships and universities. The $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund for capital works and research means that, for the first time, our universities can be sure of an income specifically for those two areas. I note that the Treasurer has already said that he would like to add a similar amount to the fund next year, and I applaud this investment.

It is worth remembering, though, that only about 30 per cent of school leavers will go on to university. The government recognises that the large number of apprentices also deserve help. So I welcome the new Skills for the Future package that targets apprentices. The tax exempt payment of $1,000 to those apprentices in areas of skills shortages, the $500 voucher to help cover the cost of course fees and the continuation of the successful Tools For Your Trade Program are all examples of where the government is getting on with the job.

Of course, we all know that before a young person can consider their career after school they need the right foundation at school. Last year, schools in the electorate of Sturt received over $3.4 million for 43 projects under the Investing in Our Schools Program. There has been a $2.75 million investment in the Lynden Park Primary School—a school practically forgotten by the South Australian state Labor government. There has been $287,334 invested in whole-of-school intervention strategies at the Open Access College in Marden, the Magill Youth Training Facility and the Gilles Plains Primary School to help with school based projects such as developing a homework centre for Indigenous students, developing an e-learning homework centre and helping students learn effective studying techniques. In addition, three schools in my electorate have shared in $33,500 of funding from the Success for Boys Program, which ensures that boys have their education needs met. These are real programs that are producing real results in our schools. I recently opened the new shadecloth shelter at the Windsor Gardens Vocational College, which had been funded through an Investing in Our Schools grant. This improvement had been driven by the students. They had approached the school’s governing council for an enhancement that they wanted. On the same day, I also opened the new veranda at St Joseph’s School at Payneham.

These are the sorts of grassroots projects that the government is funding. But we can always do better, and that is why in this budget there is funding for tuition vouchers of $700 for children who do not achieve national literacy benchmarks in years 3, 5 and 7. There are bonuses for teachers who undertake additional training in Australian history, science, maths or literacy and numeracy. There will be $50,000 bonuses for schools that improve their literacy and numeracy standards, and additional funding for students who are training to be teachers to receive more practical experience in teaching.

I, like many of the constituents of Sturt, am concerned about the state of our roads. I know that it can come as a surprise to many people to learn that different roads are funded by the three different levels of government: some are council roads, some are state roads and some are federal roads. But it is also worth remembering that a lot of the money that the local councils use to fix up their roads comes from the Australian government. In Sturt, the local councils have received more than $7.6 billion this financial year in general and specific road grants, as well as an additional $1.7 million funded under the AusLink Roads to Recovery program.

The announcement in the budget of $22.3 billion for the land transport system is good news for all Australians, not just those who directly use the roads. If our transport system is safer and more efficient, it leads to lower costs for transport companies. In turn, this leads to lower costs for the items being transported, whether they are food, petrol or other goods.

There is no denying that one of the greatest challenges facing us today is the spectre of climate change. The opposition promises that it will make the world a better place in two generations time—a promise that no-one will remember then, as all opposition members well know. Telling the public that it will ratify the Kyoto protocol is another ruse of the opposition. Current figures show that Australia is one of the best performing countries under the Kyoto protocol, while countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, Spain and Japan are all well above their 2012 targets.

The simple fact is this: the Australian government did sign but did not ratify Kyoto because we were confident that the agreement would not work. By signing Kyoto we remained part of the process for the next agreement on climate change. However, unlike many other countries, we have continued to get on with the job of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We have reduced the rate of land clearing and we have invested in our road system so trucks are more efficient and emissions are lower. We are investigating carbon sequestration and are funding a cooperative research centre specifically into that—the CRC for Greenhouse Gas Technologies. I congratulate this CRC on its recent announcement that a new power station in Western Australia will most likely be able to use geosequestration to trap all of the CO₂ produced from this power station. None will be released into the atmosphere.

This budget included an extra $741 million over five years to help address climate change. We are doubling the rebate on solar panels to $8,000. This means that for an average home more than half the cost of installing solar panels will be covered by the Australian government. Community buildings and schools will be eligible for up to $12,000; $59.6 million will be invested in developing alternative transport fuels; and $126 million will be available to establish a new Australian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation. This will be the central focus point for all the different areas of knowledge and research on climate change and there will be $103 million for the CSIRO’s climate change adaptation and energy research flagships.

