Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills. There certainly are a number of concerns arising from this year’s budget. First and foremost of those, I believe, is the fact that this budget really fails the future test. It fails to prepare Australia for the number of challenges we must face in the coming years—in particular, challenges such as the skills shortage, climate change and, very specifically for my electorate, the health needs of an ageing population. Critically, this budget fails to look beyond the next federal election. All in all, this year’s budget was a demonstration of a lacklustre and increasingly out-of-touch Howard government with very short-sighted vision—a government that is trying desperately to hold on to power at the cost of future generations of Australians. Indeed, it is in fact a government stuck in the past.

In contrast to this, the federal Labor Party offers the Australian people an optimistic and forward-thinking vision for our country. We offer practical nation-building initiatives and measures designed to see Australia prosper through the years ahead. In the future we have to put in place policies which will allow us to reach our full potential as a nation, and it is only through the election of a Rudd Labor government that our country will reach its full potential.

I want to touch on various aspects of this year’s appropriation bill. Firstly, it does contain the tax cuts which Labor will support, and we have stated that. It also contains a one-off payment of $500 for pensioners and a one-off payment for carers of $1,000 which Labor also supports. Of course, whilst welcoming these tax cuts, it is with the acknowledgement that this is indeed the highest taxing government in Australia’s history. In welcoming these one-off payments, it is, of course, taken with the reality that pensioners and carers have been continually forgotten by the Howard government—except, it seems, when it comes to election times. Conveniently, perhaps, they are then very slightly remembered.

It is these groups in particular that are struggling in my electorate of Richmond. Twenty per cent of the population is aged over 65 and that is one of the highest percentages throughout the country. As I have said many times before here, that is the estimation for the percentage of people aged over 65 in the year 2040. So we need to get it right on the ground in Richmond now if we are going to be catering for the future ageing of our population.

I hear daily of the struggles of local pensioners who are simply trying to survive day to day with increasing prices for petrol, rents, mortgages and, perhaps very significantly for them, health care. These people need help every day, not just when the Howard government is gearing up for an election and passing them a small amount of money. They need help continuously.

Put quite simply, carers are doing it very tough. They do it tough daily with difficulties that most of us could only ever imagine and they do it with so little government support. Often so many carers are dependent on volunteer community groups. Whilst these groups do an incredible job, they too are drastically underresourced. Unfortunately, carers in our community have been forgotten for years under the Howard government—again, until election time, as I said, when a small amount of money is passed to them. Let me emphasise that, whilst this $1,000 is welcome, it is nowhere near enough to address the daily battles that carers often have. Indeed, it is a very tough job that they do and they need help daily, weekly and fortnightly. They need help. These people make huge personal sacrifices and they deserve increased support from the government.

The issue of increased support for carers is particularly relevant, as negotiations for the fourth Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement—CSTDA—are currently underway. Carers are very tired of the constant blame game which occurs at these negotiations as well as the blame game they witness when attempting to access government services. Quite frankly, this needs to end. The minister responsible has already stated there will be no growth funding to the CSTDA. This is indicative of, and consistent with, the government stance on this issue. Carers are simply not given the priority they deserve. The CSTDA negotiations give the government the opportunity to remedy this, yet I fear the needs of carers and disability service providers will once again fall on deaf ears.

It was disappointing to see in the budget that, whilst pensioners and carers did receive that one-off payment—inadequate as it may be—one group entirely forgotten are those dependent on the disability pension. This is a group that has suffered under increased strains, particularly with the health system, and those strains have occurred under the Howard government. It has failed to address those issues. This is also a group which has struggled with the increasing complexity in accessing government services. It is a group that has definitely suffered under the blame game that the Howard government always seems to involve itself in. The fact that they have been forgotten in this budget is further proof that the government is so out of touch with the needs and concerns of the most vulnerable people in our society.

My electorate of Richmond has one of the largest groups of veterans in Australia. Of course, their contribution to the local community is unparalleled. It has been a great honour for me to meet so many of those veterans and veterans’ groups over the past couple of years. It is certainly true that veterans often do it very tough. Many continue to suffer very serious and ongoing physical and mental health problems. They often encounter government services that are very difficult to access. Many are on pensions and are struggling week to week with the increase in the cost of living, particularly health care. The sacrifice of these individuals in serving their country should not be forgotten, and by not including anything in this budget for veterans and veterans’ services that is exactly what the Howard government is doing.

Alternatively, in the Labor Party we certainly acknowledge, understand and respect the sacrifice of these Australians and we are very committed to honouring that. As we have stated, a Rudd Labor government will restore the value of the special rate disability pension, TPI and TTI intermediate rate and extreme disablement adjustment pensions by indexing the whole of these pensions to movements in the male total average weekly earnings or the CPI, whichever is greater.

When the Howard government indexed a range of pensions in 1997 they totally forgot, and put aside, these three pensions for disabled war veterans. Under a Rudd Labor government, the value of these pensions, which are paid to our most severely disabled veterans, will not continue to erode as it certainly has been doing under the Howard government. I strongly believe that our veterans deserve a government which will fix this situation, and that is exactly what they will get with a Rudd Labor government. Federal Labor’s policy will affect 43,000 more veterans with disabilities right across the country and more than 600 in my electorate of Richmond. I am very proud to be a member of a party which prioritises the needs of veterans. I will certainly always continue to fight for the increased recognition of their service.

As I stated earlier, the standout feature of this budget is that it fails the future test. It is the budget of a tired, weary government locked in the past, trying to spend its way out of trouble. Certainly one of the major issues today is that Australia is suffering a skills crisis. It is a skills crisis that has occurred under a government that has neglected Australia’s future and has failed to invest in the things that make our country strong: our education, our infrastructure and our future generations.

This is of course affecting our productivity and it means that economic growth is not as strong as it could be. In the mid-nineties, productivity was at 3.2 per cent. Last month’s projections had it at 1.5 per cent. An independent analysis from the Parliamentary Library also contains a staggering admission that productivity is likely to be zero overall for 2006-07. That is zero for a country that is experiencing a mining boom and zero for a country with record surpluses to invest in education and skills training but with a government that has clearly failed to do so. Let us be very clear about the reality of this situation: this is negligence committed against future generations of Australians and it is the legacy that the Howard government will carry with it.

Federal Labor is determined to face this challenge head-on, because the more you put into education, skills and training, the more productive our nation will become. Facing the skills challenge will require this country, starting with the federal government, to prioritise the education and skilling of our population and to encourage Australian enterprise. Indeed, it will require nothing short of a real education revolution.

We in federal Labor have already announced the first six chapters of our education revolution, starting with a $450 million commitment to early childhood education. We will make sure that all four-year-olds get 15 hours a week of play based learning, which will give them the head start they need before starting school. We will also improve resources committed to numeracy and literacy programs, encourage students in maths and sciences, establish a national curriculum and foster the sharing of facilities between government and non-government schools.

In contrast, in this budget the Howard government has failed to properly invest in education funding. In this budget the Howard government announced the building of three new technical colleges. Indeed, what a debacle these technical colleges have been so far. We have seen funding stripped from our TAFEs across the country and put into these tech colleges, and what has been the result? We are seeing limited numbers being built and limited numbers of students so far. Then we see three more tech colleges in this budget. And where are those colleges going? They will be in Brisbane, Sydney and Perth, therefore ignoring the rest of the country and those of us in regional and rural Australia.

The Howard government’s neglect of education and training continues the high unemployment rates in regional, rural and coastal communities, which include my electorate of Richmond. In Richmond the youth unemployment rate is constantly over 30 per cent, and the reality for many young people in that area is that they just do not have the opportunities to get adequate training. It is for this reason that I am particularly heartened by the latest chapter in Labor’s education revolution. A $2.5 billion trades and school program will mean that new trades training centres will be established in every high school, public or private, with schools being eligible to apply for grants to help with equipment costs.

To complement this, Labor will provide an extra $84 million for on the job training for 20 weeks a year for students in years 9 to 12. This will make it easier for those students wanting to access trade training, whilst also encouraging them to stay at school. Access Economics has forecast that, if year 12 retention rates were lifted from their current rate of 75 per cent to 90 per cent, Australia would add $9 billion to our economy by 2040. So encouraging kids to stay at school while ensuring access to trades training is good for students, good for families and good for the country. It is a positive step in addressing Australia’s skills shortage and an overdue investment in our nation.

Richmond is an electorate with a large number of small businesses concentrated primarily in the tourism and retail industries. They have the very arduous task of dealing with government red tape, most of which has been created and increased under this government. Never before have small businesses had to fill in so much paperwork. It is costly and, in being so time consuming, it does take that important time out of making their businesses as successful as they could be. Small businesses long ago gave up hope that the Howard government would deliver on its 1996 promise to cut business regulation by 50 per cent.

But Labor has been listening to small business. In April Labor’s BAS Easy plan was announced—a proposal for a simplified BAS reporting system designed specifically for small family-run businesses and independent contractors. Small businesses operate in a tough competitive environment, and government should always be aiming to help small business be as productive as possible. This will be helped by the two Labor initiatives announced during the opposition leader’s address in reply.

The first of these is that business will have the power to charge interest on government accounts not finalised after 30 days. This is crucial for business, particularly small business, which is so dependent on cash flow. Federal Labor will also establish a superannuation clearing house, where employers will be able to meet their superannuation obligations by paying into the one clearing house. From there, the payments will be disbursed to the relevant funds. This means less paperwork for business and makes it easier for employees to track their payment. It simply makes more sense.

The Labor Party have a very long and proud tradition of being nation builders. If we look at matters such as the Snowy Hydro scheme, the Harbour Bridge and superannuation, we see that all were Labor initiatives which have made this country prosper, have made this country strong and indeed have defined us as a nation on the world stage. So the time has now come for a new investment, one designed for the 21st century and the unique challenges that we face. Labor’s national broadband initiative does just that.

At the moment, as we all know, broadband in Australia is slow, unreliable and expensive. Yet broadband is essential for education purposes, for businesses, for families and also for accessing many medical services, particularly in very remote areas of the country. Labor has faced this challenge with a willingness to invest up to $4.7 billion, in conjunction with private enterprise, into a broadband network that will ensure broadband speeds 40 times faster than at present. Australia’s broadband is currently one of the slowest in the Western world, and the effects are being felt right across the country. Business is relying on this form of nation building, and Labor is listening and responding.

One of the many reasons that Australians know that this budget fails the future test is the fact that it did not address climate change. Without addressing climate change, we cannot adequately address Australia’s future. It was very disappointing to see, through this budget, the government confirm that they are indeed climate change sceptics. In contrast, the Labor Party have announced a raft of measures designed to deal with the realities of climate change, including the establishment of a $500 million clean coal fund and helping Australians install energy-saving devices such as solar hot-water systems and water tanks by providing low-interest loans. These measures, in addition to ratifying the Kyoto protocol, are important because they will help Australia to achieve Labor’s target of a 60 per cent drop in carbon emissions by 2050. And it was wonderful to see federal Labor’s announcement today of the five tests for an effective emissions trading scheme.

Not only does this budget fail the future test; it fails to address urgent needs that exist in the community right now, needs that must be addressed. One of the major issues is dental care. This is an issue I hear about daily in my electorate. People are suffering because they cannot afford to get dental care. This government has failed to properly acknowledge or fix the problem. The waiting list for dental services in Richmond can sometimes be years and years. We all know that bad dental problems can lead to other health problems. It really is shameful that nationwide there are 650,000 people waiting for dental care. Over 4,000 have previously signed my petition calling on the government to reinstate the Commonwealth Dental Scheme, which it abolished in 1996. People who are reliant on public dental services are sick of the blame game which the federal government has subjected the community to by denying its responsibility for providing dental services. My frustration at this is exacerbated by the fact that proper investment in dental care is good economic management, because every year thousands of patients, including increasingly alarming numbers of children, are admitted to hospital wards because they were not able to access proper and affordable dental services. So an added burden is being placed on the health service, which could be alleviated by reinstating the Commonwealth Dental Scheme. That is precisely what a Rudd Labor government will do. We have been listening to the concerns of the community on this major issue and we know how wide-reaching the concerns are.

