Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I first congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, and indeed the rest of the Rudd Labor government, for taking initiatives in this budget to finally and genuinely tackle climate change. I understand that there is well over $2.3 billion to reduce greenhouse emissions, invest in renewable energy and assist industry and the community to meet this fundamental environmental and economic challenge.

I am particularly interested in the question of funding for the Solar Cities program. Minister Garrett, you may recollect that in August last year on a beautiful sunshiny day you visited in the electorate of Hasluck the city of Midland, which is the central regional city for the Swan Valley. The City of Swan, along with four other local councils, had applied for funding under the Solar Cities program to make Perth a solar city and had been unsuccessful under the previous government. One of the election commitments that were made was for $13.9 million in funding to go towards this project to help make Perth a solar city.

The first such funding is to be received in WA, and we are very excited about it. I am keen to ensure that this budget and the appropriation cater for the Perth solar city project, which I think will be an extremely exciting one, working not only with local councils in my area but also with the Western Australian state government to look at and provide climate change solutions. It is a huge project. It has a considerable amount of support across the community. It involves a substantial community engagement period. It will also see home energy assessments being done in a number of houses and the introduction and rollout of smart metering.

We also hope that not only will there be participants from state and local governments but also owner-occupiers and public-private tenants will come on board. We see it as an opportunity for innovative financing and production subsidies to boost our solar energy technologies, as well as a number of demonstration projects, both in commercial buildings and public facilities and schools. We believe the project will be a success and indeed, in the second stage, will move to a self-funding phase. As part and parcel of the project, we have included an ongoing monitoring strategy with the assistance of Murdoch University and Western Power.

This project has a strong community focus, includes both new and existing homes and will work with both owner-occupiers and rental properties as well as local schools, which we hope will participate as solar schools. We believe that we will have something like 6,000 homes and businesses participate in the trial. We believe that, if this project is kicked off with funding from the federal government, we will deliver greenhouse gas emission reductions of more than 15,000 tonnes, which is equivalent to taking 3½ thousand large vehicles off the road, and will cut energy use equivalent to the needs of 3,200 homes.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to the call, because we have such limited time. In terms of the environment budget—and I will also be dealing with heritage and the arts of course—we expected an extraordinary contribution to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions issues and the environmental footprint across the country. However, we were absolutely stunned to see CSIRO funds for essential research slashed, and we have got enormous push-back now as scientists are sacked particularly from the Mildura campus. We have seen the solar panels issue, where the rebate has been slashed to the point where the industry is reeling and there is doubt whether it can continue to be viable as it offers panels to a sector which cannot afford them without that rebate.

In terms of the community being able to adapt to climate change, we have seen the community water grants abolished, and the schools infrastructure grants, which saw an enormous amount of work going into building tanks and irrigation systems on school ovals and for gardens, have gone. We have also not had any indication of where the water use efficiency funds for the Murray-Darling Basin from the coalition’s $10 billion 10-point plan commitment have gone. Those funds seem to have disappeared without a trace—and I am talking about over $2 billion for on-farm water use efficiency. I would very much like the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts to tell us what he and Minister Penny Wong intend to do about these funds, because, with the drought in its fifth year and with farmers looking again at a zero water allocation at the beginning of the next irrigation season, farmers need such investment so that they can deal with the hotter, drier conditions which now seem to be part of climate change—a very critical question.

According to the budget, the minister has rebundled and rebadged the NHT and the National Salinity Action Plan. In so doing, he has cut 40 per cent from the catchment management bodies that are supposed to administer Caring for our Country, the new name for the combined Labor package. On 5 June, when we last considered this bill, Mr Garrett said that to help the catchment management bodies survive the 40 per cent cuts ‘funding of up to $75 million will be available to help overcome transitional problems’. Minister, we really need to know when that $75 million is going to materialise. How is it to be applied for? What bodies—independent or other organisations or NGOs—will be eligible to apply for this transitional money? Is it in addition to the so-called contestable bucket of moneys that is being talked about to make up for the 40 per cent cuts? That is of critical concern particularly for Landcare groups.

Landcare had taken a 20 per cent cut. I know that when you responded to this line of inquiry on 5 June, Mr Garrett, you said, no, it was not a 20 per cent cut of Landcare; it was an expectation that they would find efficiencies. Where is Landcare to find this 20 per cent set of efficiencies given that they are volunteers and given that they have had an extraordinary dependence on matched funding from other agencies? I would like to read you a quote from the chairperson of the Maffra and District Landcare Network in Gippsland, Beth Ripper. She said:

In addition to reduced Facilitator and Coordinator support, Gippslandcare will also be reduced by almost half—

as a consequence of these cuts. She continued:

Gippslandcare is a consortium of all the Landcare Networks in the West Gippsland CMA Region and was established to manage a regional approach for Landcare’s onground works incentive program.

Since their formation, they have done incredibly important work with floods, with fires, with the erosion associated with that and now with drought. Beth Ripper went on to say—and this was sent to me just last week:

With less funding for facilitator and coordinator positions, we fear that our member groups will struggle to continue and vital community capacity building opportunities and enthusiasm for volunteer work will be lost. All we ask is that Landcare be considered as a priority because it underpins the core business of the WGCMA at a community level.

I am receiving letters like this from Landcare groups and catchment management bodies all over Australia. They need to know how to deal with the 40 per cent and 20 per cent cuts so they can literally decide who to sack or which programs to abandon, or both. I am also most concerned about environmental programs like the farm efficiency one and the Environmental Stewardship Program. (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will refer first to the question and the comments of the member for Hasluck. I thank the member for her contribution in this debate as we consider the budget appropriations. It is the case that the government has made a significant commitment to climate change programs, to energy efficiency programs and to solar programs. We have done that by extending the Solar Cities program. In extending that program, we have recognised that the communities around Australia are enthusiastic about playing their part in addressing the dangers of climate change by getting involved in consortia and in applying energy efficient and low-emissions technologies and techniques to reduce their emissions. I applaud those communities, particularly the Perth solar city consortium, for the good work they have done so far. I note that, when the member for Hasluck refers to the emissions savings that will be gained there, these are significant emissions savings. They involve some 6,000 homes and businesses and some 15,000 tonnes of CO2. This is real, on-the-ground delivery of emissions reductions, and it is on account of the programs that have been brought forward by the Rudd government.

I quickly add that last week I was pleased to be in Coburg, a suburb of Melbourne, which we formally announced a Solar Cities city. Solar Cities is a particularly important program because it enables low-income families to gain the necessary skills, expertise and information required to start reducing emissions in their homes. There will be a big component of insulation in that program.

In relation to the questions put to me by the member for Murray, I remind the member that, following 11 years of total lack of action on climate change, the Rudd government brought into the budget the most comprehensive commitment on climate change that we have ever seen. That is the ultimate take-home of the budget. It is a $3.3 billion commitment. Specifically, not only do we have in place directed funding towards those areas where it is necessary and needed—and I refer to the renewable energy fund, the National Solar School Program and numerous others—but we are also doing it within the framework of a program which will start to deliver to Australians the capacity to reduce their emissions at low cost. That will mean a rigorously developed emissions trading scheme and an additional range of complementary measures that we have in place to enable that to happen.

The member asked me questions in relation to Landcare and a number of other issues. The member has made a number of misleading statements about Landcare, and I referred to these when I spoke previously in the consideration in detail stage. She continues to claim that Landcare has been cut by 20 per cent. I advise the member that this is not the case. Landcare has been allocated funding of $189.2 million over the first five years of the Caring for our Country program. It is also not the case that Landcare is buried within the Caring for our Country program. It is not. Landcare continues to be separately appropriated within the agricultural portfolio, and my colleague Tony Burke, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, will effectively operate and run that program very judiciously.

Additionally, the member claims—and I quote the member to herself—that Landcare leverage is $10 for every $1 of funding; again, that is wrong. The member claims that we are not cutting red tape; again, that is wrong. The member has also claimed that the guidelines for contestable pools of funding will not be available until September; again, that is wrong. There is a requirement for the opposition to come into this analysis of the budget appropriations and produce some accuracy in terms of their claims and their figures. If the member is going to continue to bring these questions into these fora, she has to be accurate in terms of the statements she is making.

The government will put in place a smoother transition for Caring for our Country in this transition year than the opposition when in government ever managed between NHT1 and NHT2. I refer the member to the Australian National Audit Office report which said:

The delays in reaching agreement had unfortunate consequences for some regions in existence prior to NHT2. Staff members were laid off and regional bodies were downsized.

We have provided significant transitional funding to enable catchment management authorities and regional groups to have sustainability over the period of the transition. Yes, there will be a component of contestable funds—as there ought to be, because we believe it is only by people bringing forward the very best programs that they can that we will get the best delivery for Australian taxpayers. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts confirm that the water management policies and programs contained in the budget for the Murray-Darling Basin will be specific to the serious issues in that region and not practically applied, in the level of detail and the depth of that detail, to the water situations existing in Western Australia, Northern Australia, including parts of Queensland, and Tasmania? As in the budget, where is the water purchased for the environment being delivered? In what quantities and from which regulated sources or dam is it being delivered? When and how will it be delivered? Can the minister provide a breakdown of the areas and volumes of water being purchased? Is it mainly from New South Wales irrigation cooperatives or Victoria? Has any economic analysis been done, on a region-by-region basis, on tree farms as part of this? Does the budget contain funding for research that may have been done or will be done on the impact of tree farms on run-off to rivers in drought affected areas? Is it accurate that current economic analysis shows that cheaper carbon credits from the Third World will make Australia uncompetitive?

The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has released the tender for the carbon register. Applicants have only six weeks to respond and must have an international carbon register partner. This will severely limit responses to the tender due to an unrealistic time frame and the international partner provision. What is the reason for the time frame? Is it accurate to fund an increase in the buyback from $1.5 billion to $3 billion? There will be a corresponding decrease of $1.5 billion for on-farm efficiencies. Therefore, will farmers be paying for their own water buybacks?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her questions. There are a number of detailed aspects to those questions. Some of that information, if the opposition had seen fit to participate in the estimates process earlier, would have been gained for them, but I am happy to take some of those questions on notice. I will be providing some answers for the member for Greenway to questions that she raised in our first session.

On the broader question of the government’s commitment to ensure that the sums that are being invested in Water for the Future are effectively spent and assist both the communities in the basin and the environment to withstand the rigours of an extremely difficult and tough drought, I make the following points. The first is that under the previous government the policy on getting water back into the environment, and in fact on investing in water at all, was a policy which was effectively dreamt up at the last minute and delivered to us on the back of an envelope. It did not even go through the Treasurer. It was also a policy, as I recall, on which the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, made the observation, when the question was put to him about urban water—and it is certainly the case that, under our water policy proposals more generally, we have a commitment to urban water issues—that urban water was not on the agenda of the Commonwealth. Water is now on the agenda of the Commonwealth, specifically with a $12.9 billion investment in Water for the Future.

I have to say to the member opposite that this is a significant investment on a scale that, again, we have not seen previously. We are very mindful of the necessity for water purchases to happen with willing sellers at a fair market price. Additionally, there is an investment of some $5.8 billion for sustainable rural use and infrastructure, which includes improving efficiency. The member for Murray asked me whether on-farm water efficiencies would be a part of Water for the Future—they will. But here is the important point that has to be made: all that the opposition seems to be able to do with respect to this program is carp. All we hear from the opposition is carping. Frankly, what we face, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, is one of the most serious issues that we have ever faced in relation to the delivery of water to those communities who are so stretched and to an environment that is so stretched.

As a consequence of that, this government is fully committed to working in an effective and transparent fashion to enable stakeholder consultations to take place. As members know, the government has announced the appointment of a stakeholder consultative committee to provide an input into the review of the first round of the government’s water purchases in the basin. And it is fully committed to a set of clear principles that will enable the delivery of Commonwealth funds to ensure that we do get water back into the system and that we do it in a way that is fair, assists the communities in need and also provides the opportunity for some return of water to the environment.

