Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the allocation of expenditure in this portfolio. Since my appointment on 3 December it has indeed been a very busy six months in the job, which culminated in the budget in May. In that six months we have appointed Australia’s first ever infrastructure minister. We have created a new department, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. We have begun setting up the Building Australia Fund, with an initial $20 billion down payment. That was of course a centrepiece of this budget. We have placed traffic congestion, urban planning and public transport back on the national agenda with the establishment of a Major Cities Unit and the allocation of $75 million within our first budget to progress planning on eight landmark, congestion-busting, nation-building infrastructure projects.

We have honoured all of Labor’s pre-election road and rail commitments in our first budget, bringing forward half a billion dollars to start work at least 12 months early on a number of critical election commitments. I have chaired two meetings of the nation’s transport ministers, the Australian Transport Council, and secured agreement on new, fairer road-user charges for heavy vehicles and provided a $70 million package to tackle heavy vehicle fatalities and lift productivity. Unfortunately, these have been blocked in the Senate at this stage by the coalition, in spite of the fact that this was coalition policy prior to the election and that the process of moving towards full cost recovery for heavy vehicles was begun by the coalition. We have obtained in-principle support for a new beginning for transport, a national action plan for keeping people and freight moving. We have launched a new and innovative road safety program funded in the budget, Keys to Drive, which will provide more than 200,000 free driving lessons to learner drivers and their parents. We have provided the ARTC with $15 million and asked it to determine, once and for all, the economic merits and financial viability of a second railway between Melbourne and Brisbane, one running through the central west of New South Wales. We have unveiled a fuel consumption label for all new cars sold in Australia which spells out each heavy vehicle’s emissions and fuel consumption in both city and highway conditions.

On aviation, we have commissioned Australia’s first ever aviation white paper, with the purpose of addressing the industry’s current challenges and guiding its growth over the coming two decades. We have finalised a long awaited open skies agreement with the US, secured additional capacity on air routes between Australia and Malaysia and taken an important step towards the liberalisation of air services between Australia and the EU. We have brought in industry experts to review the effectiveness and adequacy of security screening at the nation’s airports. We have signed a transport security cooperation agreement with the government of Indonesia. We have reinstated ACCC monitoring of car-parking fees at the nation’s biggest airports—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth.

On maritime we have asked a bipartisan parliamentary committee to consult and come forward with recommendations that will revitalise the coastal shipping industry, and we have legislation to deal with the issue of spillages of oil that has been introduced to the parliament just today. On regional development and local government, we have started overhauling and restoring public confidence in the Commonwealth’s various regional development programs. We have established Regional Development Australia.

On the legislative program, we have made sure that we have introduced legislation to give Australians flying overseas access to fairer compensation in the event of an airline accident, following nine years of inaction by the previous government, and we have made sure that big oil and shipping companies responsible for oil spills within Australian waters are held financially accountable for the damage caused.

It has been a very big six months, but I am very pleased that we have honoured all of our commitments, including those financial commitments that were made in the budget. I am very proud of the work that my department have been responsible for during the first six months of the Rudd government. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin by making a brief observation about the estimates process, particularly since the minister is Leader of the House—and I do this in a genuine spirit of trying to make this process work better. I have been disappointed that this year’s estimates process has been largely taken up by speeches by government members which have occupied the time and therefore denied the capacity for opposition members to ask serious questions of the minister and give them an opportunity to give account for their stewardship of their portfolio. I am not suggesting that anybody has broken the standing orders or that the Speaker has ruled inappropriately in those matters, but the spirit and the conduct of the estimates process has changed this year.

It was, I think, a convention that this time was used essentially by opposition members to ask questions of the minister. I have to say that as a minister I quite enjoyed the challenge, even though sometimes I would be found out, including sometimes by the member opposite when he was asking questions of me. But I think we do need to look at the standing orders to make this process meaningful, because it is the only opportunity for members of parliament to ask questions of ministers as a part of the budget process. Whilst I am not suggesting that we follow the Senate line, I think the difference between the two houses’ processes has drifted too far and it is an issue that ought to be addressed, perhaps by the Procedure Committee of the parliament.