In my concluding remarks I want to emphasise again that this budget is about the Howard government failing the future test. It has done nothing to prepare Australia for the unique challenges that we face in the next century. It has done nothing to deal with the skills crisis, which truly is astonishing, considering that productivity growth is now almost at zero. It does nothing to prepare Australia for life after the mining boom. And, critically, it does nothing to address the very, very important issue of climate change, a matter that must be addressed not just locally and nationally but internationally. We need to see major action in relation to climate change.

It is very disappointing to see that, as well as neglecting the future, this budget in fact does nothing for the real and immediate challenges that Australia is facing at the moment, particularly with dental care and the need for increased services for veterans and disability services. These are all urgent priorities for the nation and ones that have been forgotten by the government. Quite clearly the focus for the government is only on winning the next election; that is what it is about. Using as much spin and taxpayers’ money as they possibly can—that is what they are focused on. An outrageous amount of taxpayers’ funds are being spent at the moment, and it is causing a lot of angst in the community. People are getting pretty sick of the spin and sick of the fact that that is what the Howard government are focused on. They are just focused on their own agenda, on the next election. They are not really interested at all in the individuals and families out there—all those people struggling week to week due to the rising costs of living. Those costs are right across the board, whether it is petrol, mortgage or healthcare costs. People are struggling each week. All those families are already under so much pressure, particularly at the moment because of the Howard government’s extreme and unfair industrial relations laws. In my electorate of Richmond, people often approach me telling me about how their work conditions and their overtime penalty rates have been cut due to this government’s extreme industrial relations laws and about the very devastating impact that is having upon their families.

This is a budget with many gaps, and this is a tired old government with many gaping holes in a whole range of its policy issues, whether they concern health care, dental care, veterans, disability services or aged care. For a large number of elderly people in my electorate there certainly needs to be much more commitment to home care so that they can stay in their homes for longer. In contrast to the Howard government’s lack of funding in the budget, federal Labor is committed to the future of our nation and to providing a future for all those who have been abandoned by the Howard government. We need to make sure that people right throughout our community have a decent future, including our young people and, in particular, all those young people in regional and rural Australia who have been forgotten by the Howard government. (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills, because, in a very real sense, this budget has locked in the economic gains that Australia has made over the past 11 years. We are in our 16th year of sustained economic growth—a record unparalleled in the history of this country.

This is a budget that only a coalition government could bring down, because a budget like this could not have been brought down unless you had had 11 years of sound economic management. You could not have brought down this budget if Australia were still paying out $8 billion in interest on a $96 billion government debt. That extraordinary figure—$96 billion—is the debt that we inherited from previous Labor governments, and we have subsequently paid it off.

You could not have brought down a budget like this if you had consistently run budget deficits, as Labor governments federally have historically done and as they are now doing in the states. You could not have brought down a budget like this if you had failed to provide for the enormous unfunded liability of Commonwealth superannuation through the Future Fund. You could not have brought down a budget like this if you had failed to reform an antiquated tax system. You could not have brought down a budget like this if you had failed to unleash personal productivity through reforms in our workplace. Indeed, you could not have produced a budget like this unless you had behaved like a fiscal conservative when in government. When I say ‘behaved like a fiscal conservative’, I mean more than taking out television advertising time to say that you are a fiscal conservative. In fact, being a fiscal conservative is far more than your spin doctors telling you to say that you are. What is it about? It is about a record of achievement. It is not about looking at what you say; it is about looking at what you do.

We know very well how the Labor Party operates in government. We can see it with the eight separate governments that they now control around Australia. Which one of those governments would anyone here characterise as a fiscally conservative government? It would be an interesting exercise for us to sit around as federal MPs and work out which of these governments is the worst government in Australia, because there would be some hot competition for that title.

In contrast, the Howard government has an economic record that would be the envy of any government internationally. It is an economic record, as I said, that has seen Australia move into its 16th consecutive year of expansion. Our annual GDP growth rate has averaged over 3.5 per cent for this period. That is extraordinary for an advanced economy. As I said, this is the longest history of expansion in Australian history. At the end of the day, everything hangs off economic growth. You cannot be green unless you are in the black. You certainly cannot provide social programs unless you have a strong fiscal position.

As a result of this growth, over two million jobs have been created since March 1996. That is really quite an extraordinary figure. Two million people have entered the workforce since the Howard government came to office. The unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 per cent to 4.5 per cent and it is now at a 30-year low. In my electorate of Stirling, unemployment was in double digits before the Howard government came to office; it is now down to about five per cent. That is a lot of families who now have a future who did not have one under the Labor government. The proportion of the working-age population in jobs is now at the highest level on record. So not only have all these jobs been created, not only is unemployment at record lows, but the participation rate is at a record high. This is all very good news.

In addition to this, real wages have increased by 20 per cent over the same period. We have heard some Labor talk this week about the cost of living, but of course the increase in real wages is an indication that the cost of living has actually decreased under the Howard government. Once you take out the increases for CPI, people are now earning substantially more.

A broader measure of living standards is real net national disposable income per capita, and it has grown by a staggering 36 per cent since March 1996. Historically, periods of growth at that level have been accompanied by inflation. But CPI inflation has averaged only 2.5 per cent during the current expansion, which, as members would know, is right smack bang in the middle of the Reserve Bank’s target, which aims to keep inflation between two and three per cent. Low inflation has, of course, allowed the Howard government to keep interest rates low. Business investment has grown strongly during these years and it is now at historically high levels as a share of GDP.

All of these amazing financial statistics and all of this impressive achievement have come despite a number of substantial global shocks that in past times would have knocked the Australian economy around. There was the Asian financial crisis of 1997; the global downturn at the beginning of this decade; the enormous shocks of the September 11 terrorist attacks; threats of global diseases, like SARS; and, of course, historic high global oil prices. On the structure reform side, key initiatives have included substantial overhauls of taxation and workplace relations. Unless the government had had the courage to take these tough decisions, there is no way that we would be seeing these incredible economic results.

This record of achievement is the difference between the real thing and the pretenders. The coalition government has 11 years of achievement under its belt. That is 11 years of actually behaving like fiscal conservatives as opposed to just saying that we are fiscal conservatives. It is true, as members on the opposite side are very fond of saying, that we are living in very good economic times, but the fact that we are living in good economic times is a result of government policy. The idea that somehow the Australian economy operates in isolation to the settings that the government creates is really quite farcical. The ALP would have us believe that this has somehow all just happened—that the Australian economic miracle is somehow chance or the result of the mining boom. That just is not true.

I will turn to some of the specifics in the budget. I think the centrepiece of this year’s budget, as it has been in previous years’ budgets, was a tax cut for all Australians. This is building on a record of providing tax relief since the year 2000. Tax relief in this year’s budget is worth $31.5 billion over four years. It rewards effort, it improves incentives and it enhances Australia’s global competitiveness. I want to look at the coalition’s record on tax reform, because I think this is extraordinarily important. From 1 July next year, the 30 per cent threshold will be raised to $30,000. The low-income tax offset will be increased from $600 to $750 per year, and it will be phased out from $30,000—up from $25,000. From 1 July 2008, the 40 per cent threshold will be raised to $80,000, and the 45 per cent threshold will be raised to $180,000.

There are bills on measures that the coalition government has taken previously. Since 2004-05 the first marginal tax rate has been reduced from 17 per cent to 15 per cent; the 30 per cent threshold has increased from $21,600 to $30,000; and the low-income tax offset has been increased from $235 to $750. This means that Australians are paying far less tax as a result of the good economic times that the government has played a substantial role in creating.

The other most notable feature of this budget is the genuine education revolution that was announced. This was a genuine revolution, as opposed to just saying that you are going to have a revolution. This was backed up by $5 billion for the creation of the Higher Education Endowment Fund. This will go a long way to help Australian universities realise their potential. The Higher Education Endowment Fund will provide a guaranteed source of income for Australian universities in perpetuity. It will provide money for capital investment and for Australian universities to create enhanced research facilities. The income earned will be distributed yearly to universities across the nation. The initial investment is $5 billion but further capital injections may be made by the government into the HEEF. Of course, you can only do this when you have a surplus.

The fund will enhance Australia’s reputation as a provider of world-class education services and it will improve productivity around Australia. The ALP loves to talk about productivity, but this is something that will go a long way towards enhancing Australia’s productivity. The government will invest another $1.7 billion over four years to give universities added flexibility to underpin future productivity growth. That is another enormous investment. On budget night I ran into several vice-chancellors I know, and quite frankly, they were terribly impressed with what this budget holds for them.

Universities are not the only part of the education sector to benefit. The coalition does not believe that university education is the only worthwhile form of education. As I move around the community, the skills shortage is constantly raised with me, as it is with many members of this place. I personally would be more inclined to characterise it as a labour shortage. We do have shortages in various skill sets, but because of the economic boom we really have a shortage of labour. When you have record low unemployment, it is hard for employers to find people to work for them. The government recognises this and is putting in another $549 million over four years to train apprentices in the skills shortage trades. This is on top of the other things that the government has done, such as create the Australian technical colleges. Over a quarter of a million apprentices will benefit from this measure over four years.

Schools are not forgotten in this budget. The government will supply an extra $843 million over four years to improve the quality of teaching and education outcomes. We all recognise how vitally important education is. Of course, the state governments are largely failing in their responsibilities to fund state government schools. As I move around my community of Stirling, I am sometimes astonished by the state of the infrastructure in local state schools. In true style, the Carpenter government never does anything about it, apart from bleat that it is somebody else’s responsibility. This extra funding in schools builds on the Investing in Our Schools Program that has already injected $1.2 billion into schools around the country. In my electorate of Stirling that has meant that local schools have been able to have new play equipment, introduce new information technology into the classrooms and build on lots of things that benefit their students.

I turn to childcare assistance. It is very important to note that the Howard government now spends two and a half times more on child care than was ever spent by the previous government. That is an extraordinary level of growth. Of course, you cannot do that unless you have managed the economy well. The Howard government has introduced the childcare benefit and the childcare tax rebate, which covers 30 per cent of the out-of-pocket expenses associated with child care. From 1 July next year, the childcare benefit will be increased by 10 per cent.

Other great examples of why economic management is so important are the reforms that have been made to superannuation and retirement savings. In last year’s budget I think that probably did not get as much fanfare as it deserved in the sense that it really was something that changed people’s lives. I know, from my own experience of talking to people, it has allowed many people to be able to retire earlier. This year’s budget built on those wonderful efforts—that wonderful superannuation reform that saw people being able to withdraw funds from their superannuation fund. Instead of paying a complex array of taxes as existed previously, they can now withdraw money from superannuation and pay no tax—not one cent of tax. That is a life-changing thing for people who have saved hard for their own retirement.

In this budget we have particularly focused on superannuation for the low paid. This budget boosts the retirement savings of low-income earners to the tune of $1.1 billion by doubling the co-contribution payment paid for eligible contributions in the financial year 2005-06.

We owe older Australians a debt of gratitude for building this country in times that were substantially harsher than those we enjoy now. It is important for the government to recognise that and this budget has done so. This budget will provide $1.3 billion so that older Australians can receive a bonus of $500 for their utilities. This allowance has been paid in previous years and it will be paid again on 30 June 2007, although it will be substantially increased this year to $500.

Carers, who do a wonderful job in our community, will receive a $1,000 bonus payment. This is the fourth year in a row that this bonus payment has been made. Veterans are another group I think which collectively we owe a large debt to. Veterans will receive an extra $160 million, as their per-fortnight payment of special rate disability pension will be increased by $50.

One-off payments—this is not the most expensive measure in the budget, but I think it is a very important one—will be made to Australians who were prisoners of war in Europe. If they are no longer alive, then that payment can be made to their surviving partner. I think that everyone in this chamber would agree that there are very few people who are more deserving of the thanks of a grateful nation than those who suffered tremendously as prisoners of war.

My time to speak is running out, unfortunately. There is substantially more in this budget in the way of transport and water infrastructure. But I want, in the few minutes that I have remaining, to talk about something that impacts heavily on my electorate and is the result of a measure that was announced in this year’s budget. This year’s budget added an extra $250 million to the AusLink strategic program. That means a tremendous amount to electors in Stirling because $10 million of that money has been offered to the City of Stirling to address a serious black spot that has exercised the minds of people in my electorate for many years.