When we come to water, one of the most difficult issues that we face concerns the fact that over a period of some decades that river system has got itself into a state of considerable ill-health. One of the things that we are extremely mindful of is the need to deliver this funding in a way which is appropriate and focused and, additionally, in a way which enables communities in the region to have confidence that the money that we are going to be spending will be well spent. I say to members opposite that is the intention of the government. It is clear from the policies that we have laid out and it is clear from the budget as delivered. If you are looking at a $12.9 billion investment in Water for Our Future, you must clearly acknowledge, given the amount that has been allocated for water purchases for sustainable use and also given the some $50 million already allocated to entitlements in February through a tender process that was fully subscribed, that the process is underway and working well.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts is attuned enough to what is happening in the Murray-Darling Basin—as of course I am as the member for Murray—to know that the $50 million already spent on water allocations has so distorted the water market that irrigators can no longer buy water to grow food. I refer to the extra $2 billion that the government is putting into the market to buy water. Minister, you say ‘willing sellers’, but sellers are being leaned on by their banks and other lenders and that is going to knock out any agribusiness in the Murray-Darling Basin that is dependent on water use. Minister, I really wish you would tune in to that because, let me tell you, if it were any other sector involved you would have blood on the streets given the way this has happened.

You said a minute ago—and I am very happy about this—that on-farm water use efficiency dollars will be made available. I would like to know when, because the crisis is occurring now. But I am very pleased to hear your statement, because it is the first time I have heard this government utter those magic words. I hope the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, is in tune with you.

I will move quickly to the arts budget. The arts sector had great expectations that the extraordinary contribution by the coalition—our extraordinarily high level of funding—to Australian arts, both performing and visual, would at least be continued by this government. What in fact has happened is that we have seen that funding crash in the budget. The budget announced that there would be no money for the Australia Council for the Arts for the theatre and dance action plans. There was no money for the Australian Academy of the Humanities. The ArtStart program has vanished, with no mention of and no funding for what was a key Labor commitment prior to the election.

As for the new Young and Emerging Artists Fund funding of $6 million or so, which was highlighted in the 2020 vision summit, that new funding is to be squeezed out of existing funding. I would like the minister to tell us which existing program he wants to have slashed to find a way for the new Young and Emerging Artists Fund. The minister has cut $4 million from the Regional Arts Fund, a for-travel fund which has seen rural communities also able to participate in the cultural life of Australia. I note that this government is very big on social inclusion. Let me tell it that social inclusion involves having taxpayers from country areas seeing travelling exhibitions of works from our great collections or indeed performances or those taxpayers having their own artists being supported in their own communities. Minister, if you continue to slash the Regional Arts Fund funding in the way that you have done, we cannot see that happening. The strategic vision for the Australian film industry which the coalition put into place, the new Screen Australia authority, is to receive a one-off injection of $103 million but the authority is to see 28 jobs lost in the process.

We have seen that the CrocFest funding has also gone. We have seen Australia on the World Stage funding cancelled—it was one of your earliest acts, Minister—and that of course is our cultural diplomacy opportunity out the window. And the funding for Chamber Music Australia has been cut—and this international program was one of the most important ways that Australia could showcase its chamber music. The extra two per cent efficiency dividend is driving agencies and institutions to cut their touring and their new acquisitions, particularly agencies like the Maritime Museum in Sydney, which is now wondering how it can maintain its floating museum pieces—its great ships and its submarine.

Can you tell us, Minister, how it is that you intend these budget cuts, plus a two per cent dividend, to deliver anything like the arts program that we saw before? Are you advising them where to slash for their two per cent dividend or is it meant to be found from whatever they can cobble together? I am concerned that most of the institutions are having to reach into their touring budgets; that is where they find the greatest efficiencies. I am very keen to hear your answers to these questions, because Australians have enjoyed opportunities to develop world’s best performances—some of the world’s great singers and artists—but, with these funding slashes, young and emerging artists are very worried that they are now going to have very much reduced opportunities to participate in the arts both in Australia and abroad.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of the arts, it is really interesting to hear the member put these questions to us and provide a set of fairly misleading statistics on the arts budget because when we came to the last election the then government—the now opposition—did not have an arts policy at all. Under the former arts minister, Senator Brandis, I do not know what happened but there was no delivery of an arts policy at all from the Howard government to the Australian people—not one.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no delivery of an arts policy from the Howard government to the Australian people in the 2007 election and if you can present it to us, honourable member, then I would be happy to take it and get a look at it to glean some of your thinking. In the matter of what we are taking forward, I make the point in relation to the budget that we are delivering on our specific commitments to invest both in heritage and in culture and the arts. We have specifically delivered on our commitment to invest in young artists. There are two new programs, as the member knows, that will be delivered by the Australia Council: Support for Young and Emerging Artists and the Artists in Residence Education Initiative. We think it is particularly important to address a major gap in opportunities for young people that has been ignored for too long in the past and has prevented young artists and those with artistic ability and talent from taking those pathways and building their careers. Through Support for Young and Emerging Artists, we are acknowledging the important role that they will play.

Additionally, we have a significant commitment to Aboriginal art, through the NACIS program, and I think the member is aware of that. The budget will also put the Australian film and television industry on a stronger footing with the establishment of Screen Australia. I have to say that the government’s decision to separate out the National Film and Sound Archive and enable this new screen agency to do the job that it ought to and will do was an extremely positive public policy decision. I think it is one that has been welcomed by the industry at large. Additionally, we have also followed through on our other election commitment by beginning work on a resale royalty scheme to make sure that visual artists are entitled to a payment when their works are resold in the secondary market. In addition, the government’s commitment to the arts as enunciated in the budget was significant and it has been welcomed by the arts community, as has the approach that we have taken not only to the screen agency but to arts policy generally.

I quickly want to take this opportunity to provide some detail to a question asked by the member for Greenway about the Australian government’s actions in tackling the challenges faced by the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. I want to put on the record that the Australian government has invited the New South Wales government to bring forward a comprehensive proposal under the Water Smart Australia program to ensure the sustainability of this important river system and, in particular, that the level of Australian government funding for this activity will be determined on the basis of the New South Wales government’s proposal. Additionally, as part of Caring for our Country, the government has committed funding of just over half a million dollars for the implementation of a river health strategy and investment in in-stream habitat.

At the conclusion of this debate about the budget appropriation can I again make the point that the Rudd Labor government came to power to take seriously the issues that had been neglected for so long by the Howard government: climate change, with the most significant investment in climate change, of some $3.3 billion; and a comprehensive and thorough suite of portfolio issues that will be driven through the Department of Climate Change by Minister Wong, through the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts by me and through the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research by Minister Carr and others. The government takes a whole-of-government approach to a whole-of-planet problem. I have to say that all we ever hear from the opposition is carping and negativity. It is running negative lines when the Australian people actually want solutions. They want to be enabled and empowered to take decisions in their own communities about addressing climate change. We have provided $1 billion of investment, including some extraordinary programs which will enable the Australian community to do that: nearly half a billion dollars for Solar Schools; a low-emissions rental plan for landlords so they can get insulation in the homes of renters; and a comprehensive approach to tackling water, with a $12.9 billion program for water for the future. These are significant commitments by the Rudd Labor government. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $5,904,137,000

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to discuss today the issue of cancer and ask questions directly of the minister. We know that cancer is Australia’s biggest killer, with more than 38,000 deaths and 98,000 people diagnosed with cancer each year. It is particularly of concern in my electorate. One in three men and one in four women will be directly affected by cancer before the age of 75. I was very pleased to see that this budget marks the beginning of a new era to meet the challenges of fighting cancer head-on, by a strong national effort aimed at producing the best outcomes in cancer care through focusing on prevention, early intervention and evidence based cancer treatment to reduce the burden of this major killer. I am particularly pleased to see a number of specific initiatives in the budget and I will ask the minister to elaborate on these when I have finished my remarks.

I note that there is a boost of $87.4 million for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program to continue free bowel cancer screening tests for all Australians turning 55 to 65 and to extend it to all Australians turning 50 between 2008 and 2010. Of all the cancers, this is one where perhaps we can make the most difference. I have been speaking with people in my electorate who have been affected by bowel cancer and who certainly welcome this measure in the budget. Bowel cancer claims more than 80 Australian lives each week. I am sure many of us in the House have been touched by someone who has lost a loved one or a friend to bowel cancer. It is also worth noting that, while the previous government delivered early funding for some of these screenings, they made absolutely no provision for bowel cancer screening in their forward estimates, which really raises the question of whether they were committed to this initiative at all. Had the Liberals and Nationals been elected, this program would have been scrapped, with no funding made available. That is certainly of concern to me and the constituents in my electorate. It is another failure of the coalition. I am pleased to see that the Rudd Labor government in this budget is forging ahead with the national bowel screening initiative.

I also note that in the budget we provide $50 million over three years for a focus on young people with cancer, and this is for the first time. CanTeen will establish youth cancer networks in Australia to improve the coordination of services, support and care for teenagers and young adults with cancer. I think this is particularly important. As I go around to the cancer support groups in my electorate, I notice that there are older individuals there, not young people. I do not believe that is because young people are not faced with cancer; it is more likely to do with the fact that they do not feel comfortable in a setting like that. So I am very pleased to see this initiative. The networks will include six new adolescent and young adult cancer centres in mainland states. I am very interested in and very pleased with that initiative.

To ensure Australia remains internationally competitive and at the forefront of research and discovery regarding cancer, its origins, treatment and the care of people affected by cancer, funding has been allocated for a range of cancer research and treatment centres around the country. I was very pleased to see the allocation of $15 million over three years for independent clinical trials of drugs and research into cancer treatment and care; $50 million over three years for a comprehensive cancer centre, co-located with the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney; $15 million over five years to set up two dedicated prostate cancer research centres; and $15 million over two years to help build a children’s cancer centre at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Adelaide. I would like the minister for health to know that the cancer centre is of particular interest to me, and I really look forward to working with her to progress that.

In addition, there is funding of $15 million over two years towards the establishment of the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre at the Austin Hospital in Melbourne and $5.1 million over three years for the operation of the National Centre for Gynaecological Cancers, under the auspices of Cancer Australia. I am looking forward to hearing more from the minister. (Time expired)

Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the Minister for Health and Ageing, and I refer to page 230 of Budget Paper No. 2, under ‘Sport and Recreation Facilities—contribution to funding’. On budget night the government announced a new $20.8 million spending measure. Several projects are listed in the budget paper but, to my knowledge, there is no sign of the comprehensive list of 91 successful projects, despite our requesting this list through the Senate estimates process and Minister Ellis’s office. My question to the minister is: can the full list of the 91 projects that have been successful be provided? And what criteria was applied to these projects, given that Minister Chris Evans informed the community affairs committee that they were still undergoing appropriate checks and balances?

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

First, let me make some comments in response to the member for Kingston’s comments and questions, and my colleague the Minister for Sport will be happy to take the question that has just been asked by the member for Macarthur. Labor are very pleased to have brought down this budget, which provides so much support for people with cancer. Interestingly, the member for Kingston has already identified the response that there is in the community to bowel cancer screening. It is not very often that we have such a successful preventative health measure, where we know that it works, we know how we can save people’s lives and we know that what is needed is the wheel to roll out the program and make it available to people who are of the ages at risk. I am happy to acknowledge that the previous government did the right thing by identifying this as a problem, but what they did not do was provide any ongoing funding for it.

For Labor to meet our election commitment to expand and extend testing to 50-year-olds and to ensure that we were building upon previous work and that this screening could continue, we had to find $87 million. That will put it on a stable footing for the next couple of years. Of course, we will then need to ultimately achieve the recommended standard for screening every two years of people aged over 50, and we will gradually be able to build up to that. We will save many lives and make a real difference in supporting the sort of research that really can turn around the way we provide health care in the community.

I also want to quickly comment on the discussions to date in terms of the $15 million contribution to a children’s cancer centre at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Adelaide. This will be a very important centre for young children and women in Adelaide who are cancer sufferers. It will mean there will be specialised facilities. They have not always been able to access the top-class facilities that they deserve, and we hope that our contribution will be used to assist the South Australian government in providing that.