Let me use my few moments then to ask a series of questions of the minister. I will not spend time rebutting his opening remarks, even though some of them are obviously open to substantial challenge. I want to ask him about road funding and a series of road funding issues. In particular I want to ask him to confirm that all the promises made by Labor during the election campaign will in fact be honoured. If they are to be honoured, how will they be funded? If the money is to come from AusLink 1 and AusLink 2, what will happen to the priorities that have already been developed for AusLink 1 and AusLink 2, which of course were developed in consultation with the states and the Commonwealth? Bearing in mind that the states—Labor states at the present time—pay part of the cost of these projects and so they have been very much involved in the development of those priorities, what is going to happen to those priorities if the government intends to fund its election promises through AusLink?

Does the federal government intend to have the priorities for AusLink changed or are they simply going to override the existing priorities? How did Labor choose its priorities? Were they merit based? Is it just coincidence that most of these new projects are in electorates now held by Labor? Are Labor’s election promises to be subject to Infrastructure Australia assessment to determine their relative merits compared with other projects which Labor did not choose? If Infrastructure Australia is genuinely to establish priorities, are all of Labor’s election promises to be immune from that process and therefore not subject to any kind of scrutiny?

In that regard, I refer to comments made by the Prime Minister in the Sydney press in February 2007 when he was Leader of the Opposition, when he said that road-funding priorities would be shifted under Labor towards the cities, particularly Sydney, and then the minister’s own statements later that too much money had been spent on roads in regional Australia and that the new government would be moving future funding away from highways in regional areas to city projects.

What projects in non-metropolitan areas are to be axed to fund the new priorities? For instance, could I refer to the Cooroy to Curra project on the Bruce Highway, some of which I acknowledge is in my own electorate? Our highway is still one of the worst and has been identified by the RACQ, and indeed by the Australian roads authorities, as either the worst or near the worst road in Queensland. This is a road from which Labor intends to take $500 million between now and 2013.

In this same area, I refer to the Ipswich Motorway project. The minister’s office told the Courier-Mail last week that there was no commitment to fund the Darra to Rocklea section of the highway, and then there was a statement by the Prime Minister that it would in fact be funded. Where is this money to come from? The Prime Minister has suggested that it would come from the Building Australia Fund, but if it does not meet the priorities there it will come from AusLink. Is that AusLink 2 or AusLink 3? The newspaper suggests it is AusLink 3, in which case the money would not be available until some time after 2014. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I state to the honourable member opposite that if you are going to start off a contribution in this chamber by talking about the processes here and saying that this should be a process whereby questions are asked and then answered succinctly and that people should have more time to do that, then maybe starting off with a five-minute speech was not the best way to get credibility on that. I make that obvious point.

The fact is that the opposition have had opportunities to ask these questions in parliament but have chosen not to. There were a range of questions asked by the honourable member opposite, including purported quotes, but he did not say where those quotes were sourced from. That suggests to me that they were not really quotes. What I have said clearly is that the Rudd government’s approach to transport issues will include a comprehensive attitude towards regional Australia. It is one that recognises that transport issues do not stop when you get to the outskirts of cities. This has been a problem that has been identified with AusLink in the way that it has worked. Businesses, particularly those engaged in our ports, have identified to me that the problem is with the failure of that last five to 10 kilometres of getting freight to port.

The government has a comprehensive strategy to deal with roads. I find it remarkable that the member for Wide Bay, who was the previous minister for transport, has identified a road in his electorate as the worst in Australia, even though he was responsible for transport funding for 12 years of the previous government. There have been exclusively National Party ministers for transport from 1996 until 2007 and yet, six months into the new government, they come into this chamber and they say: ‘I have the worst road in Australia in my electorate. Why haven’t you fixed it?’ That is what they say to the new minister. It is absolutely extraordinary.

I will say this about our promises: our election commitments across the board will be honoured. What is more, they add up. We do not have a situation like that of the coalition. On 20 February the member opposite, the member for Wide Bay, put out a release saying:

... the coalition committed to spending $3 billion more money than Labor.

Three weeks later, on 11 March, he said in parliament that the coalition had put ‘$3 billion to $5 billion towards our commitments for roads’. On 17 March he said that the coalition had promised $22.3 billion ahead of the election, but the next day he put out a press release saying that they had committed to spending $31 billion before 2013. So is it $31 billion or is it $22 billion? The fact is that their commitments could not be believed because they simply did not add up, whereas on this side of the chamber we actually believe in honouring our commitments. We did that through the budget process.