When the Reid Highway extension went through to the coast, it intersected with a number of main roads in my electorate and, unfortunately, the decision was taken not to build overpasses where they intersected, which was a mistake in hindsight. I am the first to admit that that was a mistake that was made by a Liberal government. Unfortunately, subsequent governments have not committed to build these overpasses. Initially they would have cost about $2 million—if they had been built when the road went through. The cost of those overpasses is now up to about $24 million. Astonishingly, that reflects the growth of construction costs in WA. Indeed, when I came to office in 2004 as the member for Stirling, the cost of building these overpasses would have been only about $12 million. In 2½ years, the cost of building them has doubled.

But I think, importantly, the Labor Party, both at a state level and at the federal level, have consistently promised to build this overpass and have consistently failed to deliver. They have talked about it for six years, yet not once have they allocated one brass razoo to build this overpass. This road is 100 per cent a state government responsibility. They completely fail to live up to their responsibilities and they have consistently said that they will build the overpass but never once has one cent been allocated towards it. My predecessor, Jann McFarlane, actually committed both federal and state Labor governments to build it, yet somehow this promise again has remained unfulfilled.

I think with this $10 million that has been offered to the City of Stirling through the AusLink strategic program, the state Labor government have a historic opportunity to fix this black spot where on a weekly basis people are being injured and killed. Sadly, Alannah MacTiernan, the minister for transport in the state Labor government, has refused to fulfil her responsibilities. She has refused to do what they have promised to do consistently. But I would like to let the chamber know that I will be campaigning vigorously for this overpass to be built. The federal government have come to the party, even though it is not our responsibility, and I urge the state government to do the same. (Time expired)

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

I welcome this opportunity in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and related bills to debate the Howard government’s latest budget and its impact on my constituents and on the nation’s future. As with all budgets brought down by governments of all political persuasions, there are winners and losers, and this budget is no exception. With the Commonwealth literally dripping with taxation revenue in 2007 it is not surprising that in this election year the Howard government has sought to ensure that there are many winners across the political spectrum in order to prop up the parlous political position that it currently finds itself in.

I have no argument with tax cuts being made available for low-income earners and others in Geelong, given that the highest taxation and highest spending Treasurer in Australia’s history has had his hands deep in the pockets of Geelong workers and businesses to create his surplus. The very least he could do in this budget is return some of what he has taken. But there is one big loser in this budget and it is Australia’s future. Once again this very tricky but clever and arrogant Prime Minister has put his own political survival ahead of the nation’s interests.

The lot of Geelong working families over the past year has not been an easy one to bear. They have shouldered the burden of higher petrol prices because of price movements not only as a result of the market but as a result of conditions influenced by the Howard government’s war in Iraq. They have endured higher public health insurance premiums, despite assurances from the government at the previous election that they would be held in check. They have endured four interest rate rises since the last election, courtesy of the Howard government, which have put an intolerable burden on household income. They have faced increased childcare costs over the life of this government, as they have struggled to balance their work and family responsibilities, and many of them have had to bear the burden of reduced income as a direct result of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation—the disastrous policy that the Prime Minister today dares not speak its name.

I welcome the extra funding provided in the budget for Animal Health Australia in Geelong and I hope that additional funding will flow to roads in the region, to Deakin University and the Gordon TAFE and to environmental projects such as Barwon Water’s recycling plant as the year unfolds. But it is clear that the government has well and truly failed the future test in this budget, failing to set priorities and address challenges facing Australia in the long term in the areas of fast speed broadband, early childhood education and climate change.

On the more general economic front Australia has been blessed with this new era of prosperity, ushered in by the Hawke-Keating government, which has endured in recent times, supported quite dramatically by spectacular growth in the economies of China and India and an unparalleled era of global growth. Labor’s success in breaking the back of Liberal inflation laid the foundation for the historically low interest rate regime that has fuelled the current housing boom. Labor reforms—such as floating the dollar, cutting tariffs, enterprise bargaining, deregulation of the banking system, cutting red tape and reform—restructured the Australian economy and laid a solid foundation for Australia to exploit the best terms of trade it has ever enjoyed. Yet, despite this obvious prosperity, the Howard government in this budget and previous ones has failed to capture important opportunities to secure the long-term future of the nation.

While the Treasurer lauds the government’s economic achievements, there are fundamental weaknesses in the Australian economy, and the failure of the Howard government to address them will haunt this nation for decades. Despite global growth and the rise of the Chinese and Indian economies, the productivity of the Australian economy continues to decline from an average of over three per cent in the mid-1990s, to little over two per cent at the turn of the century and it is expected to decline to 1.5 per cent in this current decade.

This is a result of a failure of the Howard government to plan and of government policy neglect, particularly in the important areas of skill development and infrastructure spending—two pillars of economic productivity. The government’s own estimates put the shortage of skilled workers by 2016 at 240,000. The failure of the Howard government in this era of prosperity to adequately invest in education and skills formation leaves the nation lagging badly behind our competition in a situation that can only get worse if is not addressed now. The building of world-class infrastructure in road, rail, ports, broadband and transport generally is absolutely necessary to underpin our future productivity, competitiveness and economic growth, yet the Business Council of Australia estimates the shortfall at $90 billion. The Howard government continues to squander billions in a useless war in Iraq, hundreds of millions in useless advertising and $600 million to finance its Work Choices fiasco.

The simple fact is that Australia’s productivity growth is lagging. Its current account deficit and trade deficit are widening. Its export performance has plummeted. Its infrastructure expenditure is deficient. Its education and skills formation expenditure is in relative decline. Its R&D expenditures are poor and not concentrated up the value-adding chain. Its households and businesses have to put up with substandard broadband connections at a critical stage of our economic development. If that is not enough, we have a Prime Minister and government that, by virtue of their intransigence in Kyoto, have written Australia out of accessing billions of dollars of new opportunities in energy renewable technologies and industrial practices. It is a sorry state when you contemplate the implications of 11 long years of benign neglect.

Let me now turn to the budget papers and the assistance provided to local government through the government budget. In 2007-08 it will be in the order of $2.3 billion, with $1.7 billion coming to local government in the form of financial assistance grants—FAGs—distributed through the states and $557 million in direct payments to local governments to fund local roads projects, water infrastructure, childcare programs and disability and other services administered by local government on the Commonwealth’s behalf. In my electorate over $15 million goes directly to the City of Greater Geelong in the form of FAGs and many more millions go to aforementioned programs and purposes. As the federal member, I have a direct interest in the governance of the city, its planning procedures and its expenditures, especially as funding for the city is raised by the Commonwealth through taxation on Geelong households and businesses.

In a speech to the House in the grievance debate last week, I canvassed the important matter that has come to be known in Geelong as the cash for councillors/Costagate affair, a matter which goes to the heart of ethics, accountability, transparency and good governance in the City of Greater Geelong and something that I think every member of this parliament would be intimately interested in. The issue was canvassed at length in that speech and I do not propose to detail it again here except to say that in the grievance address I called for an inquiry with judicial powers into the cash for councillors affair and for Premier Bracks to set up an independent corruption commission in Victoria.

The need for a further inquiry and the establishment of a corruption commission is now even more urgent in the wake of the decision by some hopelessly compromised councillors to ram through an amendment to the City of Greater Geelong’s port structure plan to accommodate Mr Frank Costa’s HomeTown development.

It is very clear that certain councillors have deliberately flouted the city’s code of conduct approved by council only two months ago on 13 March 2007. According to that document, the purpose of the code of conduct is to affirm to councillors the requirements to fulfil their statutory duty to act in accordance with section 76(b) of the Local Government Act, which states that councillors must:

a) Act honestly

…                     …                   …

c) Not make improper use of their position

To gain, or attempt to gain, directly or indirectly, an unethical advantage for themselves or for any other person, or

To cause, or attempt to cause, the Council to be held in disrespect.

Further, according to the code, councillors must:

... act in a way which enhances public confidence in the system of local government.

Given what we know up to this point about the cash for councillors affair, it is clear that some hopelessly compromised councillors have seriously violated their own code of conduct. Part 2 of the code requires that, in fulfilling their various roles, councillors will act in the best interest of the City of Greater Geelong community. Section 5.2 states:

Consultation, representation, equity, openness and accountability are the key features of the relationships between Council and the Community.

And that councillors will:

... make decisions in the best interest of the community after considering all relevant interests, arriving at balanced and sustainable decisions;

And point 5.2.9 states:

... seek to build community confidence in Council’s ability to make informed and objective decisions.

These sections of the code have certainly been violated by the council’s recent decision. The VCAT special panel report—which was commissioned by council and had regard to the city’s planning scheme, the state planning policy framework, the municipal strategy statement, local planning policy, the metropolitan strategy Melbourne 2030 and submissions and evidence of various parties—said:

The Hometown Geelong proposal fails to comply with, and or advance a raft of State and Local Planning policies.

The VCAT report considers that the Port of Geelong is a major infrastructure of state significance; that the subject land is an important strategic site which sits within a port industrial precinct and should not be rezoned lightly; that it is a strategically significant industrial site and that ‘future options for industrial or port uses should be retained for the further development of the site’. The port is a very important regional and state asset as well as an asset of great importance to the national economy. Of course, we know that in the budget there have been specific funds allocated for infrastructure works by this government to both ports and transport systems.

The panel was scathing in its criticism of the HomeTown proposal and of its failure to comply with the city’s existing development strategy. It said:

The panel concludes that the proposal does not deliver a net community benefit and recommends its abandonment.

In light of the potential adverse impacts on other Geelong retailing businesses and on the future of the port, it is the view of many that councillors have not acted in the best interests of the Geelong community.

I have also received advice that there is a prima facie case that, in making this decision, certain councillors have breached section 77A of the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 relating to disclosure of interest by failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest. Section 77A, disclosure of interests, states:

(1) ... a Councillor has an interest in a matter in which the Council is concerned and is, or is likely to be, considered or discussed at a meeting of the Council ... if subsection (2) applies.

Subsection (2) states:

This subsection applies if, were the matter to be decided on in a particular manner, the Councillor or member or a person with whom the Councillor or a member is closely associated—

(a)

would receive or have received a reasonable expectation of receiving, a direct or indirect pecuniary or non-pecuniary benefit;

…            …            …

(c)

could be reasonably perceived as—

(i)

receiving a direct or indirect pecuniary or non-pecuniary benefit.

Subsection (4) states:

If subsection (2) applies, the Councillor or the member of the special committee must disclose the interest to Council or the special committee before the matter is considered or discussed at the meeting.

Subsection (5) states:

A disclosure under subsection (4) must—

(a)

include the nature of the relevant interest; and

(b)

be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

A failure to comply with this section of the act would violate the conflict of interest provision 5.6 of the councillors code of conduct.

In making my call for a further inquiry with judicial powers into the cash for councillors affair and the establishment of an independent corruption commission in this state, I welcomed the recent statement by Mr Frank Costa, whose HomeTown proposal is at the heart of this controversy, which supports my call. But I must admit that I am confused by his public position. In response to my previous calls, Mr Costa has brushed them off, claiming they were motivated by political considerations. Yet, now, when he supports my call, his motivation—according to the Geelong Advertiser of 30 May—‘is to weed out rogue bureaucrats and elected officials and ensure those in power worked in the best interests of their communities’. My sentiments entirely. I could not agree more.

But it is only now, when the Premier has declared he will not set up an ICAC, and the minister for local government has stated that he does not intend to set up another inquiry into cash for councillors that Mr Costa feels secure in supporting calls that he is fairly confident the state government will never heed. The issues surrounding HomeTown certainly are political but, I suggest, not for the reasons that Mr Costa promotes. They are my concerns because they are matters of transparency and accountability in the governance of the region, and those are core principles that are pursued by every member in this parliament and indeed the government of the day.

My job as a federal member is to protect the public interest, be it in securing good governance or securing the long-term economic future of the port and the region, even though the port is in private hands. There are very powerful reasons why port land needs to be protected for the existing and future benefit of the region and the state. This is acknowledged in council’s own documents and by the state government and, I suggest, would be agreed to by this government as well.

As the senior Labor member in Geelong representing working people they are my concerns because the bagmen in the whole sorry cash for councillors affair, according to the Whelan report, are the ALP’s Councillor Saunderson and Mr Costa’s Mr Baylin. They are my concern because, according to the Whelan report, the cash and cash cheques for the secret fund were delivered to the office of John Eren, a Labor MP. They are my concern because a senior Liberal in Geelong has stated that he was approached by Mr Costa to stand for council and was advised to see John Eren and his electorate officer, David Saunderson, about support. He was interviewed for the position by Mr Eren and Councillor Saunderson and then, to his eternal credit, ran a mile from it because it all smelled to high heaven.