To allow time for my ministerial colleague to have a chance to answer the member for Macarthur, I will just quickly flag for the member for Kingston that we are very pleased that discussions about the Noarlunga GP superclinic are going well. I understand that consultations are due to be held in the next five or six weeks. I am hoping that I will be able to be in your electorate for those consultations. We have committed up to $12.5 million to that project and the state government is going to meet an equivalent amount of funding. It is a really exciting opportunity for a community that desperately needs these services. I thank the member for raising these issues.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to offer some further information with regard to the member for Macarthur’s questions about sporting facility funding in the budget. At the outset, I point out that we on this side of the House are tremendously proud that we have come through on our election commitments to invest in local community facilities. We know that it is very important that we increase participation rates in sport. When we look at incidences of diabetes, obesity rates and a number of preventible diseases, one of our main priorities in this portfolio area has to be on increasing participation. We also know that, in order to do that, people need access to adequate local facilities. That is one of the reasons we are tremendously proud that we have delivered upon these commitments, which were made during the election campaign and funded in the first Rudd budget.

I understand that during the Senate estimates period a couple of weeks ago there was quite a bit of debate on this issue that went round and round in circles covering similar lines. I think there was a bit of confusion on the issue, and there are a couple of reasons for that. This government is doing a couple of things here in a way that is in stark contrast to the way the previous government used to operate, particularly the way that the Regional Partnerships program operated. The first thing we are doing, which may seem a little novel to some opposite, is delivering upon all of our election commitments. There have been a number of commitments in this area. The second thing—and I think this is where the confusion arose—is that we are doing it whilst following a due process. For the benefit of all, I will run through how that process is operating and what the next steps are. All of this funding came up after local communities’ advocates or representatives made the case for new facilities or facility upgrades in different areas. The opposition at the time made election commitments. We all know that both sides of politics make a number of election commitments, and we certainly did that. Upon being elected to government, we have now followed through by making sure that those election commitments are honoured in this budget in the sports portfolio.

The next step, now that we have that funding, is that the department and I are now in the process of contacting the local community or sporting groups which will be receiving this funding so that we can work through funding agreements with them. Basically, we just want to check that the project is still on line, that it is still going ahead as it was recommended and as it was put forward to the then opposition when we made these commitments. We have all heard a number of stories, particularly through the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in question time over recent months, about incidents where taxpayer funds were granted under the Regional Partnerships program to projects which had since collapsed or were never going to get off the ground. We are doing our due diligence, making sure that that is all in place, and looking forward to getting those funding agreements in position.

All of the commitments made both by the government and by the opposition are on the public record. In fact, I noticed there were a number of points put forward in estimates where the opposition was concerned about the nature of the seats that these projects might have been going to. Someone in my office kindly did some work and has informed me that the now opposition’s election commitments in marginal seats for sporting facilities totalled $16.5 million more than what we are delivering. We are delivering in a range of different seats and in a range of different sports. I am happy that, as a result of this funding made available by the Rudd government, the people who will directly benefit are involved in a range of sports, including hockey, swimming, soccer, netball, tennis, softball, rugby league, Aussie rules, boxing, athletics and motorsport. I look forward to working with all of these local groups to make sure that we can boost facilities and get as many Australians as possible out there and active, running and jumping, catching and throwing and doing their bit to ensure that we have a very active Australia.

Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to Minister Ellis’s press release dated 23 May 2008 announcing $850,000 worth of funding for the marginal seat of Deakin, which Labor won at the last election. This funding was: $500,000 to develop the Glen Park Community Centre, $150,000 for Croydon Little Athletics Club to upgrade facilities and $200,000 to upgrade the Nunawading Gymnastics and Sports Club at Walker Park Reserve. Can the minister confirm that these projects will be funded out of the $20.8 million program, that these were intended election commitments? Was this part of the event that Kevin Rudd went to on 20 October 2007, when they let him fire the starters pistol? Was this when he decided that he would give them $150,000 worth? Can you provide details of the scrutiny that this project underwent for funding?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the Minister for Sport, can I just indicate that the ministers do not have to take all the questions straightaway; you can allow other people to get the jump.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will very quickly answer those questions. Yes, I can confirm that those projects are out of this funding in the budget. This is a very clear example of where we are getting in touch with community groups, working with them and then making public announcements. This is what we intend to do for all of those projects. These were commitments which were made. I have had the pleasure of going out and having a look at some of those facilities and where they are going to be put into action, particularly at the gymnastics centre, where we saw some very young children getting out there and getting active very early in life.

With regard to your questions about whether I can confirm where the Prime Minister was in October last year, I cannot. I am not sure with regard to the starting gun or the second part of the question; I do not have that information. But, yes, that funding is coming out of that particular pool

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to talk this afternoon about hospital funding and health. I would like to thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for visiting my electorate of Bass, together with the Prime Minister, and for really showing an interest in relation to the hospital system in my electorate. For too long the blame game has hurt the health system and I think we have seen, from the flow-on effect of that, that it actually hurts patients. After 11 long years of neglect from those on the other side, there is much to be done now. We know that, and the minister and the Prime Minister have been working extremely hard. As you could imagine, my electorate of Bass in northern Tasmania is vitally interested in the steps the Rudd government is taking to secure the long-term health of the nation.

I guess this budget heralds a new era of cooperation, collaboration and honest and open dialogue between the Australian government and the states and territories. We have said, ‘No more buck passing,’ and we have said, ‘No more blame shifting,’ and we are committed to that. The government is providing an extra $1 billion to public hospitals this year. This boost reverses the trend of decline in the Commonwealth’s share of public hospital funding.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Ageing and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the purpose of this exercise is to ask questions.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Parkes will resume his seat. I refer to House of Representatives Practice: ‘Debate which covers departmental activity and government policy’. The member for Bass is in order.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The funding will begin to rebuild the health system after 11 years of neglect. This growth is the largest single-year increase in public hospital funding in almost a decade. I would really appreciate it if the minister could go into a little bit more detail on that. In addition, over $600 million is being provided over four years to help the states and territories reduce elective surgery waiting lists. Can I say that people in my electorate of Bass were certainly very appreciative of that. By the end of 2008, around 25,000 patients will have benefited from this plan, and I would be pleased if the minister could also expand on that. As of September 2007, more than 34,000 public patients requiring elective surgery, such as hip replacements and eye surgery, had not been seen within the clinically recommended time and, again, many of those patients were in my electorate of Bass. In 2005-06, more than 25,000 patients waited more than one year for elective surgery. That is totally unacceptable. The length of elective surgery waiting lists in our hospitals is a direct result of the previous government’s refusal to work cooperatively with the states and territories to tackle problems in our health system. Labor have said: no more buck passing, no more blame shifting.

As I have said before, I would like to thank the minister and the Prime Minister for visiting my electorate of Bass but also for putting $15 million on the table for the integrated care centre. It certainly is a welcome addition to the Launceston General Hospital. Minister, you have visited it on many occasions and you have seen firsthand how the renal unit, as it stands at the moment, is pushed to capacity. It has been asking for this funding for many years under the previous government; it has always been rejected. Minister, if you could perhaps explain when that $15 million will actually be expended and when the state government will actually receive that money, that would be appreciated.

I would like to quickly talk about the four-year elective surgery waiting list reduction plan. I understand that it comprises three stages. The first stage involves $150 million to conduct an immediate national blitz, which will help reduce the backlog of patients waiting longer than the clinically recommended time for the elective surgery; $150 million over two years to make improvements to the hospital system and elective surgery; and up to $300 million in dividend payments to states and territories, which will dramatically increase the number of elective surgeries completed within the clinically recommended time by the end of the four-year plan. Minister, I would be grateful if you could also expand on that, because people in my electorate are very interested.

As well as these immediate injections of funding, Labor are planning for the long-term future of the health system, something that was grossly neglected by people on the other side. If we are talking about health and about hospitals and funding, we need to look more at the long term than at just a bandaid solution, which is what the previous government did. Labor will be developing and delivering a long-term blueprint by June 2009. (Time expired)

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I bring to the attention of Minister Roxon the fact that the HIV/AIDS Strategy concludes on 30 June 2008. Firstly, can the minister advise the House, and me in particular, (1) of the plans and the budgetary items that have been applied to completing a new strategy and (2) whether there has been any finance allocated to enhancing the whole-of-life health programs for HIV-AIDS sufferers and the communities.

Secondly, I note in the budget papers that the government refers to ‘enhancing the medical workforce by the addition of 5,000 international medical graduates—IMGs’. I have gone through the budgetary papers and I can find no reference to any financial provision to allow for this group to obtain the necessary education and training to fit into Australian general practice. Minister, it is evident that GPET has been providing this training over a number of years. The Rural Doctors Network and the Commonwealth funded Rural Outreach Vocational Education Scheme, known as ROVE, seem to have disappeared from the budget. The minister may be able to inform me whether this is or is not correct. It would seem to me that if the ROVE Scheme has been depleted or removed then there will be limited or no support available to these 5,000 IMGs to enable them to fit into training practices or rural general practice. Minister, I would really appreciate some response to those questions.

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

I will take just a couple of those questions quickly and make sure that I allow enough time for everyone to ask their questions. First, in response to the member for Bass’s comments: she will be pleased to know, in respect of the one billion extra dollars that have been provided to our state and territory governments to enhance hospital services after so much money was pulled out of the system, that I have just in the last week signed letters dealing with the distribution of that funding. Five hundred million dollars of that will be paid to the states and territories before 30 June this year, providing a very serious injection of funds, much needed in many of our public hospitals. More public information will be available on that following receipt of those letters by my colleagues and, of course, finalisation of the details. The second $500 million will be paid during the coming financial year as part of the specific-purpose payments, the healthcare agreements having been extended for another 12 months while we continue with our reform negotiations.

Since you raised it, I flag that, in that first tranche, of $150 million, for our elective surgery strategy, $8.1 million went to Tasmania. In the coming weeks, we are due to announce stage 2 of that funding, which will be provided to state and territory governments, not simply to help clear the people who have been waiting beyond the clinically recommended time but to improve processes and to have capital works undertaken that will ensure that there are improvements in throughput into the future. From recollection, Tasmania was seeking a significant amount of its money for purchasing extra equipment, which I am sure would be of benefit to the Launceston hospital as well as other hospitals around the country.

Negotiations have been continuing constructively between the Tasmanian government and my department about the integrated care centre. We want to make sure that the money from the Commonwealth is available at the earliest possible time, to ensure that this project can go ahead quickly. I do understand that there are some complications in making sure that the funding matches with the building requirements, and we will certainly keep you, as the local member, informed as those things develop.

I move to the questions asked by the member for Riverina. I know she has had an active interest in HIV policy for a long time, and it is a legitimate question that is being asked. I will have to take that one on notice. There are not specific budget measures that the government have taken, but we certainly intend to proceed with the previous commitments and we are making sure that a new and enhanced strategy will be able to hit its mark. We know, through some recent research, that it may be that we need to target our message about HIV to particular groups that are at risk in the community. I am getting some advice on making sure that the ongoing program will do that. If the member is happy for me to do so, I will take the question on notice to provide her with a more detailed response.

In respect of the extra medical graduates, the reason that you cannot find specific extra funding for that in the budget papers is that they are ongoing measures, and measures that have already been funded through previous budgets do not need to appear with a separate item number behind them. Again, if there is further information that you want, I am happy to give you a briefing from our department on that.

The ROVE project, which has provided assistance to general practitioners, has, at least on the surface, been quite a successful one. The member opposite would be aware that we are reviewing our whole range of rural health programs. We do not believe that there need to be 60-odd different programs, mostly with the same objective—of either attracting Australian graduates to work in rural areas or providing support to international graduates when they work there. The efficiency is dissipated across all the different programs, all with different eligibility requirements, all with different regional bases. None of them really are sensitive to the actual needs of the areas they should be sensitive to.