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

I call the member for Leichhardt.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is two speakers from the government, one after the other.

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

The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. I have allowed a question from the government side. I allowed the first question from the opposition side.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But the minister has spoken in between.

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

The Leader of the Nationals is reflecting on the chair. I have called the member for Leichhardt.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister and it relates to Infrastructure Australia. I of course come from Cairns in tropical North Queensland. Infrastructure is the backbone of regional and rural Australia, and it is extremely important that we take a long-term view, plan effectively and invest in infrastructure in regional and rural Australia.

I want to take up a couple of issues that the Leader of the National Party has raised because they go to the heart of the out-of-touchness of the National Party. The comments were made that we are only spending in Labor electorates. The reality is that there are no coalition electorates in rural seats north of Bundaberg in Queensland. So what is the Leader of the National Party saying? We should not invest in infrastructure north of Bundaberg? If we go up there, there is the member for Flynn, the member for Capricornia, the member for Dawson, then the Independent in Kennedy and then the member for Leichhardt. The member for Herbert is a Liberal and he looks after a provincial city, not a regional or rural area. So the reality is that we are representing your regional and rural Australia. We are about ensuring that we have good quality infrastructure up there.

The community are excited about the $20 billion Building Australia Fund. What they are particularly interested in is the fact that that fund is well spent, well planned and invested correctly. An important part of that is Infrastructure Australia. My community are particularly interested in Infrastructure Australia—how that is going to work and how we are going to spend that $20 billion. I want to congratulate the minister on that. My community are particularly interested in learning more about Infrastructure Australia.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

As I have made clear all along, the minister does not necessarily have to respond to each. I think, given the lack of time available, I am going to throw it around and then go back to the minister. I have done that in every other one. I think that is reasonable.

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

My question is to the minister. Minister, you are on record as stating that the government is not going to build a second airport at Badgerys Creek. Can we have this in writing and can we have this sent to local councils in south-west Sydney and to the state government so that the residents, who have their lives on hold and have had their lives on hold for such a long period of time, can do something with the land out there, which they have owned for such a long period of time, and so that they can realise for their families the value of their properties? If you are serious about a second airport being built to support the demands on Sydney airport, why haven’t you committed any funding for it? Where will that funding come from, when will work commence and when will this airport be operational?

I also mention that last year the people of Western Sydney had $150 million committed by the coalition government to the upgrade of the F5, which would have seen southbound lanes upgraded between Raby Road and Narellan Road. Kevin Rudd, Chris Hayes and the Labor candidate for Macarthur committed $140 million to the same project and promised to commence work on this road immediately if elected. However, any commitment to this promise seems to have evaporated. Far from there being an improvement in the traffic congestion on the major arterial road between Melbourne and Sydney, things have worsened. You only have to ask the commuters, who have to endure the drive every single morning on their way to work and then of course in the afternoon on their way back home from work because there are not the jobs or the infrastructure out in Western Sydney. They need this infrastructure built and they need it now.

So my question to you, Minister, is quite simply this: when will the Labor government commit to the upgrade of the F5 and by what method will the government fund this upgrade? When will the work on the F5 upgrade commence, seeing that you have been in government for seven months and we have not seen a surveyor out there, let alone any bitumen laid? This is despite a promise by the Labor Party that work would start immediately after the election.

During the election campaign, Labor promised $140 million to upgrade the road. How has the government costed this? It has been suggested that the upgrade will be substantially more than the $140 million that was committed. Is that a final costing to it all? What strategies and policies will the government introduce to reduce traffic congestion in Western Sydney? What targets has it set for itself? Exactly when will the government—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

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

You can come back to me with the answers—that is quite all right. Exactly when will the government act on those strategies and policies? When will the government stop the delay and address these problems? I look forward to the answers, Minister.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

I remind everybody that there is a standing order where I can put people out of this chamber, and I am getting to the point where I might do it.