Mr Costa consistently maintains that his intention was only to support the best candidates for council. Given the web of lies and deceit from donors and councillors over the matter, one has to question Mr Costa’s judgement. Lies and deceit are not good family values, Frank. If quality were the desired outcome of the exercise, as Mr Costa has stated, then he might reflect on whether he got good value for his money in the exercise. I note in the chamber some members from Western Australia, who would understand what has transpired at the Busselton council and other councils in the state of Western Australia. Mr Costa has publicly stated that he and other wealthy businessmen ought not to be obliged to declare political donations to political candidates. I remind Mr Costa that wealthy businessmen are not above the law. There is not one law for him and another for the rest of the Geelong community. This is not Queensland in the 1980s, and on that proposition he is out of step with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Australian parliament, the community of Geelong and the rest of Australia.

It is time for Mr Costa to step up to the plate. No more retreating to the Geelong footy club when the heat is on HomeTown. No more fluffy stories about family and community values and how he cleaned up the Queen Victoria Market. It is time for Mr Costa to front up to his own responsibility for the cash for councillors mess, because it is one of his own creation. It is time we called a spade a spade on the HomeTown fiasco. Mr Costa is not fronting a local consortium in HomeTown; it is a Melbourne based consortium comprising powerful businessmen who stand to make a lot of money if it proceeds—probably at the expense of other Geelong retail businesses and the long-term future of the region.

The Geelong community wants to hear how he is going to assist in cleaning up Geelong, so I invite Mr Costa to disclose once and for all the benefits to the Geelong community, and the full list of councillors and candidates who receive funding from the $50,000 slush fund he established. His failure to make that disclosure up to this point has done enormous damage to public confidence, the governance of the city and its reputation nationwide.

I have served the electors of Corio and working people in Geelong for over 14 years in this parliament, and I am happy to tell Mr Costa and the community why I raise these matters in this place and in the public arena. I raise them for the many small retail businesses fearful of their future if HomeTown proceeds in violation of the independent VCAT panel’s recommendations that it be dumped. I raise them for a community that is angry that local government planning processes are being rorted, and feels powerless to do anything about it. I raise them for the working family whose members have had their amenity and quiet enjoyment of their property destroyed by decisions of councillors behind closed doors in contravention of the council’s own planning policies. I raise them for the businessman who has come to me with his story of losing a city contract because he refused to grease the palm of some council officers, a matter I intend referring to the police. I raise it for the community groups and individuals whose legitimate rights, interests and concerns, in their view, have been severely compromised by the actions of some councillors and who have nowhere else to go.

The simple fact is that a culture has grown up inside and outside council in which planning and other council processes have been manipulated for the benefit of a few insiders but to the detriment of other businesses and the wider Geelong community. It is time to root out the cancer that is still eating away at the heart of the Geelong community. When the going gets tough, as other members know, there is always one wag in the community who succinctly sums it all up with typical Australian humour. At the local footy some time ago, one good working-class lad urged me to keep doing my job, to stay in the ring and to clean up this mess. After moralising about it for some time, he winked and grinned and said: ‘Hell, Gav, if we had’ve known the councillors were going so cheap we would have put a couple on the Bankcard. Maybe then we would’ve got the oval watered for the preseason.’ I did not have the heart to tell him Bankcard was no longer operative. It would have been funny if it were not so sad. (Time expired)

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a very interesting speech. I can only say that we would agree that corruption in councils, wherever it may be found, ought to be rooted out and not tolerated at all in our society. It certainly does not serve the constituencies of those particular areas. My task today is to speak on the government’s recently announced budget—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills—and I could not help but think back on when I first stood for the seat of Pearce in 1993—it seems like just yesterday. I reflected on the issues of concern to most people as I campaigned for my first election, and they included the sharp peaks and troughs in the economy, making business planning a nightmare, not to mention the challenge of balancing household budgets. Extraordinarily high interest rates sent many businesses bankrupt; inflation hovered around five per cent, eroding people’s savings; there were high levels of unemployment, especially amongst young people; and there was a $96 billion national debt.

As the Treasurer, the member for Higgins, presented his 10th budget night speech to Parliament, the outstanding economic management of the Howard government was clearly apparent. The profile of the Australian economy is very different today from what it was 10 years ago. Importantly, high unemployment is a thing of the past, with another two million Australians now in jobs. There has been a greater emphasis on supporting young people to undertake training and increased apprenticeships to maximise employability. Average wages have increased by 20 per cent in real terms and the erosion of people’s savings has been stemmed, with inflation dropping from five per cent per annum in 1996 to 2.5 per cent per annum now. Through prudent management and the retirement of the $96 billion debt inherited from the Keating Labor government, the Howard government is able to return to all Australians and taxpayers the dividends of saving $8.5 billion per annum in interest payments on that massive debt.

Careful management of the Commonwealth budget is critical as we face the challenges of an ageing population, increased healthcare costs, national security risks, global competition requiring greater commitment to education and training and, of course, climate change, which is of concern to all of us and particularly around the world. The budget provides a sensible balance of measures that will increase prosperity and ensure that the benefits are shared throughout our communities by looking after those who are on fixed incomes, who suffer from chronic illnesses or who carry out the vital work of caring for others in the community. It is a forward-looking budget that makes significant new provisions for the future.

One of the provisions is the Higher Education Endowment Fund, a perpetual fund to generate earnings for capital works and research facilities in our institutions of higher learning. Another is the $3.5 billion commitment to Realising our Potential, involving the improvement of literacy and numeracy skills at school, greater opportunities for vocational education and apprenticeships, and universities that are more responsive to student needs. At a personal level, everyone will benefit from tax cuts, particularly those on low incomes.

The government recognises that infrastructure development is critical to the community, and the Pearce electorate is the beneficiary of significant new funding initiatives. Some $22.3 billion has been committed to roads over the next five years, building on the considerable investment in past years. In Pearce we have recently benefited from previous funding commitments, with 22 kilometres of road completed from Sawyers Valley to the lakes on the Great Eastern Highway. This highway carries traffic from the east coast of Australia to the west coast and to the ports and airports in Western Australia. It carries many trucks. A four-lane road through one of the most dangerous sections of this highway, as it approaches the metropolitan area, makes driving safer for local residents and tourist traffic as well as making a faster and much more efficient route for trucking.

Every Australian benefits from medical research. In the last several years we have seen some important breakthroughs, including ulcer treatment, cervical cancer vaccination and the bionic ear. This does not happen without considerable support from government, and a further $485.8 million will be provided for grants to medical research facilities. I am sure we agree that that will be money well spent. Although Australian scientists are amongst some of the best in the world, we need to maintain funding so that the important work can continue and new work can be started.

Small business enterprises are a vital part of our commercial success, delivering goods and services to the community and jobs to many. In fact, it has been said that more than half the jobs in our country are provided by small businesses. It is increasingly challenging in a global world to remain profitable and to take advantage of both domestic opportunities and global markets. To keep our economy strong, the government must maintain sound economic policies which allow small and medium businesses to thrive. The government will further assist our small businesses through the tax system. In this respect, they will commit $540 million of tax relief over four years and reduce compliance costs.

Over the next 10 years the government has committed $1.4 billion to build global markets and improve productivity. At a personal tax level, 80 per cent of taxpayers will continue to pay a rate of tax of 30 per cent, with two per cent of taxpayers paying at the top rates. Importantly for those on average wages, the budget ensures $16 per week in additional taxation relief. These measures are in part made possible by the retirement of the $96 billion tax legacy left by Labor. With no interest payments to make, the dividends can all go to Australian taxpayers and the Australian community.

There is no more important issue for the government than to address climate change. Climate change can only be reversed with changes to the individual behaviour of each of us. It is not a responsibility that can be simply placed on the shoulders of government and industry. It requires each of us to modify our lifestyles to consider the best use of resources at an individual level. Governments can and should, of course, lead the way in areas of climate change and water security, and this government is leading with its $10 billion National Plan for Water Security and positive programs to encourage the installation of water tanks and other water devices in schools and community organisations.

The government recognised the magnitude of the challenges facing us in 1996 when it committed $2 billion to develop practical responses to counter and reduce climate change. It was the Howard government that established, in 1996, the Australian Greenhouse Office. For example, the government’s $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund is already driving the development of solar and clean coal technologies. Advancement in alternative and adaptive industries is critical to meeting the growing challenges of reducing greenhouse gas. Recently the government, if I recall correctly, gave $75 million to a new solar energy project which has the potential to replace baseload power. The growth and development of solar technology has moved on rapidly from where it was a few years ago, and I am sure that, from that investment of the government, we will see some great alternatives and adaptive industries develop.

But to build on those early initiatives, measures in this budget will encourage adaptation through the establishment of the Australian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation. CSIRO will be allocated $103 million for climate change and energy research. These are very important measures. They should not be underestimated. Learning to adapt to the new environment is going to be very important for all of us, so the establishment of the Australian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation is a very significant step forward.

One of the major measures outlined in the budget is the $8,000 rebate for individual homeowners to install solar panels. Tax deductibility will be provided for the costs of establishing carbon sinks. The solar panel legislation is really important, again, in getting individuals to change their behaviour and to look at ways they can save greenhouse gas emissions from an individual household point of view.

In addition, Australia will take some important steps forward not only domestically but also internationally. We are taking a responsible approach to regional issues affecting climate change, and we recently announced a $200 million contribution to work with the United States and Indonesia to stop the logging of old-growth forests. There is potential to manage 20 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions if we can stop the logging of old-growth forests. This is a very significant reduction and it can be done now; it can be done immediately.

In order to continue to deliver social benefits, to address the issue of climate change and to continue infrastructure development, the economy must be managed and it must be managed well. While it is true that there has been excellent business growth resulting in a higher revenue stream for the Commonwealth, the budget still had to be managed carefully. The government has retired debt. It has delivered another budget in surplus and the outlook for future growth is excellent, with inflation continuing to be low.

The Australian film industry has been an outstanding success, and it operates in a very competitive global market. I am pleased to see in this budget that the government will provide tax incentives for film production. Australian producers will be eligible for a 40 per cent refundable rebate on domestic feature films, and other domestic productions, including television series, documentaries and miniseries, will attract a 20 per cent refundable tax rebate.

It is important that we continue to encourage this industry, and this will give the film industry an important boost. I think few people are aware of the great success of some of our post-production services. I know some of the big Chinese blockbuster films have used post-production services in Queensland. We have a member from Queensland in the Committee at present, and I am sure Mr Thompson is aware of this great industry and the success of the Queensland post-production services. Very few people are aware of the value of the Australian film industry to this country, not to mention the opportunities for young people to learn new skills.

Apart from the 40 per cent refundable rebate on domestic feature films and the 20 per cent refundable tax rebate on television series, documentaries and miniseries, in certain cases international films with some production functions will benefit from a 15 per cent location rebate. There are so many opportunities within the film and television industry for young people to learn new skills and to find employment in this emerging industry. Of course one of the biggest investments that Australia can make is indeed in the skills development area. It is one of the key issues for Australia both now and into the future. Investing in education, training and skills is insurance for future prosperity and the fulfilment of the ambitions of our young people.

The budget will improve education through the $1.7 billion in additional funding for universities; the new $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund will ensure first-class institutes of learning in the future; and the $700 tuition voucher will benefit children who do not achieve national literacy and numeracy benchmarks. The bonuses for schools that make significant improvements in literacy and numeracy are a step welcomed by many parents. I have encountered parents, although not very often, who have not been aware that their children have got to their final years of primary school without learning the basic literacy and numeracy skills—and it does set these youngsters back a great deal. It is hard to imagine how that happens, but I think sometimes with the reporting system parents are often confused about where their children actually sit on the scale in terms of literacy and numeracy achievements. So I think these measures are very important for families and the individual children to ensure that they leave their primary school with the skills they need to go on to apprenticeships, training or higher education.

Teachers will be rewarded in this budget for undertaking professional training at newly created summer schools. Again, it is so important that teachers have the opportunity, constantly, to upgrade their skills and to pass on the benefits of that to the children that they teach.