The tool that has been used, RRAMA,  has been rather blunt, and we are reviewing it. We are in a 12-month phase of making sure that we are assessing which programs have been successful, which can be combined and how we can be more attuned to the needs of the community. I am awaiting the final report on the review of ROVE, about which, I must say, anecdotally we have had very positive responses. We are inclined, of course, to make sure that we invest heavily in those that have been successful and do not continue to invest in those that have not hit their mark.

I hope that that gives the member some information that she was after. I am happy to get my department to provide a briefing on those two other issues where she would like some more detail.

Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, I refer to the $12.2 million worth of funding for saving lives in water and the $10 million national recreation safety organisations’ continuation of funding. I recently met with the Royal Life Saving Society in the Northern Territory, who have a program called the Remote Pools Program, which I am sure you are aware of. They are funded by the Department of Health and Ageing from 2005 until April 2008 and require funding to continue with this program for 2008-09. The portfolio budget statement on page 216 states that the target is for ‘a continuing downward trend in the number of deaths from water and snow related accidents’. Are you aware of the Remote Pools Program that the Royal Life Saving Society in the Northern Territory operates, and will this program continue? Can you guarantee that some of this funding will go towards the Remote Pools Program and that the Remote Pools Program can continue? Will this funding be proportionate to areas of need or distributed across the states and territories based purely on population? What is the current rate of deaths from water and snow related accidents? What actual figure are you aiming to reduce this to?

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure the member for Macarthur that there have not been any snow related deaths in the Northern Territory in recent times. My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing regarding GP superclinics as allocated in the first Rudd Labor government budget. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I ask this question of the minister because in the electorate of Solomon it was a galvanising issue during the campaign, and it remains a galvanising issue for the people of Palmerston and the people of the rural area of Darwin. It is hoped that having the GP superclinic will relieve the pressure on Royal Darwin Hospital’s emergency rooms.

Much has been said about previous governments and the like in neglecting health and I would rather steer away from that because the people in Palmerston and in the rural areas of Darwin are sick and tired of hearing about that. I am happier about the commitment that has been made by the Rudd Labor government in this budget. This budget is a practical demonstration of how this government is committed to delivering healthcare improvements for all Australians. It is fantastic news that one of the first GP superclinics will be delivered in the Palmerston area. I also note that many of my colleagues are getting GP superclinics in their electorates and note how happy they are about that. It is important that, as an Australian, the basic necessity of having health care is not overlooked.

I have been speaking to the people of Palmerston and, as I said, they are sick and tired of the blame game. All they want—just like the rest of us—is to know that when one of their loved ones is sick they can see a doctor, whether it is day or night. Children often get crook at the most inopportune times and it is important for the people of Palmerston to have that service.

During the campaign my father was sick and, as a resident of Palmerston, it was difficult getting Dad in and out of hospital. He spent a fair bit of time in the Royal Darwin Hospital; the services were not adequate in Palmerston at that time. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Royal Darwin Hospital for putting up with Dad. It was a little bit of trial and tribulation in itself. They got him through and he was down here for my swearing-in, which was good.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will not be thankful now!

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for North Sydney for his comment. Hopefully he can stay in the Committee room for the entire session. Ten million dollars has been allocated in this budget to deliver vital services as soon as possible. I would like to thank the minister for her commitment to the people of the Northern Territory. I ask her to outline what benefits the GP superclinics will provide in delivering vital healthcare services to the Australian community.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question relates to the Rudd government’s commitment in relation to binge drinking. It arises out of a number of mobile offices that I have run, and in particular I have been doing the country shows in my electorate, which is about 90 per cent of the country area. Last Saturday we had the Ipswich Cup at Bundamba Racecourse, which I thought was an interesting experience. One of the topics that a number of people at the Ipswich Cup discussed with me was binge drinking, because sport is often associated with drinking. Interestingly enough, the Racecourse Hotel is not far away from the Bundamba Racecourse. Ipswich basketball stadium is also very close by and as a young fellow I played basketball there. A lot of my family were involved in the racing industry when I was younger, particularly greyhounds, and I also had friends who were race callers.

On Saturday at the Ipswich Cup a number of people were asking me about our $53.6 million commitment. A number of comments were made to me about peak sporting bodies such as the AFL and the NRL to the effect that we would like the money if at all possible to be coming down to the grassroots because binge drinking is often what happens on a Friday night, Saturday or Sunday around sporting events and is often associated with that sort of masculine culture. I was wondering to what extent that money is going to be contributed to community based groups and local sporting groups rather than to, say, the NRL or the AFL or any of the peak sporting bodies. We also want to know when that money could be rolled out and whether that money is going to go to, say, councils. I have been speaking to some of the local councils in my area, and particularly in Ipswich I have spoken to the Mayor, Paul Pisasale, about this. You only have to look at CCTV footage or drive around the streets of Ipswich at night to see that this binge drinking is a challenge. It is a real problem. As the father of teenage daughters who have other friends of that age going to parties, going to events, I can say that drinking seems to be a rite of passage for a lot of young people.

Minister, I do not know whether you saw the recent Four Corners program on the issue of binge drinking which was one of the most disturbingFour Corners programs I have ever seen—certainly more disturbing than the fact that the member for North Sydney did not understand Work Choices. I thought it was a particularly disturbing program that night, and certainly it was a real shock to a lot of parents to see young people, particularly young women, just sculling drinks. That is a real concern because, when they are inebriated, they are also more vulnerable to violence and sexual assault, domestic violence and other issues which are very serious matters. I say this because in my family we have experienced alcoholism and I am the son of an alcoholic, so I have experienced this all through my life. These issues are both personal as well as political for me.

I raise this issue not only because it was raised with me last Saturday at the Ipswich Cup as well as at the mobile office at Brassall shopping centre last Saturday morning but also because I have seen what binge drinking can do to families. I can see what it does to young people. To what extent will that money be rolled out to local community groups and local councils et cetera, rather than simply given to peak bodies such as the AFL and the NRL? The thinking from some of the people that I spoke to last Saturday was that advertising is all very well but it is the grassroots, the personal touch, that is most important—having a mate, a mentor, who can get beside you saying: ‘Look, just have a couple of beers but don’t not drink too much. Just have a few drinks but don’t go too far.’ My question is: to what extent are we going to push that?

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

I will answer those contributions from several members at once, starting with the last, because I think the member for Blair in a very personal way is highlighting why this is such a serious problem that the government is trying to tackle. I am glad that the member for North Sydney is here to hear this. I am sure that, despite the posturing on some of these issues, he and all other members of the House do understand that this is a problem that many parents are very worried about. It is a problem that many sporting groups and clubs are worried about for their participants. It is something that those who work in emergency departments of our hospitals are worried about. I want to reassure the member for Blair and others in this House that with this binge-drinking campaign we have no intention of giving millions and millions of dollars to the major sporting clubs, who by and large run campaigns and training programs themselves for their own members.

We have already allocated some portion of that money, $2 million I think, to ensure that the club champions process means that we can identify leaders that many young kids respond to and look up to to be the champions for drinking in a sensible fashion. We will use them, no doubt amongst many other people, in our advertising campaign because they are such influential figures in setting standards and are looked up to by many children across the country. But we absolutely take the point that you have raised that getting this money down to the grassroots is where we can have an impact. One of the things that the national campaign will do is invest more than $5 million in the Good Sports program, which was a very successful initiative in Victoria and which we are seeking to roll out now across the country. It is about going through your local club and looking at the things that make it a safe and healthy environment for kids, right down to whether you win a slab of beer in the raffle or whether you win something that might be more appropriate to set an example for young people. And these are capacity-building projects. They do not require ongoing funding; they need funding so that the key volunteers, the mums and dads who run those support networks for clubs, are trained. Once trained, the capacity is there for them to assist others and set good examples. We understand that we have to do this at a community level as well as at a national level with campaigning.

The other nearly $7 million is going to be targeted towards community initiatives that are nothing to do with sport. Of course a lot of projects, whether they are run by local councils or others, can benefit. Sending a message to our young people can provide support about ways they can entertain themselves in a healthy environment, ways they can protect themselves from peer group pressure and other things that might lead them to excessive drinking. There will be a process for ensuring that all members are able to participate in encouraging their local clubs and parent committees at schools, for example, and others have already expressed interest in being part of this project. Again, we will be focused primarily on capacity building—how you can provide money that will mean that key staff or volunteers are well trained, that they are able to do an audit of all their activities—and making sure that the environment does not contribute to trends of binge drinking. We are very excited about that project. The Minister for Sport, when she addresses the water safety issue that the member for Macarthur raised, may want to add more on this issue.

Can I also say that it is good and, I am sure, difficult to hear the personal stories that people have about being affected by alcoholism. We should not trivialise this. We know the extent of the problem and we have to be prepared to take a very comprehensive approach. I hope that the member for North Sydney, when he gets over arguing against the increase in the excise on alcopops, will take seriously this range of other initiatives, which are a real opportunity to make a difference in our community.

I want to comment also on the issues that were raised about the Northern Territory because I think that they are really important, as the member for Solomon has flagged. In Palmerston, having access to GPs after hours has been an issue that has been a problem for many, many years. Our government is determined to provide up to $10 million to make sure that that becomes a reality for those families. We are working very closely with the Northern Territory government. We are also working closely with the Danila Dilba Indigenous service. There is some capacity potentially for us to look at co-locating services, and as well we are very much engaged in discussions with the defence community, who have some special health needs that are not always well served by the existing facilities. I think there is an opportunity for us to use this program in a very innovative way to benefit those families in Palmerston who have been missing out on services and who desperately need them.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I refer her to Budget Paper No. 2, National binge drinking strategy community partnerships on page 223, Early intervention on page 224 and Education information on page 224. Given that those three initiatives are all targeted at young people or that people involved in elite sports are obviously less likely to engage in binge drinking than others, can the minister identify where in the budget there is funding for the sorts of examples that the member for Blair raised about older people who are not involved in sporting clubs who are suffering chronic alcoholism? Secondly, does the minister stand by her statement of earlier this year that the alcopops excise increase introduced by the Rudd government is a health initiative and, if so, why did the Department of Health and Ageing identify that it had not been consulted prior to the announcement of the initiative? How can it be a health initiative if the department of health, rather than the Treasury and Customs, is not involved in formulating it?

I have further questions, in relation to the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. Does the minister stand by her statement of 2 March 2008 that the Howard government medical dental scheme helped only around 15,000 people in almost four years? I refer her to the fact that her own department identified, in Senate estimates, that something like 370,000 services had been delivered in five months. I also ask the minister why there has been a substantial increase in the number of staff in the Department of Health and Ageing. I assume that might be because the department of sport has been incorporated, but I would be very interested to know. I also ask the minister, in relation to the negotiations with the states and territories, whether she can identify in the budget papers where in the forward estimates there is an allocation for the new Commonwealth-state hospitals agreement. What happened to the previous commitment by the Howard government as to the allocation in the contingency reserve—

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

Ms Roxon interjecting

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Minister, you will have your chance in a moment.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

of an additional $18 billion that was in the forward estimates?

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

Ms Roxon interjecting

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we’ll see if you answer all these questions. Can the minister explain how the budget commitment by the Rudd government in relation to teen dental health was $510 million over three years, yet when the budget papers came out they showed it was $497 million over five years? Can the minister explain the difference between the two? Can the minister also provide advice on the methodology that was used in the discussions with the states about initial allocations to address waiting list problems in each of their hospitals? Will she release that methodology? I can repeat the question if you did not hear it, Minister.

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

I have a long list already.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good, then we can—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members, through the chair, thanks.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How does the minister expect nurses to take on extra responsibilities when the government has cut 25 Australian hospital nursing schools? Can the minister explain her public comments recently that she is going to extend Medicare to nurses and allied health professionals? Also, can the minister explain whether that is part of the budget? What amount of money is allocated in the budget papers for the extension of Medicare to allow nurses and other allied health professionals to list their services on the MBS? Can the minister explain the $500 million that is being cut from a variety of health programs including mental health, diagnostic imaging, primary care policy, innovation and research and primary care education and training? Furthermore, can the minister explain why she unilaterally tore up the memorandum of understanding with pathologists, or did she not know that there existed a memorandum of understanding with pathology groups? I might add that was bipartisan when it was initially signed, but obviously, unilaterally, it no longer is.