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

My question draws on the question asked by the member for Wide Bay, who was the former transport minister in the Howard government, and it concerns what has often been talked about as the worst national highway in Queensland—the Ipswich Motorway. The coalition did little on the Ipswich Motorway for 11½ years. Since the election, we have heard a lot of words and rhetoric from the coalition in relation to the Ipswich Motorway, and certainly the member for Wide Bay has had a bit to say in the media in Queensland. But, really, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade could be characterised as a victim of procrastination under the previous coalition government.

Minister, I want to ask questions in relation to the stages. Each day about 80,000 vehicles drive on that motorway. It is the main arterial road from Brisbane west. It is a major national highway leading off to the Warrego Highway, the Cunningham Highway and the Brisbane Valley. The Dinmore to Goodna section is a stage that currently is not under construction. I want to know when that is likely to happen and what is going to happen in terms of funding commitments there. There is also the Darra to Rocklea section, which the member opposite mentioned. He had a bit to say about that. Minister, I know that you have travelled on that motorway a number of times, coming out to Oxley and Blair, and I know you are familiar with that particular area. Of course, we know the positions of the local councils in relation to that, and the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, strongly advocated for the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore to Rocklea. I know that the Queensland National Party and the Queensland Liberal Party have also argued for the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. I know that the Howard government position at the last election was not to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway fully—they wanted a bypass crossing the Brisbane River four times and linking to the Logan Motorway, which would cost about three times as much as the full upgrade, including the section from Dinmore to Goodna.

Minister, I would like to know what is going to happen about the funding commitments. I also ask for your comments in relation to the stages. I would like to find out about the Labor government’s commitment on this issue. I know the Prime Minister had a few words to say about this issue yesterday. I made a speech last night in relation to the issue, as did the member for Wide Bay, who interjected and said that they put in hundreds of millions of dollars. If they did, it was precious little and too late.

At the moment there is major road infrastructure work taking place. As you drive along it now, you can see the Goodna to Wacol section and the Wacol to Darra section being done. Minister, I know you were in Ipswich when the Prime Minister came and there was some sod-turning. I would like you to comment in relation to the full upgrade of and funding for the Ipswich Motorway, particularly the fourth stage, which is the Darra to Rocklea section, and also the Dinmore to Goodna section—which, at the moment, is not under construction, but I understand it will happen at some stage in the future.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members for their questions and their interest. I particularly thank the member for Blair, who, along with the member for Oxley and the member for Moreton, has been such a strong advocate for the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. We know of course that this is a mess that the coalition ignored for many years. The RACQ said in March last year, ‘We have been waiting six years for the federal government to take some decisive action in relation to the traffic congestion and safety problems.’

As a result of that, the Rudd government committed to the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway—that means from Dinmore to Rocklea. But we have committed over $2 billion to build the most urgent sections first. As anyone who drives along the road can see, construction is underway. Indeed, construction on the $255 million Ipswich Motorway-Logan Motorway interchange is underway, and it will be finished by early 2009. Within 100 days in office, we turned the first sod on the three-kilometre stage 1 Wacol to Darra upgrade. We did that on 2 March. I remember it because it was my birthday and I spent it with my colleagues in Queensland and the Prime Minister on this important road project.

We got this project going within six months of being elected—something the Howard government could not deliver within six years. We also stopped work on the former government’s Goodna bypass. This project would have put a six-lane freeway through the back yards of the constituents of the member for Ryan. The project would have cost double Labor’s plans to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore to Goodna, and the project was described by Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman—the most senior Liberal in the country, of course—as a visual blight. This project was overwhelmingly dumped by the people of Ipswich, which is one of the reasons why the member for Blair is here now. They voted for the Ipswich Motorway upgrade and we are delivering.

In this year’s budget we allocated $5 million for planning the Dinmore to Goodna upgrade. Already Queensland’s Department of Main Roads has called for construction companies to form an alliance to build it. I expect construction will commence in 2009 and be completed by 2012. Our $2 billion-plus plan will deliver six lanes from Dinmore to Darra and it will also provide better connections to the train line and the network of service roads that will take up to 25 per cent of traffic off the motorway. Unlike the Goodna bypass, which would have delivered no relief until 2012, the upgrade will deliver progressive benefits as the work is completed. The final section from Darra to Rocklea will be assessed by Infrastructure Australia and it will be considered for funding from the $20 billion Building Australia Fund or from the next round of AusLink.