Apprenticeships have been a strong focus of the Howard government since 1996, and the budget builds on previous budget measures with the establishment of three new Australian technical colleges, adding to the 25 already in place from previous budget commitments. We are hoping, of course, that the electorate of Pearce will benefit from one of these new TAFEs—not located in Pearce, unfortunately—as the university campus that our government funded a couple of years ago in the Midland area is a tremendous help to people living in the hinterland who otherwise would not have an opportunity to attend university. So I hope we will see a similar situation with the new TAFE and that it will come somewhere within that area so people living in the hinterland of Pearce will have access to this new training institution.

As a member representing a mixed urban, rural and regional seat I particularly welcome the support given by the government to rural and regional areas. It has been a terrible time for farmers, not so much in most of my electorate, although on the outer perimeters there certainly has been some hardship experienced—some of that caused, of course, by very serious fires but some by a dry season greatly reducing the grain crops, down in some cases to below 60 per cent of what they have previously been. So I welcome the further $688 million for farmers not just in Pearce but also in Western Australia living on the fringes of the eastern wheat belt, who have had a particularly difficult time. This money will go to providing exceptional circumstances funding, added to that which we have announced previously for drought assistance. There will be provision for upgrading and maintaining airstrips in rural areas, and this will provide a great additional means of transport for people living in quite remote areas.

We are also providing additional assistance for rural enterprises. This builds on the excellent work done through the area consultative committees—and I had the representatives of the Wheatbelt Area Consultative Committee in this place yesterday. It is a long journey for these people to make from the west to Canberra, but they were over here to try and make sure that they are working as effectively as they can to assess local business initiatives under the Regional Partnerships program. I really appreciate the work that David White, the chairman of the Wheatbelt Area Consultative Committee does. He does a good job and is ably assisted by his staff.

This support for local new enterprises opens up opportunities for employment in rural areas and delivers much needed additional revenue to many rural and regional communities. In some cases we have seen great innovations by farmers who have had difficult times. One of the projects funded under Regional Partnerships was, I believe, the woolshed in Williams—in one of the wheat belt towns. It has become quite an icon and it now has a history museum. It is very popular with the tourists as well as with locals. These kinds of projects, which employ local people and add to the revenue of local communities, are so important in regional and rural communities. I greatly welcome the continued expenditure on Regional Partnerships initiatives and assistance for rural enterprises. This is a responsible budget which, clearly, has an eye to the future, and I do support these bills.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills I want to take the opportunity to talk about productivity and the role trade unions could, and in some cases do, play in driving productivity gains, because there is nothing in the 2007 budget that will even slightly lift productivity in our workplaces. Last night the government guillotined an important debate on its Work Choices amendments, preventing most of the members from this side of the House from speaking. Obviously, the government is in full panic mode and, rather than face up to a full debate with all members participating, it chose the cowardly path and had its members slime into the chamber and close down the debate. This could have been a productive opportunity for all members to talk about how we might enhance opportunities to drive improvements in productivity. The Howard government has thrown in the towel on productivity and in typical fashion has reverted to the time-honoured Tory tradition of bagging trade unions and blaming the Labor states for its own shortcomings—lack of productivity gains included.

There are numerous acknowledged researchers and authors I could quote regarding the evidence about what is needed to drive productivity growth, not only in Australia but right across the globe. One in particular is Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer, who is Professor of Organisational Behaviour in the Graduate School of Management at Stanford University. He is also a visiting professor at Harvard Business School, the London Business School and the Singapore Management School. He has studied business and organisational behaviour for 30 years. He is the author of 11 books on that subject and has taught at executive seminars in 28 countries, including Australia. Professor Pfeffer cites evidence from a five-year detailed study of companies from a diverse range of industries, which indicates consistent productivity gains in the order of 40 per cent by implementing what is known as high-management, high-performance or high-commitment management practices. I will quote what he has to say about trade unions. He says:

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, having a unionized workforce is not antithetical to the implementation of so-called high commitment or high performance work practices—things such as investment in training, working in self-managed teams, longer term time horizons for the employment relationship and more job security, information sharing, and so forth. Rather, the empirical evidence suggests that unionization is positively associated with the implementation of high performance work practices and makes changing to a “high road” management approach more likely and easier. At worst, unions have no effect on the implementation on these practices, but there is almost no evidence to suggest they have a negative effect.

Professor Pfeffer continues:

Thus, ironically unionization may actually lead to higher persistence of high commitment work arrangements because unions act as a countervailing force to short-term pressures from the financial markets and other sources to abandon such arrangements.

In some instances the implementation of aspects of high performance work arrangements may actually be enshrined in the contractual language jointly negotiated between companies and their unions. Donald Petersen, the now-retired CEO of Ford Motor Company who, during the 1980s, implemented total quality management and transformed the culture of Ford, resulting in much better business results, credits his ability to persevere with his change program even when there were setbacks and reversals to the presence of the United Auto Workers Union and to the fact that aspects of the change were embedded in the formal contract.

Professor Pfeffer also highlights the positive impact that nurses unions have on patient care in the United States:

Studies summarized by a report from the Institute of Medicine show that having fewer nurses per patient—a short-term cost cutting tactic embraced by many hospital administrators and political figures but vigorously opposed by nurses’ unions—is associated with higher rates of patient infection, pneumonia, cardiac arrest, and death.   “…. given the clear and well-established relationship between staffing ratios and patient outcomes, nurse organizations were instrumental in preserving practices that the evidence shows produce better patient care.

And there are some other effects of collective bargaining that are particularly important in affecting health care outcomes.  Collective bargaining often institutionalizes and to some extent compels more power sharing and communication between administrators and front-line staff.

…                …              …

These results held after controlling statistically for many other factors that might be associated with unionization. The authors concluded that it was probably the increased power the unionization provided to nurses as well as the increased level of joint decision-making that led to the better patient care results. That same study found that much of the gain disappears when union-management relations are adversarial.

Clearly, many internationally renowned experts have proven that driving down workers’ wages and conditions actually has a negative effect on productivity, yet the Howard government persists in implementing its misguided ideology, with its born-to-rule syndrome, by introducing the most draconian workplace relations system this nation has ever witnessed. The Howard government way is the lazy way. Professor Pfeffer is just one of many internationally renowned experts on workplace relations who have undertaken extensive studies on how workplaces can get significant productivity increases by putting in place innovation, by innovative and cooperative mechanisms through collective bargaining and by involving trade unions in a non-adversarial manner.

With the Work Choices bill and amendments, the Howard government has again proven that it is trapped in a time warp of traditional conservative attitudes to trade unions. It is locked into the lazy, miserable, mean-spirited, conservative philosophy of the born-to-rule elite, and this has the potential to not only severely restrict our growth as a nation but continue the ‘us against them’ dog-eat-dog attitude to workplace relations.

If anyone needs any further proof of this government’s misguided and distorted view of the world, they need look no further than its attitude to Australian trade unions. In the last 12 months, government spokespeople have used the term ‘union bosses’ in a derogatory manner on no fewer than 130 occasions in this parliament. This clearly demonstrates a level of paranoia unprecedented in Australian political history. To borrow a phrase from the Fawlty Towers series, there would be enough material on paranoia in those opposite to fully occupy a three-week psychiatric convention.

The Australian trade union movement has a proud and unprecedented track record of achievement in defending the wellbeing of working Australians. In fact, the Australian trade unions have done far more for Australia’s working families than any conservative government has ever done in our entire history. I am extremely proud of my involvement in and membership of Australia’s trade union movement.

Labor have cautiously welcomed the tax cuts announced in the 2007 budget, but we point out that they were delivered as a result of the Howard government’s status as the highest taxing federal government in Australia’s history. With access to a budget surplus in excess of $15 billion, the Treasurer has finally provided much needed relief for Australia’s low- to middle-income earners. The tax cuts for low- to middle-income earners are most welcome but long overdue. However, the Treasurer’s 12th budget reflects a panic-stricken government desperately trying to bribe its way back into power at the elections later this year. This was a vintage Costello budget containing the usual array of one-off payments specifically targeted and designed to buy votes. But, as always, the value of these payments will be quickly eroded over the coming year by higher prices. The Howard government’s tax take has dramatically increased by almost 40 per cent since the introduction of the GST, resulting in voters now being bribed with their own money.

The announcement of a $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund is also most welcome, especially after the massive cuts in higher education that the Howard government has presided over during its first terms in office. Labor welcome many of the new initiatives—including the solar energy initiatives, the increase in special and intermediate rate war veteran entitlements—but we point out that these are a direct steal from Labor policies that opposition leader Kevin Rudd had already announced.

I want to talk about dental care. There were 6,564 patients from central Victoria who were waiting for public dental treatment in the year 2005-06, with some patients waiting over three years. These are the statistics that apply to all public dental clinics that service the Bendigo federal electorate. State governments have increased spending on public dental services, but the demand has consistently increased since 1996, when the Howard government abolished the former federal Labor government’s Commonwealth dental plan. Despite these appalling figures, the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, has constantly said that the Howard government will not reintroduce a Commonwealth dental scheme. The increase for funding for dental care announced in the budget only provides for people with chronic illnesses as a result of poor dental health.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd has committed Labor to re-establishing a Commonwealth dental scheme similar to the Hawke-Keating government scheme abolished by the Howard government in 1996. Our 2004 election commitment for establishing a Commonwealth dental program was costed at around $300 million over four years. Now with this new commitment it is expected to cost well in excess of the 2004 figure and will target low-income and working Australians by cooperating with the state governments.

Instead of following Labor’s lead in re-establishing this fund, the Howard government has chosen only to treat those who have chronic illnesses as a result of their dental problems. Labor’s approach will be to treat people’s dental problems before they suffer chronic illnesses. Health minister Tony Abbott continues to blame the state governments by deliberately stating that the states have reduced expenditure on dental services, when the truth is that they have actually increased expenditure from $327 million per year in 2004 to $503 million in 2005.Victoria spends the second highest amount on public dental services of all Australian states, running a close second to Queensland.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report released in March 2007 by health minister Tony Abbott shows that one in five Australians are forgoing recommended dental treatment because they are unable to afford it. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report also shows the government’s failure to ensure that all Australians have access to high-quality dental care. The report stated that 20.6 per cent of the Australian population aged 15 years or more had forgone recommended dental treatment due to the cost in the last 12 months. The report notes that this indicates the likelihood of ongoing dental damage caused by untreated disease due to financial barriers to accessing dental care. Over 40 per cent of the Australian population aged 15 or over had not visited a dentist in the last 12 months, 11.8 per cent of Australian adults over 15 had not visited a dentist within the last five years and 17.4 per cent of the Australian population aged 15 or more had avoided certain foods because of problems with their teeth during the last 12 months.

Uninsured people are 1.6 times more likely to have untreated dental decay than insured people and they are three times more likely to have not visited their dentist in the last five years. Among those in the 25 to 34 age group the proportion with dental insurance reduced by 10 percentage points between 1987-88 and 2004-06, and for adults in the 35 to 44 age group coverage has reduced by eight percentage points.

I will go through the actual list of waiting times for dental clinic services in the electorate of Bendigo. For example, in Bendigo in the year 2005 there were 1,946 people waiting up to three years for general care and there were 413 people waiting for denture care. In Hepburn-Creswick, which services my electorate, there were 224 people waiting for general care and 59 for denture care. In the Daylesford area there were 640 people waiting for general care and 73 waiting for denture care. In Maryborough 517 people have been waiting up to three years for general care and 157 for dentures. Of course in Sunbury, which services the Kyneton part of my electorate, there were 2,316 people waiting up to three years for general care and 219 waiting for dentures.

The 2007 budget so-called new assistance package for child care was in fact announced prior to the 2004 election, and many Australian families have been struggling while being forced to wait for the approach of yet another federal election for this promise to be delivered.

New data released by the Department of Health and Ageing shows health costs continue to rise dramatically under the Howard government, and the average out-of-pocket cost of a visit to a GP has increased by 12 per cent since the December quarter last year, from $16.98 to $18.99. The average cost of a visit to a specialist has increased by 20 per cent, from $33.56 to $40.10, and the average cost of obstetric services has increased by a massive 27.5 per cent, from $62.34 to $79.51. The cost of visiting the doctor has more than doubled during the life of the Howard government, as a graph that I have seen recently illustrated. The Howard government is failing to control spiralling health costs, and with the cost of living rising, working families are getting hit for six from every direction.