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

I thank the member for North Sydney for these questions, and I will be able to answer each and every one of them. In terms of the national binge-drinking strategy, we do not make any apology for the fact that a number of these initiatives are targeted at young people, but he should be aware that the $14.4 million is for community-level initiatives that are not limited to young people. They will be able to have the reach, but that will depend on those that apply for the funding. I am sure that there are many groups in the community, and I would expect that a large number of them—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It says ‘young people’.

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

I am happy to answer each of these questions but I will be able to get through them more so if you would allow me to go through each and every one of them. So $14.4 million for the community initiatives is available. We do expect that a large number of the applications that will be made will be from organisations working with young people, but they are certainly not going to be exclusively for that. He also flagged what other funding would be available for initiatives that are going to target drinking to excessive levels in the broader community.

We actually have on foot a number of strategies, including the $4½ million that has been allocated to our prevention task force. Its three key jobs are to look at strategies that we should adopt across the community for reducing the risks from excessive alcohol consumption, tobacco use and obesity. We expect that their work will be done primarily by the middle of next year, and they will provide us with advice along the way. Obviously, if there are options that can be considered as part of the future budget process we will do that, but we are determined to do this in a comprehensive way. Part of what all governments do is, for example, ensure that we have the most up-to-date information and medical research reflected in guidelines and prepared by medical experts. I am a little bit surprised that the opposition seems to be poo-pooing that as a process. That will be made public by the end of this month or next month. I would have thought it was the sort of initiative that is exactly targeted at providing information to both younger and older members of the community.

The member asked a question about advice in terms of the alcopops measure. The member has the answers that were given by my department, quite rightly, at estimates. As was also made clear, if the member read the full details, there were of course discussions between my department and Treasury. That does not necessarily constitute formal advice, but there was plenty of evidence which Treasury was referred to in terms of the health impacts of this measure. That has also been tabled in the House and, I think, it was provided throughout the estimates process.

I can put the member’s mind to rest about some figures relating to the chronic disease program for dental care. We have previously sought to explain this to the member, but he does not appear to have been able to absorb the fact that there is a difference between the number of people served and the number of services provided. The people who use the program often have a range of services provided, so it is right that the number of services will always be larger than the number of people—often in the order of three or four times. It is also right that there was a large increase in the take-up of the program from November last year because of the changes that the previous government introduced.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was not.

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

I think that the member will find that there was. The figures that are clear are those in the first 3½ years of the program. During the campaign and previously, a lot of those figures were provided to me, as the shadow minister, as they were current. The member can go back and see the increases that have occurred over that time. I am absolutely sure that our figures have been correct. The member also asked about the alleged substantial increase in staff. In fact, what the opposition have failed to ask about is the number of staff that have left. My advice—I do not have the exact figure in front of me—is that there was a net increase, of either 28 or 48, in people finishing contracts and people starting. Actually, there is not a large increase in the figures, even including the movement of the Sport portfolio into our portfolio.

I may have to take some more of the chamber’s time to answer this question. My personal favourite is the member for North Sydney coming in here asking: ‘Where is our money for future healthcare agreement negotiations; and what happened to our $18 billion?’ As everybody on this side of the House knows, as does the member for North Sydney, that $18 billion was never announced by the previous government. It was something they were so proud of that they forgot to tell the electorate during the election. He knows full well that, when you are negotiating with state and territory governments, the process is to put funding in the contingency fund, and that is not available to the public. (Extension of time granted) I think it is absolutely extraordinary that the member would make such a pathetic attempt to highlight this issue. Of course information will be available.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

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

Let’s not have the member opposite pretend he does not understand how the budget works. Of course there is funding that is provided in the contingency fund. The member opposite knows that. The member opposite knows that the previous government—his government—were not prepared to announce during the election campaign how much money they were going to put in and now he wants to rewrite history and pretend that they spent and allocated some money, which they never did. If he wants to find the budget papers from previous budgets, we would be delighted to have a cup of tea with him and he can show us where they were, but he knows full well that he cannot.

There were some differences in the figures that were provided initially during the campaign when we announced our dental care figures. We went through the Charter of Budget Honesty. We of course take the advice of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation when it is provided. They scaled down the expected take-up, and those figures are reflected in the figures that we have now taken. They were announced before the end of the election because that charter process was finished before the election date, and they have not changed since that time.

The methodology that is entered into with the states in terms of negotiating with them on funding over elective surgery is something that also has amused me. Basically, it is a process that does involve negotiation, something that the previous government was not that inclined to do with the states and territories. We took account of their particular needs. We took account of the number of people on their waiting lists who had waited beyond the clinically recommended time. We took account of the capacity for and difficulty of doing elective surgery. For example, in Tasmania, where it is slightly more expensive, they had more than a population base of funding. And it was something that was hammered out in those meetings with the health ministers and treasurers. We are perfectly proud of the funding that we have provided for them.

We make no apology for cutting the previous government’s program for training nurses in hospitals. They intended to set up an entirely separate program of training for nurses. There are already two separate processes for becoming nurses in this country—probably more, really—the main ones being a graduate process through university and an enrolled nurse process through TAFE. The previous government were intent on setting up a third process. We did not believe that more money should be spent on setting up another process. That money could better be invested in making sure that we increase capacity for the nurses in the system, and we are pleased that our $6,000 contribution to get people back into nursing in nursing homes—which I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Ageing is very pleased about—and hospitals will be useful.

Contrary to the member opposite’s assertions that we have announced extending Medicare, making it available for nurses and allied health professionals, what we have announced is that we intend in the development of our primary care strategy to look at whether better access should be provided to other professionals. We will allow that process to take its course. We believe that a number of those health professionals are underutilised and that we should carefully consider how they can be better utilised for the benefit of the community. When those proposals come up, they will go through the normal process of government announcements and budget processes if and when required.

Of course, we can take the rest of this time to go through each and every one of the budget savings that the member opposite has raised. I think that we have already put on the record, through both Senate estimates and public comments, that we did reduce funding to a number of programs that were not meeting their targets, that were underspent. A lot of those programs are demand driven programs. We have stated clearly in the budget papers that if the demand does increase, we will then provide extra money for those programs.

The member opposite would be well aware that the MOU with the pathology industry is not a legal document, that there are changes that can be made throughout the course of those agreements. Sometimes they are made by agreement; other times they are made by changes that have been announced. The previous government did that very regularly by adding items that could be charged through the memorandum of understanding. Of course, those are more readily welcomed by the industry than when there are cuts, but we do believe that in pathology there are a lot of savings that have been achieved, particularly through the automation of a number of processes, and that this can be well absorbed by the industry.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have further questions. I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 227 under the heading ‘Illicit drug use—targeting young people who use methamphetamines’, which states that the government will tailor existing national education programs on illicit drugs from existing resources in the department. I think this question should probably go to the Minister for Sport, but how much is actually being spent on targeting young people who use methamphetamines?

To go back to what the Minister for Health and Ageing said a little bit earlier, in relation to the memorandum of understanding with pathologists, were they advised or consulted prior to the budget announcement of the unilateral changes? I also ask the minister if she will release the details of the methodology used by her and her department in the negotiations with the states, and will that methodology be the same methodology that was applied in negotiations with the states on the new state-Commonwealth hospital agreement?

Further, I ask the minister: how many extra nurses do you believe will come into the system as a result of the $6,000 initiative? And by how much do you believe premiums will increase next year as a direct result of the changes to the Medicare levy surcharge? I know the member for Hunter would have a particular interest in that. And why does the minister think that it would be a great idea for Medibank Private to buy Australian Health Management for $300 million? Did she approve that purchase by Medibank Private of Australian Health Management? When did they consult with the minister about that purchase? Furthermore, if it is the intention of the government not to privatise Medibank Private, will Medibank Private continue with the acquisition program that it currently has?

I further ask the minister about the Chris O’Brien centre for cancer research. Has any funding been allocated for the recurrent costs to help run that facility into the future? And I ask, very genuinely: has there been any consultation with the states about assisting with some of the recurrent costs associated with the centre for cancer research. I am sorry to bounce around a number of issues here. You do not need to answer all the questions now; you can do it at your leisure. But I think it would be useful to get some of these answers.

Can the minister advise the House of the total amount of money that will actually be spent on the national binge drinking strategy and over how many years? Given that this money is coming from existing resources of the Department of Health and Ageing, when the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing announced that there would be significant sums raised as a result of the new tax on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages, it came out in the budget papers that it will be in excess of $3 billion. How much of that $3 billion will go towards addressing binge drinking?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the debate has expired. From 5.30 pm, Defence is the order of the day.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not intending to take up very much time; I just did not have a chance to respond to one earlier question of the member for Macarthur about a water safety initiative. In particular, the question was about the Remote Pools Program. Can I just outline that there are a number of different initiatives in this budget which are aimed towards water safety, snow safety and reducing the number of drownings which take place in Australia. The member opposite asked: what are the projections that the government hope to get to for the number of drownings? Frankly, we do not want to see any children drowning. We want to keep putting in place mechanisms to reduce the number of drownings until we get to that point. In this particular budget there is $10 million over four years, which has been put towards national recreation safety organisations. This is a continuation of expired funding. In addition to that, there is $12.2 million over four years for saving lives in the water. Of that, $8 million will go towards supporting the water safety initiative.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nobody asked you a question; that is why you have to speak, is it?

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am answering a question that the member for Macarthur asked. Also, $4.2 million will go to Kids Alive. The $8 million which will go towards the water safety initiative will go to a number of different organisations such as Surf Life Saving Australia, the Royal Life Saving Society Australia, Auswim and the Kids Alive initiative. I am happy to speak to the member for Macarthur about how the program that he mentioned in particular, which he came across in the Northern Territory, is being funded. It may have been the case that we have been funding these organisations, they then pick the programs which best line up with what they are trying to achieve through the water safety initiative and they fund them themselves. I am happy to speak further with you about that. We have now put in place funding to ensure that the government’s total contribution to water and snow safety over the next four years equals $33 million.

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

I will be very quick for the member for Paterson. I would be loath for the member for North Sydney to stand and say that we were not answering the questions that were asked.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order: these debates run on a set timetable and that timetable expired five minutes ago. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to uphold the scheduled timetable.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ministers were asked questions by your side. The member for Paterson will take his seat. I am ruling on your point of order. The minister has the call.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order: there is a scheduled time set out for ministers to appear before the Main Committee and the scheduled time for Health expired at 5.30. The time for defence is 5.30 to 6.15. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to read your briefing on this matter.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have. The member for Paterson will take his seat. The chair will determine what occurs in terms of estimates. Questions were asked on this side—important questions—and the minister was just summing up. We will then move on to Defence. That is my ruling.

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

As I said, I do not want the member for North Sydney to suggest that we were not answering the questions he has asked. I can run quickly through them. The program that is targeting drug use amongst young people for methamphetamines is an important one that we will continue—$17.9 million over four years is being allocated to that project. We know that there are some at-risk groups where those rates are going up. This will continue to be an important focus of the government.

No, we did not tell the pathology industry prior to our announcements in the budget about the changes that were anticipated. No, we do not intend to release the methodology for the negotiation skills and tactics we used with the states and territories. I will take a very dim view of premium increases that are sought by any private health insurance fund that does not want to take other measures to try to keep members within their fund. There are a range of things that we intend to work with in the industry that will ensure that private health insurance continues to be attractive to the community. That is something that the funds themselves obviously do need to be aware of.

My ministerial colleague Joel Fitzgibbon has been desperate for me to make some comments about him being the better looking Fitzgibbon when it comes to views that people might have about private health insurance! I am pleased I have been able to get that in Hansard.

Finally, the member opposite would be aware that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation is technically the minister responsible for Medibank, in terms of being the sole shareholder and in terms of Commonwealth funding. Those questions would need to be directed to him. The $50 million that has been provided for—and I know the member has a particular, personal interest in the Chris O’Brien project—has been for capital works and not recurrent works, but we are in ongoing discussions with the states and territories on a range of initiatives, particularly relating to cancer. The capital cost is high but the recurrent cost is also very high. That is something we continue to engage with them on.