We are committed to upgrading this section and it will be done. But it contrasts with the previous government’s approach. In their 2020 plan for Australia’s transport future, on page 32—remember the great slogan ‘Go for growth’?—it said the following:

The removal of the Brisbane Urban Corridor between Darra and Mansfield from the AusLink National Network will remove trucks from local roads by funnelling them onto more suitable connections, such as the Logan Motorway or the Northern Link.

The Brisbane Urban Corridor between Darra and Mansfield comprises the Ipswich Motorway from Darra to Rocklea ...

So not only were they ruling out funding this section now; they were ruling out funding it forever, removing it from the national road network. So they would have provided no money whatsoever for the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore to Goodna and no money from Darra to Rocklea—no money whatsoever—with this bizarre proposal for the Goodna bypass, which was costly because it was to build four crossings of the same river on a road. Common sense tells you that that was an absurd proposal. It would have delivered no relief until 2012, and they were exposed for that.

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

My question is brief and to the point, but it is also a fine example of the many situations that were proposed by this government when they were in opposition leading up to the election. They made all manner of statements about the wonderful world that they would create of infrastructure across this nation. They said repeatedly: ‘The blame game will be over; there will be no disputes between the federal government and the state governments ever again. The blame game is over.’ The words rang in my ears for weeks, and I thought, ‘What a pack of clowns!’ And now they have gone on to prove it.

Amongst the promises that were made by your mob when you were in opposition was that you were going to solve the problems of rail separation—grade separation generally—in the Esperance port. You committed $60 million in the lead-up to the election to separate road from rail to get the Esperance port moving efficiently. You have not funded it. No-one locally has any indication that they are going to get the funding that was promised, that influenced their voting decisions. It is a con; you know it is a con. I expect an answer on that issue.

Another con was the port of Bunbury. You have got the outer ring-road for the port of Bunbury and the access road generally. You committed $136 million worth of funding pre-election. Where is it in the budget? The good people of Bunbury that voted for a very fine new member for Forrest are wondering where on earth that funding is.

What are you going to do about the 12-month delay between your election and when you will finally sort out what you are going to do about getting funding back into a program similar to the Regional Partnerships program? What are you going to do with ACC boards that are sitting on their hands for 12 months waiting for some funds to get back into those regions? That vital infrastructure that you so fondly speak of, and that you so frequently promised, you never, ever deliver. When are we going to see some funding coming back into a program like Regional Partnerships and see those hard-working boards of area consultative committees being able to get their teeth into some funding that will make a difference in the bush? Minister, you owe it to the people of Australia that you conned before the election to come up with some answers.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We announced in the budget and prior to it that area consultative committees will transform into Regional Development Australia. Taking place in this building over the last day and over the next 24 hours is a conference of our department, under the auspices of DITR, which is directed to understanding and participating in a regional dialogue, with a set of discussions and papers being presented, on how better to go about the business of regional development in Australia.

It is fair to say that over the course of the last 30 years we have seen regional development as a national government priority move from the initial steps by the Whitlam government under DURD through the labour market programs of the former Hawke and Keating governments and then through the area consultative committee programs and Regional Partnerships of the former government. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. As we move forward in building Regional Development Australia, we hope to build on the strengths and the knowledge that have been gathered in public administration, in academia and in practical experience not just in Australia but around the world. We have asked the area consultative committees to work hard on the next transformation into RDA. We have promised the area consultative committees ongoing funding to 31 December, on their current levels of funding, to carry out that work. In the forward estimates of the budget there is nearly $60 million for the ongoing work of RDA, funding which mirrors, replicates and is identical to the funding pool available from the former government for organisations then known as area consultative committees.

Also on budget night we announced changes to the Regional Partnerships program. We announced that we would close the Regional Partnerships program and also the Sustainable Regions Program, which fitted within that. We also announced at that time that we would be pressing forward in the next budget cycle with our local community infrastructure program, a program that will replace Regional Partnerships but will have two substantial differences. The first one is that it will be transparent. The processes for axing it will be clear to all concerned and unlike the Regional Partnerships program it will be compliant with the requirements of the Australian National Audit Office. So it will have transparency and it will have compliance on a level that we have not seen in these programs before.