There are some good measures in this budget, which I have acknowledged, but we do see it as a wasted opportunity to deal with things like how we go about increasing productivity and a whole range of other measures. This budget could have presented a great opportunity to do something very worthwhile for this nation but, unfortunately, the government has chosen to play the political game and introduce a budget which is designed to do nothing more than try and get it re-elected. I think it should be condemned for that.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition’s first budget, handed down on the evening of 20 August 1996, heralded the start of a significant change in Australia’s economic prosperity. It received headlines as the fair go budget, because measures were taken that were mindful of the tough choices that come with economic responsibility, and with experience that has brought a finely honed sense of social awareness.

Now, almost 11 years later, and notwithstanding a very severe drought—a drought which has caused production to fall by about 20 per cent in the rural sector—the Australian economy continues to grow. It continues to grow in a low inflationary environment and it produces jobs. The unemployment rate is at the lowest level we have seen in 31 years. There have been many other challenges to this economy over the last 11 years. We have seen the Asian financial crisis, the United States recession, September 11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorist attacks in Bali, but the Australian economy has grown continuously right throughout that period.

One of the reasons it has grown continuously is that the Howard government attended to the key fundamentals of economic management in this country: balancing the budget, repaying $96 billion of Labor debt, funding our superannuation liabilities, broadening the indirect tax base, cutting the company tax rate, halving the capital gains tax rate, cutting income taxes in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007—with more tax cuts planned for 2008—and making sure that we had an independent central bank with an inflation target. All of that work is producing the results of the Australian economy today.

The Labor Party would have you believe that it is in favour of the results—it just opposed all the work that it took to get us there. Australians need to know this: you do not get the results without putting in the effort. The Australian Labor Party cannot come along after 11 years of opposing the effort and try to claim that it is all the result of the mining boom. The Treasurer’s 12th budget has received warm praise from many sectors because it is a budget that benefits all Australians. It is a plan that will further strengthen our economy and address the challenges that we face as a nation.

The Howard government’s plan includes initiatives in several policy areas. These include cutting tax for the fifth consecutive year. From 1 July, all Australians will benefit from $31.5 billion in tax cuts. The tax threshold of 30 per cent will move to $30,000 from 1 July. The tax threshold of 40 per cent will move to $80,000 and the tax threshold of 45 per cent will move to $180,000 from 1 July 2008. Improving literacy and numeracy standards and establishing the $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund for education and infrastructure and research facilities has been widely welcomed.

Eligible apprentices will be provided with a $500 voucher for course fees and a $1,000 tax-exempt payment to help them with their living costs. We have doubled the superannuation contribution for eligible low-income earners with a one-off payment for contributions made in 2005-06. There will be $200 million for additional community water grants, which have already saved 27,500 megalitres, and $201 million to install rainwater tanks in schools and community group facilities.

For older Australians, there will be no tax on incomes up to $25,867 for singles or up to $43,360 for couples who are eligible for the senior Australian tax offset and a one-off $500 bonus to senior concession cardholders or those receiving the utilities allowance. Both eligible members of a couple will receive this bonus. There will be a one-off $1,000 bonus for those receiving the carers payment and a one-off $600 bonus for those receiving the carers allowance to recognise their dedication in helping those who suffer from a disability.

We have provided better access to hearing services for 350,000 hearing impaired Australians through a $70.7 million investment, and we have provided additional community care packages to assist older Australians who want to continue living at home, as well as more community based respite care and $377.6 million to increase access to dental services for 200,000 patients. We are also building a new school of dentistry at Charles Sturt University.

Australia has a proud military history and we owe those who have served our nation an ongoing debt of gratitude. Initiatives for our veterans and their families include increasing payments to veterans with a disability on the special rate pension by $50 a fortnight and to those on the intermediate rate pension by $25 a fortnight from July 2007. We have increased access to support services for eligible veterans when they leave hospital. We have provided community pharmacies that will, after a referral from a GP, provide veterans with a written medication management plan and additional medication management strategies. We have provided extra assistance for ex-service organisations and their volunteers to further support veterans.

We have doubled the funeral benefit paid under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 from $1,000 to $2,000 and an extra three months for war widows and widowers to claim a war widow/widowers pension. We have provided additional funds to help complete the redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial.

Small business—often called the engine room of our economy—will also benefit, with initiatives such as cutting taxes for small business and further reducing compliance costs. From 1 July 2007, businesses with a turnover of less than $75,000 will not need to register for the GST. We have provided three new Australian technical colleges, in addition to the 25 that are already being built, and we have assisted small business to utilise new technology in their workplaces.

It is the social concerns of our Australian communities that are very close to many members in this place, and it gives me great pride to note the continuing outstanding performance of the Australian economy. I say this because without a strong economy no government can do very much for those of its citizens who are in need of social welfare support and special assistance. When an economy is weak and in decline, it is those at the lowest levels of our society who suffer the most. They have no buffer against adversity and are the most vulnerable of our citizens. Good economic policy and good social policy go hand in hand, but good economic policy leads the way and dictates the kind and quality of social welfare we can provide for our most vulnerable Australians.

Speaking about our most vulnerable Australians, there are two issues that have been of concern to me for some time. One is the provision of supported accommodation for those with a disability and the other matter is the provision of services and support for Indigenous Australians. I would like to take the time available to me to bring to the attention of this House the plight of families with adult children with disabilities. As carers and their children age, these families are becoming more concerned that, while governments provide some respite accommodation from time to time, there is little planning on the horizon for long-term supported care accommodation for adult children—not just for the present time but especially for future years when the carers themselves will no longer be around to support them.

I recently met with a group of parents that are so concerned that they have started up the Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Action Group. This group was born out of a home and community care planning day back in 2005. One of the issues most raised on this day was the lack of supported accommodation for adult people with intellectual disabilities. The group continued to meet throughout 2006 and elected a committee. In December 2006 the Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Action Group became an incorporated association, with Mrs Judy Foord as president and Mrs Kate Tye as secretary. The association has three main objectives: to obtain supported accommodation for family members located in their own local area of Sutherland Shire, to obtain accommodation that offers a tiered layer of continuous care and to create a register of need.

Earlier this year, in March, the group held their first public meeting. The meeting of parents and carers was overwhelming. There was standing room only for the 100 people attending, with 71 people signing the register of need for supported accommodation. I am advised that this was just the tip of the iceberg, as those who were able to attend took away registration forms for friends and family who were unable to be there. At the meeting there were many stories from carers which continued to highlight the absolute need for supported adult accommodation. The speakers told of how caring is virtually a lifelong career and is a radical departure from the normal experience of their families and friends, where dependent children develop into independent adults.

The plight of these carers is best described with their real stories, of which I extract one, from a letter from a devoted mother in my electorate:

People sometimes think carer equals no full time job, equals what a life! Well imagine all you’d do for a very young child, dressing them, washing them and cleaning up after accidents. Then imagine doing that for a young adult, who can’t learn to do more than they do now. Imagine never being able to go anywhere alone—not even to see a friend for a chat and a cup of coffee without your “child”. Imagine having to leave hospital against medical advice after a minor operation because your “child” was terrified to spend the night without you. Imagine your weekends filled only by walking around shopping centres because that’s all she wants to do. Imagine lying awake every night and worrying about what will happen to her. Not quite a rosy picture.

We do have respite, but only one day a month because that’s all she can cope with, and she makes herself sick with worry two weeks before it. Although I must admit she usually says she has a good time.

And now, four years ago, I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. My caring time is finite. It will be a most difficult task to settle my “child” into a group-home or similar accommodation. It must be done while I am here and able to help her cope. I have been told that the only way to get accommodation is to abandon her at a police station. I can’t do that. She would retreat from reality forever. She is my problem and I will not leave her unresolved.

What do we want? Peace of mind, I think, for both of us. For me, not having to abandon her or to be at death’s door and still not know if she will have somewhere to live. For her, relief from the terror of ‘if something happens to mum where will I go?’ She knows she can’t manage alone. Vague nebulous promises are not enough.

We as parliamentarians and our state colleagues need to take this issue up and ensure that planning is put in place for the future. I for one have given them my support and I have assured them that I will help them to take their message to the relevant ministers to help them realise their objectives. This year the government’s commitment to people with disabilities includes $394.3 million as a one-off lump sum payment to carers, $1,000 to be paid to those who currently receive the carers payment and $600 for those who are on a carers allowance.

But, for the 18,000 Australians who have a disability and are currently working in supported employment, the government will also commit $116 million over the next four years in support of the 220 disability business services which provide supported employment for adult people with more severe and profound disabilities. A further $12.2 million over four years has been provided for the National Disability Advocacy Program to allow families to have increased access to disability advocacy and support services.

As many families in my electorate will be aware, the current Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement, the CSTDA, will expire on 30 June this year and negotiations for the next agreement are in progress. However, families with people who have a disability should be aware that the Australian government are concerned that, despite the provisions in the current CSTDA for accountability, transparency and equality, we are unable to ascertain that the outcomes delivered by the states for people with disabilities have actually improved.

In February 2007, the Australian government made a multilateral offer to the states and territories that included the continuation of the base funding and unmet need funding as provided in the current agreement, plus continued funding for the older carers respite bilateral and an indexation at wage cost index 2—that is, $400 million for the next agreement. This offer amounts to $3.275 billion over the next five years of the new CSTD agreement and requires that the states and territories clearly demonstrate improvements in four priority areas. These are: (1) the measurement of unmet need by improving data collection and reporting on the level of demand for services; (2) implementing quality assurance measures by an accredited third party; (3) ensuring transparency and accountability through high-level outcomes and measures as part of a performance framework guided by the Australian National Audit Office’s report Administration of the CSTDA; and (4) by demonstrating improved access for Indigenous Australians to mainstream disability services.

It is appropriate that the Australian government is convinced that our fellow Australians with disabilities and their families are receiving the level and quality of services that meet their needs. However, I note that at a meeting of ministers on 3 April this year, the Australian government again put the multilateral offer previously made in February and invited the state and territory ministers to put forward a plan to provide extra supported accommodation and respite care services so that the Australian government could consider those plans on a dollar for dollar basis. This must also include new money committed by the states and territories. Additional funding from the Australian government is conditional upon the states and territories agreeing to hard targets for new supported disability accommodation places and respite services. These services clearly lie within the responsibility of the states and territories and it is appropriate that, before the Australian government commits further funding, there is a clear commitment in return. To date, no plans have been received from any state or territory minister, and I understand that the Australian government has again written to the state and territory ministers requesting their response by 8 June—which I note is next week.

People with disabilities have a right to be valued and to feel valued by others in the wider Australian community. It is only right that they are able to access safe and permanent accommodation in their own local areas. It is only right that they are able to participate in the life of their own community, and it is only right that they have dignity and respect and are able to live as their peers live—away from their own family but close by and very much connected to the fibre of family, friends and communities.

While the CSTDA ministers are addressing this issue of people with disabilities, I remind them that the long-term caring supported accommodation for adult people with disabilities is a driving, urgent need, not only in my electorate of Hughes but also for people across Australia. Governments can no longer ignore the weight that is placed on the families of people with disabilities, most especially the mothers. For many mothers, this is a burden that never ends, and it is up to governments to provide the appropriate safe, caring accommodation that their loved ones deserve. I commend and support the Minister for Family and Community Services on his efforts in this regard.

The Australian government is also committed to reducing Indigenous disadvantage and has increased funding on Indigenous specific programs every year since the Howard government was elected in 1996. Spending on Indigenous programs in 2007-08 will reach almost $3.5 billion, 42 per cent more in real terms than Labor spent in the last year of the Keating government. Most of this expenditure is directed towards key practical measures in health, education, housing and employment. The Howard government is spending two and a half times more in real terms than Labor did on Indigenous specific health programs. Access to the Medical Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by Indigenous people has increased dramatically.

Last year, the government committed $130 million to law and order programs to protect the safety of Indigenous men, women and children and in this year’s budget we are providing over $800 million for education, housing and health initiatives. This includes almost $300 million over three years in additional funding to contribute to a $1.6 billion effort to tackle overcrowding in Indigenous communities. There are no easy solutions, but we are making progress. Some of these achievements include that death rates from respiratory illnesses have declined by half, death from infections and parasites have decreased by two-thirds and life expectancy is slowly improving. More Indigenous students are achieving the writing and reading benchmarks, secondary school attendance has increased and retention to year 12 has improved by 30 per cent since 1996. The number of Indigenous students undertaking bachelor degrees has increased by 14 per cent since 2001, the number undertaking vocational training has almost doubled since 1996 and Indigenous employment grew by 22 per cent between 1996 and 2001, compared to non-Indigenous employment growth of nine per cent.