In respect of the amount of money that will be raised from the increase to the alcopops excise, the member opposite can rest assured that I will be arguing very strongly with my cabinet colleagues for a significant amount of that funding to be allocated to binge-drinking strategies.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Defence

Proposed expenditure, $19,923,409,000

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask a series of questions of the Minister for Defence, first and foremost about some of his statements about the Super Hornet before becoming the minister and then his statements about it directly after becoming the minister. The first question is: what period of time after being sworn in as the minister did you receive the detailed briefing on the capabilities of the Super Hornet? Minister, given that you would have been briefed on the capabilities prior to your announcement of the inquiry into the capability of the Super Hornet and the recommendation as to whether Australia should purchase it, why did you put people through that exercise and chew up military time and dollars?

Secondly, Minister, you called for an air combat capability review. According to reports in the Australian on Wednesday, 30 April by Cameron Stewart, you were delivered your report that day. That report has now been sitting on your table for five weeks. Why has no detail of that report, albeit in a reduced, non-classified version, been provided to the defence industry personnel? Is it because the air combat capability review actually supports the recommendations and acquisition program put into place by the coalition government? Because that air combat capability review says, as we know, that the Super Hornet is the correct aircraft to replace the F111, and it says that the F111 needed to be taken out of operational use. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also in relation to the Super Hornet. We welcome the Super Hornets to the Amberley base—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what you were saying before.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and we welcome them in the local community. It is a significant capital investment in our area, which will have major benefits for the Ipswich and West Moreton area. It will help local business and industry. The military has been an important part of our community since 1860 but, obviously, we did not fly planes in 1860. The Amberley base at Ipswich is one of the premier military bases and it is going to become a superbase in the future. I have got a series of questions in relation to Super Hornets and the RAAF base at Amberley.

We welcome the Super Hornets. We think they are going to be an important part of the local community like the expansion in relation to 9FSB, which came in 2007. My question is: when can we welcome the Super Hornets? When are they going to arrive in Amberley? How many? I understand that in the budget you have allocated $117.1 million to extend and modify the facilities at Amberley to house the FA18 Super Hornets.

My question also relates to No. 82 Wing, which is also based at Amberley. No. 82 Wing is being primarily geared to tending to needs, maintenance and technical support in relation to the F111s. Of course, there are a lot of personnel in No. 82 Wing. What will happen to those personnel? Will they be shunted away or will they transition to the Super Hornets; and what sort of training will there be? I think that is important for the local community. So what is going to happen to No. 82 Wing?

Stage 3 redevelopment of RAAF base at Amberley, as I understand it, is $331.5 million. I have been there to look at the new construction. There is going to be live-in accommodation, a mess and a new physical fitness centre, and we are going to have the newly arrived No. 36 Squadron, who are going to operate the C17s. I would also like to know: how many C17s are we going to get? We welcomed 9FSB, 9 Force Support Battalion, in late 2007. I understand that we have only got 300 troops, and there are going to be another 150. When might they arrive? Are there going to be future Army battalions arriving? This question comes from some of the locals in Ipswich who want an assurance that the RAAF base in Amberley will always be known as RAAF Base Amberley, despite the fact that there are also Army battalions there.

My final question relates to road infrastructure—and I have raised this with you personally—in and around that area. I know that the state government of Queensland is spending $2.55 million on the Haigslea-Amberley Road, which connects to the Warrego Highway. If 9FSB is going to be travelling up that road, the connection between the Haigslea-Amberley Road and the Warrego Highway is going to be a priority, because it is a pretty dangerous intersection at the moment. My question is: are we working with the state government of Queensland in relation to road infrastructure around the RAAF base at Amberley? If so, when might we see some funding? Are we going to get any further funding, and what is going to be the outcome of any of those discussions?

These are very important questions, because we cannot have a superbase there with inadequate road structure in the local area. The state government in Queensland would like to put a western bypass between the Cunningham and the Warrego highways, but they have put that off until about 2020-2026. If we are going to create a superbase, might we think about looking at that western bypass being extended and brought forward in terms of its funding; and, if so, are we going to contribute any money to a proper western bypass, because that would help the base enormously?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might take both questions together and work my way through each of the issues raised. I thank the member for Blair for his recognition of the importance of RAAF Amberley to the Australian Defence Force, to the country, to our national security and of course to his local area. He takes a deep-seated interest and is constantly in my ear about the future development of that base and its importance to his electorate. We will spend $130 million there in the 2008-09 year further redeveloping the base. He is correct to say we do have four C17s coming. It will be home to the Super Hornets. My last advice is that they will begin to arrive at the beginning of 2010. We are very mindful of the transition from the F111 to the 24 Boeing Super Hornets and the potential impact that may have on the local workforce, both uniform and nonuniform. We will continue to work through that transition as best we can to make sure that it is as seamless as possible.

On the road issue, I have spoken with the member for Blair about this in the past. It does surprise me that we seem to have a lack of coordination between Defence, the Commonwealth and various state governments when implementing these redevelopment plans. Obviously, the significant expansion of Amberley will have a big impact on the local infrastructure. I have asked my office to review what has happened in the past to see whether we cannot get a better model for determining well in advance what the infrastructure needs will be and what contribution state and territory governments should be making towards the infrastructure surrounding these bases. The redevelopment and growth of these bases are good for the local area, good for the local region and good for the local state, and it seems reasonable to me that the states should be making a contribution—of course, in a coordinated and fair fashion. We will continue to take the member for Blair’s interest in those issues very seriously and do what we can to address them.

A very good example in his own area was the effect of the expansion of RAAF Amberley on the local public school there. It was pretty messy pre-election, through bad coordination and planning on the part of the former government, but I am pleased we have been able to follow through on the commitments made by the former government, in consultation with the state government. Hopefully we have resolved that school issue, although I do note it is not to the satisfaction of all parents and members of the school community, because there is some debate about where the school should be located. We will leave that primarily to the state government to determine.

I will take the question about the effects of Army on notice and get back to the member for Blair on that later.

I want to turn quickly to the questions raised by the member for Paterson with respect to air combat capability, and I thank him for the dorothy dixer. I cannot believe I would be so lucky to get from the opposition a question which allows me to highlight the incompetent management of air combat capability that we saw under the previous government. One would have thought that maybe five, six or seven years ago a government would have been alert to the possibility that the F111s may need to retire early. If it had been alert to that possibility, we might have seen some decent, proper air combat capability planning from the former government. But did we see some proper assessment of that situation? We did not.

What the former government decided to do, almost overnight, was to turn the F111 off. That left Air Force in a very difficult position. It had to find an interim aircraft to fill that gap, given the late timing of the arrival, if at all, of the Joint Strike Fighter—I say ‘if at all’ because that would have still been a question of doubt in the minds of both government and Air Force at that time.

Were we critical in opposition of the Super Hornet per se? Never. And I challenge the member for Paterson to produce a statement from me, privately or publicly, which finds me criticising the Boeing Super Hornet. He will not produce such a statement because such a statement simply does not exist. What we were critical of was the process, which denied Air Force planners the opportunity to determine well in advance when the F111 will need to retire, what that means in terms of the timing of our next fifth generation aircraft and therefore what it means in having to determine what gap might need to be filled in the interim. Because of the government’s approach to this planning or— (Time expired)

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He does not want to hear the answer!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, your time has expired, Minister.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can allow the minister to continue his answer. The member for Paterson now has the call.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question goes to this. Prior to the election, his statements were that in principle he agreed with the Super Hornet aircraft. After the election and after he had had a detailed brief over the capabilities, that these were of gen 4.5 aircraft, he still proceeded with a claim that these aircraft—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please use the minister’s correct title or seat, not ‘he’ all the time, please.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Defence, the member for Hunter, then decided to go ahead with the facade of a review, which came back with what he already knew, and that is that the aircraft, the Super Hornet, was the correct aircraft. In relation to the delays in releasing the air capability combat review, we always read things in the paper before the minister provides a statement to the House:

The first half of the Orme report was released last month and recommended the F-111 be retired in 2010 and the Government proceed with the Super Hornet purchase.

That is fair enough, because that is what we had said, but then it states, as we also read in the Australian on 30 April:

The Orme report is believed to recommend against the Raptor, despite Fitzgibbon’s desire to keep the plane in the mix.

The reality is that he is sitting on the air combat capability review because that review supports the direction that the government went in on advice from Defence. He makes much of the claim that ‘it was the minister who went and acquired these Super Hornets without any briefing or detail’. That is not true, and he knows that is not true. And he knows that the background work was done by the Department of Defence and it provided recommendations to the minister and the National Security Committee of Cabinet, supported by the CDF at the National Security Committee of Cabinet, to buy those aircraft. I have asked him specific questions; I have asked him, if he will not answer them now, to take them on notice and provide an answer as to when he—the minister—found out, after being sworn in, about the true capability of the Super Hornet. I want to know that date. And I want to know why, then, he proceeded with the charade that we saw.

There is another question that I want to ask—and it is a shame that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel is not here, but as the minister has overall carriage I will ask him. Minister, prior to the election, you stated at various military bases throughout Australia that the Labor Party would contribute $33 million as a government to the establishment in 12 locations of defence family health centres. Minister, in the budget you have announced five centres. Minister, in detail and supported by the now Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, at Townsville, you said that these clinics would have a GP for half a day a week and they would have a nurse every day of the week. You said that they would have a full-time dentist at these clinics. You said they would have a full-time dental assistant at these clinics. There was no talk of caps. Now, in your policy, which has been watered down to $12 million and to five centres, there are no clinics: just toddle off to the doctor and if you get a bill for extra services, send it to them—but make sure those extra services are not for things like X-rays or referrals to other specialists. This has gone a long way from providing free dental and medical help to families of defence personnel. This was their retention package, clearly stated in the policy.

We have now seen that watered down to $12 million over four years, five centres and ‘just shoot along to the local GP’. One of the problems with postings is that you may not get onto a GP’s books. All you are going to be refunded is the difference if that GP does not bulk-bill. Dental assistance has been capped at $300 per person. There was not a single mention of that prior to the election. The government said they were going to provide a GP for half a day, five days a week; a nurse full time; a dentist full time; and a dental assistant full time. The government have misled Defence Force families. What we see is an apology from the minister: ‘I am sorry.’ Well, I am sorry— (Time expired)

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out to the member for Paterson that it is polite, once having asked a question, to allow the minister to answer the question. Maybe he did not like the answer he was getting. I can understand that, but he should allow the minister to complete the answer. What I was saying before I was interrupted by the member for Paterson is that, when this air capability gap was created—and surely the member for Paterson does not deny that was the problem—by the F111 being turned off without forward planning, the RAAF was left with a hell of a dilemma. What did the minister of the day say to RAAF? He said: ‘I do not care what your problem is. I am going to have a political problem if you do not find me an interim aircraft in time for the retirement of the F111s.’

I learned in government—I did not know this prior to the election of course—that RAAF’s problem was that there was only one aircraft which could possibly be procured in time for the retirement of the F111s in 2010, and that was the Boeing Super Hornet. So what choice did the new government have?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And still is.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is still the only choice? There are other aircraft. What we would like to have seen was some forward planning, some forward knowledge about when the F111 would be retired and a competitive environment created so that we could have choices over a range of aircraft and maybe some price competition and strategic competition. We got none of that because of the former government’s failure to plan in advance.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson has asked his question.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Super Hornet is a very good aircraft. The member for Paterson describes it as a 4.5 generation aircraft. I would like him to define what that is. That is my big challenge to him.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that a question to me?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, there will be no questions.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never criticised the Super Hornet per se in opposition. I certainly criticised the process, which left the Air Force with no other option than to produce a recommendation of the Super Hornet, under the demands imposed by the former government, because there simply was not any other possibility. These are the things we learned in government. We were left with no choice. Having said all of that, I want to repeat: we think the Super Hornet is an aircraft more than capable of doing the work we would expect of it over the next decade, and more.