Most importantly, what we discovered following budget night was something that we had not contemplated. We had not contemplated that in the months prior to the federal election the process of Regional Partnerships announcements by the former government often took the form of a photo opportunity with the minister, a candidate and a piece of paper being handed over sometimes calling itself a cheque. Many community organisations believed that that media event, that stunt, did bring with it actual funding. However, there was a snag. A letter was in the mail advising people that such an announcement, such a media stunt, did not constitute a contract and the contract would be in the mail. Here is the bad news: the contracts were not in the mail; indeed, the contracts had not been signed. In fact, on many occasions the contracts were never going to be signed. Why? Because it was all a stunt.

As a consequence of those measures, we discovered in the week following the budget that there were a range of Regional Partnerships projects which had already commenced work—pouring concrete, building, engaging local contractors—and we had to make a decision based on principle to allow projects to be funded and go on. In the process of doing that we announced 86 projects which were in the not-for-profit category and were to be delivered by local councils. We announced that they would have an opportunity until 31 July to apply to have their contracts concluded and therefore have a chance of having their projects go forward. I table a list of those 86 projects which have an opportunity to apply for contracts to be put in place, provided that work is done by 31 July.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the—

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

Mr Farmer interjecting

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

Mr Haase interjecting

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can respond to some of the questions. Do you want answers or just questions?

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

I call the member for Calare.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t they want answers?

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

I am simply adhering to—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Questions were raised by two of their speakers. There were a lot of questions. I have not had an opportunity to answer them.

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

I appreciate that. I am in the hands of the members.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want answers? I am happy if the member for Kalgoorlie and the member for Macarthur do not want answers to their questions.

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

If members are seeking the call I will apply the normal conventions and give those people the call. The whips have between them, as I understand it, come to some arrangement about the time intended to be allocated for various portfolio areas. That is in your hands, not mine. If people determine to use that time in a manner that prevents others from speaking or questions being answered that is not something the chair has the capacity to determine. I will apply the normal conventions and if a member is seeking the call I will provide the call accordingly, and if that results in questions not being answered that is in the hands of the members of the parliament.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like to make the point that members opposite have pursued the minister this morning with a series of questions. They were not prefaced as being rhetorical questions and I presume they want the minister to answer them. If they want to declare that the questions are rhetorical then we can sit back and relax on this side.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the questions were not rhetorical. I am very happy for them to be addressed in writing by the minister. They will be in Hansard and I would very much like this process to move on. I would like my colleague to have the floor.

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

I intend to proceed with the debate but I do remind members that the normal process would involve questions and answers. If the way members wish to conduct the debate uses the time in other ways, that is a matter for the members, not for the standing orders or the chair.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and concerns the 86 projects that were processed and approved. Given that it is going to be at least 12 months, if not 18 months or longer, before you actually provide them with any money and given the fact that a lot of those projects have had an escalation of costs since last November, are you going to give the projects more money—if they need it—than their original application was for? That is question No. 1. Question No. 2 is: given that a lot of those were time-critical as of November—and I am not saying any particular ones or all of them—and had to start their projects, if they have had to begin will you still okay them? You have done nothing about this in eight or nine months and it will be at least 12 or 18 months before they get anything. Will you not penalise them because of your tardiness? My last question is: will you release a list of the 490 projects which were not assessed?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief, given the time. Can I use this opportunity to thank the minister for his decision in the last few months to not allow large passenger aircraft to land at Bankstown Airport. My questions relate specifically to page 269 of Budget Paper No. 2, dealing with urban congestion and planning and the money that is being allocated to the feasibility and planning studies to duplicate the M5 East in Sydney. My electorate will welcome this because of the assistance it will provide in making it easier to get to and from the city. I think it will also help with the movement of freight between the airport and Western Sydney. I also place on record my view that more work needs to be done to expand the M5 Motorway. I am sure the member for Werriwa and the member for Macarthur would join me in that. My question to the minister is: can you give us some more detail on that feasibility study and how it will roll out. Can you tell us whether it would be a truck-only tunnel and, if that is the case, whether trucks would be banned from the existing tunnel, which would improve ventilation; and whether this project would be an opportunity to fix ventilation problems in the existing tunnel.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the members for their participation. I will go through the questions that were raised to the best of my ability, given that there are about 40 of them and people did not seem to be interested in answers. I go to the questions that were raised about Esperance—yes, there will be $60 million funded under AusLink 2 for the Esperance project. This was not matched by the government of which the member was a part; it was in fact ignored.