These are very positive achievements, but the government realise there is a long way to go. This is why we are increasing our investment in this area. We are also introducing other reforms to encourage economic development by amending the Northern Territory land rights act. We are also making the Indigenous Work for the Dole program produce better job outcomes—and we abolished ATSIC, which for 10 years stood in the way of progress of Indigenous affairs.

Responsibility for health and education rests with the states, but we are not passing the buck and we are working with them through joint agreements and cooperation. It is going to take a long time to achieve true equity for our Indigenous Australians, but we are taking some real, practical measures towards that goal, all of which depend on the disciplined management of the Australian economy. Managing Australia’s $1.1 trillion economy does require discipline, experience and vision, which this government has consistently delivered. We will continue to take the necessary and often difficult decisions in Australia’s long-term interest so that we can lock in prosperity and build security and opportunity for all Australians, despite the continued opposition from those on the other side of the House. I commend these budget bills to the House.

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

We are six months from a general election. The Australian Labor Party will go to the polls campaigning on the theme that the Howard government has failed the future test. This will be an easy case to make. Where has this exhausted government failed the future test? The government of Australia is about the welfare of the Australian people and the future of our nation. It is not about a career for leading ministers or the Prime Minister’s desire for waterfront living in Sydney. This government, after 11 years, is now principally concerned with its own survival. It has reached this point because it has stopped being concerned about Australia’s future.

The House knows of my passion for electoral fairness. It knows also that this government is currently involved in an attempt to rob many scores of thousands of Australians of their right to vote at the coming elections. For generations it has been the practice to call an election and then close the electoral roll a week or so later. These extra days always witness many tens of thousands of Australians, mainly young Australians, rushing to get onto the roll so they can vote. Voting is both a duty and a right in Australia, and so it should be. Legislation introduced by this worn-out government will oblige the Australian Electoral Commission to close the rolls as soon as the election writs are issued. A government which is afraid of the future will effectively disenfranchise many thousands of young Australians because it knows young Australians generally vote for future-oriented policies, which means a vote against the Howard government.

There is a difference between the government’s claimed need for huge sums of money to be spent on advertising as communication in the lead-up to the federal election and the actually budgeted amounts of advertising, as outlined in Senate estimates, for the Australian Electoral Commission. There is a marked contrast between the AEC expenditure and the vast amounts of money that the federal government is spending in other areas. The ongoing advertising budget for the Australian Electoral Commission was put at $18.2 million over five years. Of that, $12 million had been allocated specifically to increase ‘awareness’, a key word in so many of the government’s spurious claims about the purposes of its advertising. These were for changes in electoral enrolment requirements, the most significant changes to electoral laws in a generation. This is a retrograde initiative of this government which will affect many hundreds of thousands of Australian voters.

For these changes, to which we on this side are implacably opposed, the government has provided $12 million for advertising. So the government has spent $850 million of taxpayers’ money since the last election on government advertising—to ram down our throat its inaction dressed up as action, its abhorrent policies such as Work Choices—but has a paltry few million to advise Australians about major changes to the electoral laws, and that is being funded out of the normal AEC budget.

The next area in which I believe this House understands the Howard government has failed the future test concerns its foreign aid tricks. Australia is a very wealthy country. It will get wealthier. We can afford to be honest in our public declarations concerning foreign aid. However, this government slowly filches about a third of our $3 billion annual aid package and uses it to pay all sorts of bills here in Australia. Many of these bills involve the most disgraceful parts of government policies, like payments to Nauru for its shameful collusion in keeping people incarcerated there under its so-called asylum policy, and $600 million to settle the unpaid debt of Saddam’s Iraq—$600 million that any responsible government would never have lent knowing it would not be repaid.

I have spoken many times in this House about the payments irresponsibly made and insured by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. Basically, they are just a subsidy to the National Party. Australia irresponsibly sells vast amounts of wheat via the Australian Wheat Board to various countries, including Saddamite Iraq—and I am not talking about bribes that we allowed to take place via the Australian Wheat Board; I am talking about the up-front giving to these regimes of vast amounts of produce like wheat and then having the Australian taxpayer fund them via the EFIC arrangement. The $600 million that we let the Iraqis off was requested by the international conference for the current government of Iraq, but it was accumulated during the period of Saddamite rule in Iraq. What kind of a government would lend or give Iraq vast amounts of wheat and allow the Australian taxpayer to effectively pay for it, knowing that that hard currency would be used by that regime and other regimes that we give this wheat to as a subsidy to the National Party for hard currency purposes that none of us approve of?

The facts surrounding these abuses of government procedures in the foreign aid budget have been brought to our attention by an NGO, Aid/Watch. It was that group that brought the Treasurer’s brother, Mr Tim Costello, on to public radio to denounce the tax office’s attack on the charitable status of Aid/Watch. Who told the ATO to do this? The Howard government.

My next example of this government’s failing the future test concerns the Department of Defence. What in heavens name is going on there? Barely a month has gone past since 2004 without some story about mismanagement involving this department. At a time when Australia has its biggest military and naval deployments abroad in 40 years, we are afflicted with bungling on a grand scale. The future disposition of our armed forces will not lessen with the coming decade; it will increase. We have many serious complicating factors facing us in the South Pacific and our responsibilities under the ANZUS alliance. That the Australian Defence Force needs well trained and funded forces that we plan for conscientiously in the future is apparent to all of us. Yet, despite the extra $1.8 billion in Defence funding, we are still placing significant budgetary constraints on our forward-planning capabilities. As ASPI pointed out in its budget brief this year, there is a very disconcerting ‘absence of funds to cover all additional personnel and operating costs of new equipment to be delivered in the upcoming years.’ This includes the 737 early warning aircraft, the armed reconnaissance helicopters and air-to-air refuelling aircraft, which are scheduled to be delivered in 2009—delays in projects that will also lead to a delay in deferral in funding. We cannot keep putting projects off.

The Minister for Defence, Dr Nelson, must take responsibility to ensure that Defence projects are completed on budget and on time. Simply shuffling money further down the track to avoid election scrutiny is not good enough. As the ASPI report on the Defence budget states, ‘what makes this year easier inevitably makes future years harder.’ The professional men and women of the ADF deserve more. Australia needs more personnel to help defend this country—we do not dispute that. ASPI states that over the last three years to 2005-06, the strength of the permanent ADF fell by 929 people at a time when the goal was to increase the size of the force by a similar amount. For this reason the increase by 325 in the last year is good news, but simply engaging in expensive television advertising is not enough to increase defence recruitment.

My deployment during the RIMPAC 2006 exercise on HMAS Manoora has made me keenly mindful of the need to nurture not just young recruits but existing personnel. With an election on the horizon, the government has ignored the holistic planning of the ADF. The assessment by ASPI of the current cycle of investment being piecemeal is a view I share. It fails to deliver long-term capability that we need to take consideration of.

A major problem seems to be in Defence procurement with the Seasprite helicopters—an absolute fiasco. Eleven wasted years under this government have seen the Australian Navy not having a helicopter that it can use with confidence on its ships. We are told that the government is concerned with safety and technical matters associated with this flying lemon. Here is a piece of free advice: you settle these matters before you buy. A 10-year-old buying a bike would make sure that it worked to his satisfaction before he handed over his $100. This level of common sense eludes the drones squatting on the front bench who have been representing us in Defence. With this black hole project, minister after minister, from McLachlan to Reith to Hill to Nelson, have failed to take responsibility to ensure the project was completed, deployable and on time.

A lack of planning means the government’s automatic position is to throw money at projects. The Minister for Defence has recently announced his intention to spend an extra $100 million on the Seasprite project, which has already had a billion dollars spent on it. With our Sea Kings temporarily grounded, this effectively means that 20 key helicopters in the Australian Navy used to project power are completely out of commission. It is now crystal clear that we have lost more soldiers in helicopter accidents in this term of parliament than from enemy fire. The Howard government is not interested in the future or doing a proper job in Defence and, in my view, is just dawdling along, yawning, signing cheques for yet more dud equipment. I am not surprised: duds attract duds—more Hill, McLachlan, Reith et cetera. What would you expect under their ministries?

My fourth point about future test concerns is our economic policy regarding China. China is a great business partner. The government of China is working hard to lift the mass of people from poverty; it is having some success. The Chinese government, though, in its currency is cheating economically. In a wider world of international economics, currency is freely convertible and the international market sets the price of a nation’s currency. This is refused by the Chinese government. They do this because they seriously undervalue the yuan, enabling China to unfairly compete in the sale of industrial goods. I can only agree with Mr Fred Bergsten, the director of the Institute for International Economics, who said in a recent report:

China is …overtly exporting unemployment to other countries and apparently sees its currency undervaluation as an off-budget export and job subsidy that … has avoided effective international sanction.

This unfair behaviour has enabled China to accumulate $1.2 trillion in foreign currency reserves. This rate of accumulation cannot continue indefinitely.

It is long past the time that Australia should have joined the US in putting sustained pressure on the Chinese government to join the real economic world. The Chinese resist this pressure because it is a cheap way for them to make money. But it is only a short-term palliative for their problems. The current Shanghai Stock Exchange resembles Wall Street in 1924. All sorts of activities, financially unsecured and counting on the profits of next week to pay for the debts of this week, are raging. Australia is a major factor in the Chinese economy. We supply them with many resources. This economic windfall for Australia is being steadily undermined by the disconnect emerging between the value of the Chinese currency on paper and its real value in the real world. The gap is about 20 per cent.

A 20 per cent collapse in the Shanghai Stock Exchange would be a terrible blow to Australia. Innumerable Chinese firms trading with Australia would crash. This would have a knock-on effect in Australia. All this is growing like a bubble in front of us because of the false value given to the Chinese currency by its government. There should be some revaluation but, of course, we have not heard a peep about this out of our own Treasurer. The Howard government like to pretend they are brilliant economic managers. They are not. Our current marvellous economic good fortune is based essentially on cashing Chinese cheques given for resource purchases. These cheques will slow very fast when the inevitable correction occurs in China.

In evaluating the political effect of this budget, in my view, ever since the Prime Minister became leader of the government he has had an incredible run of luck. Despite his failure as opposition leader against Bob Hawke, he regained the leadership after Andrew Peacock, John Hewson and the current Minister for Foreign Affairs proved to be duds. He did so just at the point when the public mood for change, after 13 years of a Labor government, emerged. Even then, he was only able to win by pledging to ‘never, ever’ bring in the GST, which voters had rejected in 1993, and promising a more ‘relaxed and comfortable’ Australia. Never were more insincere promises made by a major party leader—although Malcolm Fraser’s promise to retain Medibank comes close. The Liberals always fully intended to bring in the GST, and pursuing a divisive policy of class warfare against working people and the millions of Australians who are represented by unions was always their plan. This guaranteed to make Australians anything but relaxed and comfortable.

The PM’s luck continued in 1998 when Labor polled 51 per cent of the two-party vote but failed to get the swings in the crucial marginal seats. This was the worst result for a first-term government since the Great Depression, but the PM scraped home. The voters once again rejected the GST but the PM was able to get a spurious mandate and do his rotten deal with Meg Lees to get the GST through the Senate. It was the Democrats who took the blame for this and who are rightly headed for total political oblivion.

In 2001 the PM’s luck held again. I have no doubt that, had it not been for the September 11 attacks and the Tampa affair, the honourable member for Brand would easily have won the election and become a great Australian Labor Prime Minister. It must irk the government that its electoral bacon was saved by Osama bin Laden and by the shameful manipulation of xenophobic sentiment involved in the Tampa affair. This was on top of the disgraceful dishonesty of the ‘children overboard’ affair.

After the honourable member for Brand’s retirement from the Labor leadership, the PM had a further run of luck, facing an opposition led by two successive leaders who failed to win the support of the Australian people. Underlying this was the continued strength of the Australian economy, the product in part of the great economic reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments and, in part, of the resources boom fuelled by a demand for resources from China. The PM and the Treasurer cannot claim credit for either of these. Their sole contribution to the Australian reform agenda has been the GST, whose benefits are far from clear and are probably minimal.