But we are also funding projects closer to home. There was $25,000 from the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program given to the City of Campbelltown in Sturt for the construction of gabion walls on Fourth Creek, just behind the Stradbroke Primary School. These walls will help reduce erosion at this location and will help protect the nearby houses. And $70,000 was provided to the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Natural Resources Management Board for a study into flood mitigation requirements on the First to Fifth creeks. Those people in my electorate who will remember the devastating floods of a couple of winters ago will know how important this study is. Through the community water grant, more than 7.8 million litres of water will be saved this year at institutions like the City of Campbelltown, St Pius X College, Mary MacKillop College and Marryatville High School.

My first priority is always to be the voice in this place for the people of Sturt. In addition to this, I have recently been appointed the Minister for Ageing. The Howard government established the ageing ministry recognising that our population is growing older and needs dedicated ministry to ensure that we are preparing to face the challenges of the future. The Howard government has revolutionised the ageing sector since forming government 11 years ago. We have made significant reforms in how the sector is funded and established one of the most rigorous and thorough accreditation and standards requirements in the world. In 1995-96 the Australian government expenditure on aged care was $3 billion. Annual government outlays on aged care will increase to around $10 billion by 2010-11, a more than three-fold increase.

In February the Prime Minister announced the Securing the Future of Aged Care for Australians package, which provides $1.6 billion over the next five years. The budget handed down in May contained new announcements totalling $161.4 million. They included $41.2 million over four years to establish 20 respite demonstration centres in both metropolitan and rural areas. This is in keeping with the government’s commitment to encouraging innovative respite care options so as to assist frail, older people to remain in their homes. The demonstration sites will serve a dual purpose by offering respite to local carers and by providing the lead to the aged-care industry as a whole. There is $998.5 million over four years so that an additional 54,000 Australians with permanent incontinence will have access to subsidised incontinence products from 1 July 2007. This new funding brings total funding for the Continence Aids Assistance scheme to $148.7 million over the next four years.

There is $13.2 million over five years to help older people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds access the full range of aged-care services for which they are eligible. Around 70 projects will be funded under the Community Partners Program to provide activities such as information sessions, community visits to aged-care facilities and translated materials about the availability of appropriate aged-care services. There will also be $8½ million over four years to provide 120 Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to gain real jobs, working in community care, in place of positions previously subsidised for community development employment projects under the CDEP program. The positions will be in the National Respite for Carers Program and in urban and regional areas in the Home and Community Care program.

The Australian government supports choice in aged care and recognises that older Australians prefer to stay in their own homes rather than move into an aged-care facility. We spend $1.7 billion per year on community care services. This is more than a threefold growth in the expenditure on community care since 1996. Community aged-care packages have grown from around 4½ thousand places in 1996 to almost 40,000 places in June 2006. In 1996 there was no program to provide high-care support in the home. To date, there are around 2,575 such places in the form of Extended Aged Care at Home packages. It is no wonder that the member for Shortland hangs her head in shame as I announce these figures to the chamber.

All up we are working to take Australia’s aged-care target from 108 places per 1,000 people aged 70 or over to 113 places in 2011, compared with around 93 places in 1996. By June 2011 there will be around a quarter of a million operational aged-care places and over 100,000 of these will have been added by the Australian government since 1996—an almost 48 per cent increase. But there is no point in pouring money into the sector without the checks and balances in place to ensure the quality of the care provided. In 1996 there was no independent oversight of the quality of aged-care homes. Now there is an independent agency, the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency, which accredits every aged-care home. All aged-care homes in Australia will receive at least one unannounced visit every year. It is no surprise that confidence in the aged-care sector is high, and that can be judged by the $5.7 billion of private investment from the sector into the building and upgrading of aged-care homes over the last eight years.

It is an easy headline and a cheap shot for detractors to claim that the aged-care sector is in crisis. The reality is far different. It is a reformed sector, and aged-care homes are different places than they were 10 years ago. I, the accreditation agency and the Department of Health and Ageing are all working with the aged-care sector to consolidate the changes we have made and ensure that we continue to address the teething problems that arise within what is a complex but vital sector. This budget continues that commitment to the aged. It also continues the sound economic management of this government that allows so many of the projects and programs in Sturt that I have spoken about in this speech tonight to continue. I commend the budget to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.