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

No-one is suggesting it was. ‘When’ is the question.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

AusLink 2, for the member’s benefit, begins in the 2009-10 financial year. Maybe he could get some advice from the member next to him about the way that AusLink funding works, which is that the details are negotiated between the Commonwealth and each state government in bilaterals. The Commonwealth has a commitment to $60 million for Esperance.

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

Mr Haase interjecting

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just talk to him; he will explain it to you.

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

You are the minister.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you are the member who asks about roads in Macarthur even though you live in Mosman. There are no roads between Macarthur and Mosman—I can confirm that. Secondly, in terms of the other road project that was asked about, the Bunbury port access road stage 1—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! We might be in committee, but the standing orders apply and those on my left will listen to the minister in silence.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

from Estuary Drive to the South Western Highway at Picton, I refer you to the budget statement ‘Infrastructure Funding for WA Tops $402 million’, issued on 13 May. It said:

Our $164.5 million—

which was the bring-forward that we did—

to make an early start on election commitments includes:

…            …            …

• $2 million for planning the Bunbury Port Access Road (Stage 1) from Estuary Drive to the South Western Highway at Picton ...

So I say to the honourable member that—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have actually got to plan a road before you build it. I know that might be news to those opposite. Once again this is a bring-forward of an early commitment. Those opposite have no plans, no investment, in this area.

The member for Macarthur asked about the F5. It will be funded under our AusLink 2 commitments. He also asked about airports, the Howard government having done nothing over 12 years to deal with Sydney’s second airport needs. They leased Australia’s major airports and did not spend any of the money on aviation infrastructure, which is why we have got a big problem with a failure of aviation infrastructure. I find it remarkable that the member could raise that issue.

A question was asked about the M5. The budget committed $5 million towards a total cost of $15 million for a feasibility study to examine potential improvements to the M5 transport corridor from Port Botany and Sydney airport to south-west Sydney. If the feasibility study finds that this is a viable project, this would alleviate real pressure on the M5. It would allow us to get trucks off the main M5, to ease urban congestion, and to the port.

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

Minister, when will the work start?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, perhaps via the Sydney Harbour Bridge and then linking up with a number of roads and then getting onto the M5 eventually, the member for Macarthur might be able to travel through the dozen electorates in between where he lives and where he chooses to represent.

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

Just tell us when it will start!

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

You really do not want me to put you out.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a major initiative by the government. (Extension of time granted) The fact is that the government has put in place its election commitments on each and every one of the issues that have been raised by those opposite. The member for Parkes raised the interesting example of what would happen to the 86 Regional Partnerships projects approved but not contracted which have been tabled by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia. The member for Parkes suggested that, because of a delay between approval and contract, there should be extra money provided. That will not occur. The basis of this is that these were approved but not contracted by the former government. One of the projects, in the electorate of Forrest—Morrissey Homestead Inc.—was approved on 23 May 2006.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have laid the slab. They have built the building.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did not get around to signing the contract.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bishop blessed the slab.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bishop blessed the slab, according to the parliamentary secretary. It is absolutely extraordinary. But it was not completed because the program was dysfunctional. We have the extraordinary situation in which they talk about delay. I look at the dates on which these projects were approved—many of them early in 2007 and many of them, it must be said, just prior to the election being called, just like it happened in 2004. That is what the Australian National Audit Office has identified as being an issue.