At the 2004 election the PM achieved his ultimate ambition: winning control of the Senate and getting the numbers to pass his industrial relations legislation, the so-called Work Choices, the policy that dare not speak its name. Obviously no-one told the Prime Minister to be careful what he wishes for, since he might not like what he gets. Now the government’s luck has finally run out. The IR legislation has stripped away the Prime Minister’s moderate facade and exposed him as a lifelong class warrior and champion of social division. The Australian people have rejected the IR legislation from the start, and that is why the coalition is now 10 points behind in the polls.

It is very clear to me that many of the people described as ‘Howard’s battlers’ are working people who, with their overtime and allowances, were able to earn extra income to pay their mortgages. They are now being very solidly confronted with the fact that the Howard government is saying to them: ‘Okay, you were our supporters. Now take a $20,000 wage cut overall from an $80,000 salary.’ In Western Sydney and in regional Queensland many people who previously supported the Howard government understand the terrible effect of this Work Choices legislation and have made their decision not to risk voting for the coalition. I think the opinion polls are consistent and they will stay consistent, probably going down and becoming a bit more moderate before the next election.

I have never understood the chorus of commentators who have praised the Prime Minister as an infallible political genius. His judgement of the mood of the Australian people has frequently been poor: on the GST, on Pauline Hanson and now—hopefully fatally—on industrial relations. He has appointed a series of dud cabinet ministers: John Moore, who was asleep at the wheel on defence; Peter Reith and his gulf mercenaries on IR; Senators Patterson and Vanstone. That is not to start on the National Party and the Australian Wheat Board’s scandalous funding of the tyrant Saddam Hussein with a huge amount of cash that that regime had at its discretion—hard currency to buy weapons and to pay for suicide bombers. It was an absolute scandal that a country like Australia paid for that.

In 1995, when the public was tired of the Labor government, the honourable member for Bennelong was able to persuade the Australian people that he had changed from his divisive and confrontational old self and that he was a new John Howard. This was a con, and the con has now been exposed for all to see. There was no new John Howard at all, just the same old ideologically obsessed Prime Minister of the 1970s, aided by a great deal of cunning and trickiness. I remember it was Senator Brandis, who is now a minister, who said it was rodent-like cunning that informed the Prime Minister’s political views.

Now the wheel has turned full circle. Now it is Labor who can offer the Australian people a real leader, committed to a new style of politics and a new standard of honesty. Since December last year the Leader of the Opposition has won the trust and admiration of the electorate. No rabbit in the hat, no throwaway budget—

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on point of order. There is an onus on all members of parliament to be accurate in what they say to the parliament.

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

No.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe he has misrepresented Senator Brandis.

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

There are no rules of relevance. The member will resume his seat or he will be warned.

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

The member will be pleased to know that I am concluding. He will not have to endure the political truths for too much longer. Since December last year, the Leader of the Opposition has won the trust and admiration of the electorate—and no rabbit in the hat, no throwaway budget, no tax bribes and no interest rate scares can change that. Luck can get you only so far in politics. The government’s luck has now run out, and it has nothing else to offer. As I said, the act of governing Australia is not about endlessly providing this government with the sinecures of office and the PM with a Sydney waterfront mansion. He does not believe in the issues that I have outlined concerning Australia’s future, but surely there are some members of this collapsing government who can see the problems and who are finally willing to put Australia’s future first. They had better act quickly.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills. This budget, which looks to be little different from many others we have seen, has sunk very quickly without a trace There were big build-ups in the media in the months and weeks leading up to budget night. Leaks were being carefully provided—and, of course, those leaks were not pursued by the police—to the media, which then covered them. The budget came but has now slipped away from the public memory. It is no wonder that the government look increasingly bewildered. But there is also a sense of arrogance in that bewilderment. It is as if the government are expecting the people of Australia to roundly congratulate them on the budget. This is the kind of hubris that starts to infect long-term governments. You know that they have occupied the Treasury bench for too long when their expectation is that a cynical exercise of giving out money will be roundly applauded by the public.

I am of a view—and it applies to all governments, regardless of their political persuasion—that the public have got to the point where they expect budgets to provide these sorts of give-aways because, unfortunately, they have an expectation of us as politicians to pursue the lowest common denominator in setting a future agenda through budgets. The budget did not capture the imagination of the public because they saw it within that framework. I was certainly encouraged by the Leader of the Opposition’s reply to the budget, in which he attempted to rebuild a view that a budget should be about setting out an agenda for the future that states what the priorities are and how the spending commitments within that budget should reflect those long-term commitments.

Listening to the Treasurer on budget night, I was particularly astounded—even more so than in the previous two years that I have been in this place and heard budget speeches given by the Treasurer—at how his speech was like a shopping list. It lacked a story about his agenda and an explanation as to why it had those priorities. I would have thought that the Treasurer, in his big announcement about the Higher Education Endowment Fund, would have discussed why the fund was such a significant investment for the long-term future of our country; why the government, after 11 years, decided that investing in public education was a worthwhile thing to do or why education had some contribution to make to the future prosperity of the nation—but none of that was in his speech. Indeed, it was almost like saying: ‘I’ve got this list of people to pay off with a bit of a sweetener in the budget. It is such a long list and I need to get through it, so I can’t say anything more broadly about what my agenda is for the future or why I have structured the budget in the way that I have.’ That attitude was reflected on in some of the informed commentary following the budget. For example, the ANZ federal budget report said:

... we find it impossible not to wonder whether future generations of Australians might not look back upon the nearly $400bn of windfall gains that have been redistributed through this and the preceding four Budgets and wonder whether we could not have had rather more far-reaching reform, for that enormous sum.

This is not from opposition members; this is from the ANZ’s own federal budget report.

Peter Saunders, the social research director for the Centre for Independent Studies, said in the Australian on 10 May:

What was the overall rationale driving Peter Costello’s 12th budget? What fundamental objectives was he trying to achieve? What key principles informed his decisions?

In the same opinion piece, Mr Saunders went on to say:

... the Treasurer is so awash with taxpayers’ money that he really does not know what to do with it.

I can hardly think of a more damning statement to make about a nation’s Treasurer than, at a time when he has windfall income, he has no capacity to build a vision for future prosperity around which he can structure a funding policy. Again, it is not members on this side saying that; this is the Centre for Independent Studies saying that. I think there is some fairly good indication in this sort of commentary about why the budget failed to inspire anybody out there in the wider community.

It is certainly quite serious criticism from the government’s own fellow travellers and it is not the first time that such strong criticism has been forthcoming from the Centre for Independent Studies. In the policy issue for the summer 2006-07, the government’s policy cops a bucket of criticism in an article titled ‘The rise of big government conservatism’. The article can be summed up by its last sentence, which says:

Modern conservatism may turn out to be not as family friendly as it seems.

The article is talking about this government being one of the biggest spending governments in terms of churning money through a taxation system back into welfare handouts that are targeted to have particular electoral impact and, clearly, a lot of the conservative economic commentators do not see that as a useful or worthwhile thing to do—and, clearly, neither does the general public.

I must say, though, that I am sure many other offices like mine have been quite inundated with calls from people on disability support pensions wanting to know what is so unworthy about them that they miss out on the sugar-coated lolly that came in the budget for age pensioners. It is not something I bother trying to explain to them—I do not see why I should—but they do not understand why they have been overlooked, particularly on top of the Welfare to Work reforms that have affected them so significantly anyway. I have had many meetings in my own electorate with disability support providers who are dealing with people who are being very poorly treated through that process and, as a result, having great difficulties.

We have seen from the government just this week an example of this—and I will touch on industrial relations legislation within the broader economic framework in this speech because once again I have been gagged from speaking in the debate in the parliament today. I never had the opportunity to speak on the original legislation; I was gagged from speaking in that debate. This is one of the most important reforms that this government is touting around the country in its term of government, yet, as a representative for my area, twice it has denied me the capacity to discuss it in the House. So I will take this opportunity to make some observations on that.

It just astounds me to hear the government saying that since it introduced the Work Choices legislation in 2006 the legislation has become so significant to the wellbeing of the economy, so significant to the creation and sustenance of jobs, particularly for the long-term unemployed, and that it is such an important and worthwhile reform that any changes Labor proposed to that legislation would be devastating. The economy would collapse. There would be mass unemployment again. It would be absolutely impossible and, in fact, quite destructive to propose any sort of change to the 2006 Work Choices legislation!

I will admit that the government’s first proposed reforms were not dramatic. Changing the name of the legislation probably was not going to bring the sky down. It was clearly a paint job. But the government so significantly does not understand that at the heart of the problem with its Work Choices legislation is the fact that the general population feels that there should be a balance. In any of these issues there are two competing interests—and everybody understands that—and both those competing interests have legitimate claims and legitimate needs to be met by government intervention. You have to get a balanced approach. Clearly, the general public feels that, having got control of the Senate, the Prime Minister and this government have then gone too far in one direction and that changing the name is not going to change the outcome.

Indeed, I am often amused by the actions of the government senator who has an office in my town. Whenever I am looking at any of these issues, I meet with my local business chamber, the local branch of the Australian Industry Group, the South Coast Labour Council and different union representatives, and I take all their views on board—a pretty balanced approach, one would have thought. But try and get a Liberal senator to meet with a single union organisation. This government represent an entirely one-sided view of these issues. Not only do they see unions, union representatives or, indeed, the individual workers who I know have attempted to make appointments to discuss these issues as not having a legitimate view but they see them as being somehow groups to be attacked and vilified. The class war is really being run in this nation by the government benches, not by this side. What we are talking about is trying to get some balance back into the system.

Some new amendments have come before us. If we had spoken about these amendments a month ago, this government would have been talking about the end of the world as we know it and saying that those sorts of reforms would create destruction throughout our community. Young people would never be able to get a job, they would have said. We would see mass unemployment occurring and businesses moving offshore—that is the sort of rhetoric we would have been getting from the government. Now suddenly they never meant that to happen. People misunderstood the legislation. They have got to go back and correct it. Perhaps if they had allowed a decent debate and review process at the time they brought the legislation in some of these issues could have been teased out and addressed in the first place.

Now we have an amendment coming before the parliament which again has been subject to limited debate, with many of us being gagged from participating in it. The amendment had itself to be amended the night before we had the conversation in the House about it. This is very poor policy making. To treat good debate within this place in this way and to discount the contribution it can make to ensuring that the best possible legislation goes forward is arrogant.

I will simply make the point that, from now on, every time Labor talk about a proposed reform of this system and the government scream that it will be the end of the world as we know it, we can quite simply say, ‘That is what you said about the fairness test.’ Every time we tried to talk about low-income earners who are not in the high-demand mining jobs—the cleaners, the hospitality workers, the restaurant workers and the retail worker—who are getting screwed over and said, ‘This is an unfair system for them,’ the government screamed that we did not understand, that we were going to cost these people jobs and that, ‘Wasn’t it good they had a job?’ Now they bring in their own amendments to their own legislation and say that this is a good outcome.

They have no legitimacy anymore in criticising proposed reform of this system; none whatsoever—unless what they are really saying is, ‘We are cynically putting this in place to avert a political problem in an election year.’ Let us remember what the Prime Minister said when he first touted these reforms: they were not really needed. The end result of that argument is that this amendment is being made because people might talk to people who know someone who knows a niece who had a son that had had a bad problem. That was the Prime Minister’s direct framing of this particular reform. He said: ‘It is not really needed but there is a perception out there that someone might know someone who has got a problem. Therefore, we are going to spend $340 million and employ 600 inspectors to resolve a perceived problem that does not really exist.’ I am suspicious of that approach to policy reform. It is certainly not sincere and therefore one wonders how long lasting it will be and how dependent on the outcome of the election it is.

As I wrap up to complete today’s session, I want to make the point that the budget is clearly not attracting the level of attention that the government had hoped it would because it is pretty cynical. We all need to lift our game in talking about the future and build a vision for the future economy of this country that does not simply rely on quick fixes. I assume that I am close to the 12.30 pm mark, so I might leave my comments there. I thank the House for indulging me in covering a broad range of issues within my speech on the appropriation bill.

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

Order! I understand it would suit the convenience of the Committee for the debate to be adjourned and the resumption of the debate to be made an order of the day for the next sitting.