In regard to the second phase of the air combat capability review, I do not know how the member for Paterson knows what is in the air capability review—that, in itself, is of great interest to me. The member for Paterson should understand that we are going through a white paper process. The white paper process reviews our strategic environment, both now and into the future, and then determines our consideration of a force structure review. It would be a crazy thing for the government, on the back of that report, to make a decision about our air combat capability by the year 2045 before we have determined the outcomes of the white paper and our force structure review. Of course the government will sit on the air combat capability review, encompass it as part of the white paper process and make the right strategic decisions, unlike the former government.

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to ask the Minister for Defence about the significance of Defence in the first round of the Rudd Labor government’s budget. The Defence presence in Solomon is significant. Well over 5,000 ADF men and women are based in Solomon. Their presence includes the HMAS Coonawarra, the Darwin Naval Base and Headquarters Northern Command, located at Larrakeyah Barracks. The Australian Army has a large presence at Robinson Barracks and, with NORFORCE, at Larrakeyah Barracks, and there is a large Royal Australian Air Force presence at RAAF Base Darwin.

In Solomon we have several thousand service men and women and their families who actively go about their daily business of going to work, spending time with their families, shopping at local shopping centres, going to school, playing sport and going fishing on the weekends. It is not until you stop and think about it that you realise how integral defence personnel and their families are to our vibrant city in the north. Both during the campaign and since being elected, I have been fortunate to meet and socialise with many members of our Australian Defence Force community—people like the young mums and dads who catch up with me at the local shops or at barbecues and tell me how life is in the Defence Force and how it is going for them. I have had the pleasure of coaching young men in the combined services Australian Rules football side up there, who are a truly magnificent group of young guys from the triservices.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do they win?

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari has asked me whether they win. I did have a very good coaching record prior to taking on that side, but we continue to work hard and improve. I have also met people like Brigadier Michael Krause, Air Commander Ian Meyne, Captain Vaughan Rixon and Anne Bradford, who are all great people and do a fantastic job up there in their respective fields.

It is a pleasure to ask the Minister for Defence about the commitments the Rudd Labor government budget delivers for the Australian Defence Force community because this budget ensures the Australian government’s strong commitment to the Defence Force and, through a significant military presence, also builds the economy of Solomon. The budget is fantastic for local businesses in the Darwin and Palmerston areas because the government will continue to source goods and services from within Solomon, building on the $463 million anticipated expenditure for 2007-08, and will continue funding of both Defence facilities and personnel serving in the Solomon electorate.

This budget shows that the Australian Defence Force families are front and centre this financial year, with government funding programs from child care, to health care, to housing. Through this budget, the government will continue to support employment initiatives for spouses, assistance with housing, relocation, childcare programs, health care, transition to civilian life at the end of a military career and a number of other support services. I know these initiatives will be of great benefit to the fantastic Defence Force personnel and their families who live and work in Solomon. My question is: can the minister detail what initiatives this budget will deliver for the strategically important defence facilities in Solomon?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Solomon for his contribution. There are many reasons why the member for Solomon was successful at the last election. One of them, of course, is that he is a very hard worker. He was a hard campaigner and he continues that work as a good local member. Another reason for his success is the way in which he has tapped into his local defence community. He is a great champion of the cause of the men and women of the ADF. His involvement extends right through to his coaching of the local services AFL side. I know that makes him a bit of a legend in the local area. He played with that side as well—played very well, I suspect, because I saw him play in the local parliamentary side against the Australian Defence Force and he was one of our stars. He fully appreciates and understands the contribution the Australian Defence Force, its facilities and its capabilities make to his local community and the broader Northern Territory community. I expect that he will continue to fight for ongoing expansion in his local area.

I am going to keep the answer to his question as short as I can because I want to allow some time for the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to address the issues raised by the member for Paterson with respect to our pre-election commitment to extending health services to ADF families. It is true that the Rudd Labor government will spend more money on defence in the 2008-09 year than any government in the history of Federation has ever spent on defence. A lot of that money will go, of course, to many areas and key bases across the country, including two areas in the Northern Territory.

To answer the member for Solomon’s question more specifically, the government announced in the 2008-09 budget some $88.9 million to maintain and upgrade defence facilities in the Northern Territory. The amount spent on defence estate upkeep works will be $46.2 million. Estate upkeep works provide for the ongoing maintenance of Defence’s extensive training base infrastructure. Works will continue on the upgrade of support facilities for the Armidale class patrol boats and Darwin Naval Base; $21.4 million has been allocated for major capital facilities projects at Darwin Naval Base and RAAF Darwin and $11.1 million has also been allocated for approved medium capital facilities projects in the Darwin naval fuel installation and at RAAF Darwin. So that is a very good result for the Northern Territory, in particular Darwin, and I look forward to continuing to work with the member for Solomon to keep the ADF in his local area fit, strong and healthy and to ensure that it continues to make a significant contribution.

Before I turn over to Minister Snowdon, can I say on the matter of defence family health that I do not walk away from our pre-election commitment. I will let Minister Snowdon give some of the detail, but we made a pre-election commitment in good faith. We have identified, off the back of a number of surveys, that for defence families, health is the No. 1 issue.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You walked away from it!

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 12 years his government did nothing. We said that we would spend $33 million and over the next four years we will spend $12 million. That is not an unsubstantial amount of money. We made a commitment. We are finding the process more logistically and physically challenging than we expected and I will let Minister Snowdon explain the detail. But $12 million for defence families in the area of health, on both GP services and dental services, is $12 million more than they ever did in 12 years.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member for Paterson like the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to answer his question?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, given that he was not in the chamber at the time I asked my question, perhaps it is more appropriate that the member for Kalgoorlie asks his questions now. Then perhaps the minister can answer them both at the same time.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am trying to facilitate discussion. I call the honourable member for Kalgoorlie.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that it is appropriate that the member for Lingiari be here in the chamber because he needs to hear the question and then maybe we will get an answer. We have just seen the departure of the member for Solomon. Much was said by the minister about his capability as the new member for Solomon. Perhaps the question of how he got his seat bears asking. Did he get the seat, for instance, on the propaganda that was spread prior to the election about there being free medical and dental facilities to be established on defence bases? Were the people of Darwin, for instance, encouraged to vote for that party because they were told that if they stayed in the defence forces they and their families would get that free medical and dental attention that they so richly deserved? I know that the members of the Taylor Barracks in Karratha in the Pilbara, in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, were absolutely disgusted that a promise that they took to heart when they went to the polls is, in reality, now a watered down, a Claytons, service of medical and dental attention. They were promised that the government would give some attention to their retention within the defence forces because their families would be get free medical and free dental attention.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you talked to them?

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken to them. The minister interjects: should I talk to them? I have spoken to them at length, and I get tirades against this current minister because he welched on his deal. We know he welched because in fact he apologised. That great bugle from Maitland, the Maitland Mercury, on Tuesday, 10 June, said the minister came and apologised to defence personnel.

Not only did he apologise—and so he should—he then went on to say:

The Rudd Government has been highly successful in achieving various pre-election promises. I would give us an overall scorecard of nine out of 10.

That might have been a 0.9 out of 10, because I know a number of things. I would hate to digress, Mr Deputy Speaker, but for instance: ‘We’re going to reduce the price of fuel, we’re going to reduce the price of groceries, we’re going to improve housing affordability across Australia.’ Well—fail, fail, fail. But, more importantly, defence personnel are saying that this minister has failed because they promised to provide a service that would keep defence personnel in the service of this great nation and they provided that absolute furphy. It was enough for defence personnel to stay in the services and to vote for the ALP in that election—and then they got dudded; they got absolutely dudded. It was not as though they were being promised something that was ancilliary, something that was mediocre. This made the absolute difference between whether defence personnel stayed in the service or moved out into the private sector and took very well-paid jobs. Most of those jobs in senior positions provide health benefits. They said, ‘No, we’re going to stay with the ADF; the ADF is a great place because this incoming minister, this ALP minister, is going to give us free medical and free dental.’ What a great idea. What a great motivation, and a quite proper motivation, to vote for that particular party because they knew they were going to have the goods delivered.

That was a convincing argument that turned out to be morning mist; it just evaporated. All these people, having made the commitment, found they had been dudded. My people in Karratha were dudded. My people in Taylor Barracks, who serve this nation, were dudded. If they had known the truth about this government, if they had known the truth about the efforts in cabinet of this minister to get funding, they would probably have done the right thing and left a decent government in place, a government that could make the right decisions. There is no doubt that if you take $21 million out of a program that is going to provide health care to Defence Force personnel and leave it with a miserly $12 million over four years you are dudding the troops.  Our troops expect more from this minister. This current Minister for Defence has failed Australian Defence Force personnel.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just say that the tirade from those two gentlemen opposite is what I have come to expect from them. Unlike when they were in government, when they singularly failed to address the issue of health care for Defence Force families, we went to the last election with a commitment, an undertaking, to progressively extend free basic medical and dental care to the spouses and children of Australian Defence Force personnel—note, Mr Deputy Speaker: ‘progressively extend’. We sought to focus in the first instance on those people in regional and remote communities, and that is exactly what we have done. Rather than, as they would, make an undertaking which they had no intention of delivering on, we are committed to this process. We have said that this is a pilot process. We will take lessons from this so we can work out how to properly extend this measure across the Defence Force. It is very important that whatever we do is not only sustainable but cost efficient and cost effective.

What they would have us do is throw good money after bad. As they would know, in Townsville and Darwin we are committed to two superclinics. Why would we want to put two clinics side by side? What we intend to do, and what we are doing, is work with the Department of Health and Ageing and with Minister Roxon to see how we can combine the services we are committed to in those two areas to provide these medical services.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said you would put it on the base.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us just go to that point. We have committed to do it on the base. You have actually looked at it? You would put it on the base, would you?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you put it on the base?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister said on 12 November—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just answer this question—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the minister said was: ‘We have assessed the situation and what we need to do is put in place a process which will inform us of the best way to deliver this service across the Defence Force,’ which is exactly what we are doing. What we are doing is a classic example of the government’s evidence based decision making, so that when we roll this out properly across the defence forces, after this pilot, we will see over time that the commitment has been met—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s never-never land!

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and you, my friend, will be laughing on the other side of your face.

Government Member:

You did nothing in 12 years.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They successfully did nothing for 12 years. They had no commitment prior to the election to do anything about it into the future. What they are doing is undermining their credibility because, fundamentally, this is not an issue which attracted their attention prior to the election and it is not an issue they are concerned about now, really; what they are after is cheap political points. What they need to understand is, if you share this commitment that we have got—to provide free basic medical care across the defence forces—you will work with us. You will say, ‘The best way to do this is to do what you are doing—see what pilots will work, see which will most effectively deliver the undertaking and then extend it across.’

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike these loudmouths opposite, we are committed to addressing the needs of Defence Force families. My two colleagues here were part of the decision-making process prior to the election. They will agree with me that the commitment here is being met, that we are progressively, with what we have done thus far, indicating that we are fair dinkum. It is the first step in progressively extending free basic medical and dental care to the spouses and children of Australian Defence Force personnel. We are doing it and we will continue to do it.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence. Given that the budget demonstrated a lack of commitment to Richmond RAAF base, with apparent zero spending for capital facility projects on the base, can the minister confirm whether—as a result of the then coalition government announcing prior to the election that Richmond RAAF base would remain permanently operational—Labor said that if they were elected they would not alter the status of Richmond RAAF base and the base would continue as a permanent operational facility? Given Labor were elected, what is the current government’s plan with regard to Richmond RAAF base?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. I make the point again that this government will spend more money on defence in 2008-09 and across the forward estimates than any government has ever spent on defence in the history of Federation. We made a commitment to continue to fund defence spending growth by three per cent real. Originally we made that commitment out to 2016. We have now extended that to 2018 to give our defence planners a full decade on which to make base planning decisions, capability decisions and force structure planning decisions. We have now commissioned a white paper which, as I said earlier, will reveal our strategic circumstances, our force capability and all those things that go to ensuring that our Defence Force men and women have all the training, capability and protection they need to do their jobs as effectively, efficiently and, of course, as safely as is possible. The government’s plan for Richmond air base is exactly the plan which was held by the former government. I have had no discussions with Defence in any shape or form which would alter that future direction.

Defence Portfolio (Veterans’ Affairs)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question I would like to begin with concerns the way in which the dental program is being administered and the appropriation for the dental services program. I understand that the way in which certain approvals are being given has resulted in dentists not being paid for as long as five months, whereas prior to your taking office, if an approval was required, they could ring someone called a dental adviser and be given immediate approval to lodge the claim for payment. The payment was then received in two to three weeks. But there is now a new system in place and there are accounts outstanding for five months and more. Could you tell me why the change has been made and how it can be rectified so that dentists are properly paid when they are quite prepared to accept the gold card or the white card in the appropriate circumstances?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question relates to—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We choose to answer it later, the way you did for 11 years.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question relates to the F111 deseal-reseal inquiry, which, of course, budgetary resources will be allocated towards. It relates to an election commitment made in the campaign in 2007 by the then shadow minister at the RSL at North Ipswich. It relates to the F111 deseal-reseal program, which exposed about 700 RAAF personnel and civilians to a range of chemicals and solvents when they were replacing sealant in the aircrafts’ fuel tanks across a period from about 1977 to about 2000. There has been a lot of public concern, particularly in the electorates of Blair and Oxley, which house a lot of veterans. The RAAF base at Amberley is an important base—it is a superbase we are creating. It is a destination of choice because a lot of veterans end up serving their time at the RAAF base at Amberley. When they retire from, for example, Townsville, or wherever they might go, they come back to Ipswich and settle down in the Ipswich and West Moreton areas, so of course they put pressure on the health services locally.

A number of people involved in the program, and their families, are claiming that they have been adversely affected. I have met with the group on numerous occasions, as I know the minister did when he was the shadow minister. We have listened to the concerns of the local people. These are very serious matters because there are people who have been very badly affected. Also, there are people who, it is alleged, have died as a result of the after-effects of their involvement in the program. The previous Howard government actually put forward a study of health outcomes in aircraft maintenance personnel, known as SHOAMP, and responded with a two-tiered system of ex gratia payments. For example, if a person spent 30 days cumulatively working in the fuselage deseal-reseal or the respray program during the period I have described, and their duties involved working inside the F111 fuel tanks, they could be eligible for $40,000, but if they spent, say, between 10 and 29 days cumulatively in the same program they could only get $10,000.

A lot of the people I have met have been very angry about this program and the response of the Howard government on these payments; they think they are inadequate. I know the minister has made a commitment to a public inquiry. A number of the people in my electorate have asked me questions about the form of the inquiry, and I understand it is to be done by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. They want to know when the public hearings—if they are going to be public hearings—will be held and where they will be held, because some of these people are not well. They are not well and, also, they are not well off. Travelling is a big issue, so they would like to know whether the committee will come to, say, Ipswich or thereabouts or to south-east Queensland, because a lot of the 700 people live in south-east Queensland. They would like to know the manner in which they can give evidence—for example, statutory declarations or affidavits or whether they will just tell their stories—how they will present their evidence and how they can get their information and their stories across.

They want to know whether it is just going to be personnel or their families who can tell stories. As you know, Minister, there are a number of people who have died and their relatives have been involved in the deseal-reseal group. Also, civilians have approached me about whether they can tell their stories. I would like your comment in relation to these issues because they are important in my constituency. I know you have met with this group on numerous occasions and I would like to have your response.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in your policy for veterans’ affairs, you stated in relation to the Korean vets that you would take all the recommendations unconditionally from the Korean review inquiry, which were: that the post-armistice service example of July 1953 to April 1956 be viewed as warlike for the purpose of the Veterans’ Entitlement Act; that the names of those that died in the period be engraved on the Wall of Honour of the Australian War Memorial; and that those that served in the post-armistice period be issued the return from active service badges to denote war service and that they also be issued with the Australian Active Service Medal. Minister, when will you honour those promises that you made in your policy?

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

Briefly, with respect to the matter raised by the shadow minister on the dental program, I have to be honest with you: I am not aware and I do not believe there has been any change with respect to the operation of approvals. However, I will undertake to get back to the member in the next couple of days on that. If she is happy with that, I will do that direct to her office, but I am advised that there has been no change in the process. If she has got some information she would like me to take on board in following that through, I would be very happy to have that and act upon it.

With respect to the F111 deseal-reseal issue raised by the member for Blair, he is quite correct: this was an issue which was raised with me in the lead-up to the last election. The treatment of the individuals involved in that program has been a running sore. Some of the cases are, as you know, incredibly tragic with respect to the impact on families and individuals, and there is no doubt there is a range of issues which the people involved believe are outstanding and need to be addressed. There have been concerns raised with respect to the operation of the ex gratia payments, as to how you qualify, the arbitrary nature of the size of them and when they apply. There have been concerns raised about when someone qualifies for it in terms of whether they were seen as being directly deseal-reseal, pick and patch or involved in other aspects of activities at the base.

What we committed to in the lead-up to the election, at their urging, was a parliamentary inquiry for those matters to be aired in a public sense and to try and see if we could get to the bottom of some of the issues involved. We will have to see the results of this particular inquiry which, as the member mentioned, has been instigated and kicked off in the last few days by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade’s Defence Subcommittee, which is chaired by the member for Brisbane, the Hon. Arch Bevis. The member for Brisbane will have carriage of that inquiry with the other members. As members know the committee has representation from both sides of the House. From memory, I think the previous member for Blair had a big interest in this matter as well, and I know there are other members of the opposition who also are concerned about what has occurred in this area.

As to the nature of the parliamentary inquiry, as I understand it, submissions have now been called for and the closing date late is this month. I stress that all of this is subject to the committee, so it is up to them, but my understanding is that they have set that date. My understanding and my experience of parliamentary committees are that if submissions arrive late they generally are considered but that will of course be up to the particular committee to decide. As I said, submissions will be received from that time I have just mentioned. They will need to be in writing. However, I am sure it is like with any other parliamentary committee, where individuals can write in and seek to appear before a committee. How the committee handle any questions as to programs, witnesses and where they take evidence is up to them. But my understanding from the committee chair is that there would be at least a hearing in Ipswich, and certainly the intention is to try to ensure that those who have been impacted upon by this issue will have the chance to take part in the process in a proper manner.

I do not wish to comment on the question of what the inquiry might find. To be frank with you, I do not know. I know that what came across to me in the foggy world of opposition was that there were certainly a range of issues which remained worthy of consideration because the impact on a number of people appeared quite tragic. I look forward to the inquiry considering the issues, deliberating properly—as I am sure it will do—and then, at some stage in the future, considering recommendations for action. I would urge any people who feel they have been impacted upon by this matter to get in touch with the committee secretariat and get a submission into it.

In respect of the matter raised by the member for Gilmore on post-Korean War veterans and the report—and I know she has had a longstanding interest in this issue—the commitment stands. (Extension of time granted) The recommendations are split between Defence and Veterans’ Affairs because a number of the issues relate to medallic recognition, which is being handled by the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, and there are other issues which relate to consultation with the Australian War Memorial on the question of appropriate recognition et cetera, which are in fact within the purview of Veterans’ Affairs. Discussions are continuing within that department about what might be done in those circumstances. I note that I have been talking to Ian Crawford, who, as the member would know, was one of the co-chairs of the committee, about how the matter should be progressed. There are discussions which relate to the War Memorial, as to their recognition in the circumstances, as the member would also be aware. As I recall, the recommendations were carefully structured to say that the committee wished that this recognition be raised with the War Memorial. The War Memorial Council is independent of government with respect to those issues.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a time frame?

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

I would hope the time frame would be the next couple of months. It is one of those on which I wish I were here today saying, ‘It’s now all done.’ It is like a number of those where the timelines have blown out a little bit simply by virtue of the fact of an incoming government.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to say, from my own perspective, that I am very keen to see an outcome to the reseal-deseal issue. I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work that the former member for Blair put into raising this as an important issue. Also, I would like to express my concern about the Korean War veterans in the terms that have been ably put by the member for Gilmore. I too will be watching the outcome of that issue with serious participation.

Going back to the question of the dental scheme, my advice is that the long delays are taking place with regard to retrospective approval for patients who have already received treatment. My advice is that the process for gaining approval has changed. They now have to contact the department by fax rather than by phone, and then they have to wait for written approval to be received at the practice before sending in their claim for payment. This process is taking as long as five months and one individual has just received payment for an outstanding account from November. There are a lot of similar outstanding accounts. Whereas this person is very happy to treat DVA patients, it is not reasonable that such persons should be carrying those expenses. That is the additional information that I have and I would be most interested to get a response back, because as long as the dentists are prepared to treat people that would be good.

I might go on to the question of the taking away of a spouse’s pension entitlement at the age of 50, because it affects more women than men. It is a very big worry. I have been talking to a veteran in the last little while, and I am able to recount this story with the veteran’s permission without identifying him. It really is a tragic story. He is a Vietnam vet who operated down the Cu Chi tunnels in Vietnam. He has post traumatic stress disorder; he came back; he was alcoholic. He got off the alcohol and he has become a workaholic. He has a back injury from being down the tunnels. He has permanent fungus in his feet because of what he had to walk through down those tunnels.

He has children from his first marriage, one of whom had a drug problem, but he is now enormously proud of her because she has worked for 12 months. He has a younger second wife. He simply has worked because he has wanted to work, but he is coming to the stage where his doctor says he may not work any more. He is not a TPI so he is not exempted from this requirement. His wife is 51. They had planned—and in his words it was his security blanket—that when he could no longer work she would look after him as she would be entitled to get the pension. He hastened to tell me that he did not marry a younger wife, thinking that the younger wife could look after him. But as it has transpired, they have been together for 12 years, married for eight years. He said that of his group of 98 that went to Vietnam, only 39 of them are now alive and the majority of those who died committed suicide. He said to me, ‘What do I do?’

The issue is the taking away of that entitlement and saying, ‘You have to wait another 8½ years,’ when you have people in this situation, and this will be repeated again and again. He said he is concerned about the guys coming back from Desert Storm. They do not know. I have put out press releases and I have spoken about it in the chamber a lot. It went out in their newsletter and he became aware. He just feels gutted, in his terms. He wants to work as long as he can but he says this is basically a sentence that he has to keep working until she is 58½. This is a real dilemma that will be repeated again and again. For a lousy $35 million, why are we putting Vietnam veterans through this and yet again treating them badly? He has served the country well. He has served it with distinction and he carries an enormous mental burden. There are other parts to his story which I will not tell but which are of enormous anguish and angst to him, and he lives with those flashbacks every day. His question is: what is going to happen to him when he stops work if he has not got a purpose in his life? Will he go back on the booze? This is a real dilemma. And with this amendment, as I said for a lousy 35 million bucks, we are taking it away from them. (Time expired).

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

As the shadow minister would be aware, it is very difficult for me to debate the issues of an individual’s circumstances without having access to them and without having their approval. If the gentleman is facing the sorts of consequences which you have outlined—and I believe you to be telling truth; I am not questioning that in any way, shape or form—the bottom line is he should be assessed as to whether he is being provided with the medical care that he needs. He should be assessed correctly around his circumstances and his availability for work. If he has PTSD and the various other conditions you have mentioned and gets to the stage where he is unable to work, on the basis of those descriptions he would be someone who ought to be seriously considered for a significant level of disability rate pension.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is not TPI.

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

No, he is not TPI, but from what you described in terms of the assessment of those conditions, he ought to be assessed as to whether in fact he is at that stage.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has been assessed.

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

Then I get back to the question that it is very difficult for me to go to the detail without knowing the individual’s circumstances other than to say that, according to our figures with respect to the impact, the impact will be minor. The circumstances around the choices available to individuals who may be impacted is that there are choices around the question of other benefits. One of the things I am very concerned about with people who may be looking at the figures and suggesting retirement at an age of 50, 51, 52, 55 or even 56, is that if you are retiring— (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 6.40 pm, debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.