There were projects from legitimate community organisations who, through no fault of their own, believed that a contract was about to be fulfilled by the government—projects such as one in Bundaberg which had a sign up on the fence saying it had been funded by the federal government—and it was legitimate for them to think that an agreement had been fulfilled. We wanted to ensure that they had the opportunity between the government’s announcement and 31 July for that contract, as it was offered, to be fulfilled. We are not reopening the process. For those projects that are not time sensitive and that were not ready to be completed, an application can be made under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure program, which will commence in the following financial year. But these projects will all be subject also to oversight by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Frankly, that has to be the case when you have projects such as some of the ones that have been approved and provided with funding. One of those was approved on 19 September 2007 for the town of Lock on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. It is a $60,000 project. Would you think that was for really important community infrastructure? Well, this is for the development of a new toilet for the people of Lock. Lock has one hotel, one motel, one caravan park, one supermarket, a school, a post office, a police station, a golf club and a town hall. It got approval for a toilet for $60,000. Lock has 290 residents, so that is $206 per person. But the department did not approve funding for this. This is one of the ones where ministerial discretion was used— (Time expired)

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

Given the fact that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has not answered my question—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The time for this item is over. There is an allocated time for these debates, and I have other business as Leader of the House.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, the allocation of times has, as I understand it, been agreed between the whips on both sides of the chamber. It is not actually determined by the House. Therefore, the times are indicative and not something which the chair can enforce. That does of course mean that if members do not keep to the times that they had themselves agreed then the process of the day will become unworkable, but it is not something that I am in a position from the chair to enforce. The minister has concluded the debate.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,455,351,000

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The principal budget commitments in the Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio are as follows. Before we proceed to questions I want to make an opening statement about the process for establishing the national broadband network. As you are all aware, the process is live. The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and its specialist advisers are currently examining information received in response to the request for proposals. It is of critical importance in a process like this that integrity and confidentiality are maintained to ensure the commercial and policy objectives of the Commonwealth are not compromised. Accordingly, the government will not make any further comments about the process until it has run its course—something I am sure the shadow minister would respect.

This is consistent with the approach taken by the opposition when they were in government. Senator Minchin’s position in government when referring to T3 was that consideration of the appropriation bills, including the estimates process, should not be used to do anything to disrupt or damage the competitive process underway. Senator Minchin noted the risk for inadvertent comment to affect the competitive process and outcome. He was of the view then that committees needed to be mindful of the process underway and that, in the T3 context, questions would be answered once this very significant float had been completed. He said that in Hansard on Thursday, 2 November 2006 and on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. With this in mind I will not be commenting about the number of bonds and deeds received or the identity of parties who lodged those bonds and deeds. The RFP is a public document and it clearly sets out the government’s objectives for the national broadband network and establishes the criteria by which proposals will be evaluated. It is available for all interested parties to read.

The government has also allocated $270.7 million for a further four years to continue the Australian Broadband Guarantee program. The continuation of the program provides a safety net for Australians in rural and remote areas who are not able to access a remote comparable broadband service, Australians living in metropolitan black spot areas, and the remaining two per cent of Australians not covered by the national broadband network. The government has committed $125.8 million over four years to cybersafety measures. The cybersafety initiative will provide practical guides for parents and teachers and improved websites with cybersafety information, and support internet service providers that offer a filtered internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible to children. The initiative will also provide for some $49 million for a range of law enforcement measures to ensure online safety.

I also want to make some comments in relation to the transition to digital television. The government has announced a $37.9 million transition strategy to facilitate the switch-over to digital television by December 2013. The strategy will specifically evaluate digital TV transmission and reception issues, including research into reception problems associated with multi-unit dwellings. In addition, funding will also be provided to track public awareness of, and progress with, digital TV conversion and develop labelling for products to assist consumers to switch over. The government will also provide $2.4 million over the next four years to promote contemporary Australian music through the Australian music radio airplay project. This is an important initiative to promote Australian music on community radio. These measures combined will ensure that Australians gain maximum benefits from advances in technology and the advance of the digital economy.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister representing Minister Conroy for his opening remarks. I understand the line the government ran during Senate estimates and I anticipate that there will be more of the same here. You touched on the process integrity issues surrounding the broadband tender process and I know the minister has been keen to play the probity card when it suited him. Is there any reason then why the minister was prepared to discuss specific issues relating to the national broadband network going to network architecture, structural separation and the like with one of the proponents who have lodged the $5 million bond just days before the closure of that bond period? Is it a problem with the lack of resources for the probity adviser in keeping across those kinds of interactions that seem to breach the very probity that the minister is so fond of talking about when he does not wish to answer any of the questions?

The second issue around the national broadband network is that Senator Conroy said in September last year:

Labor’s carefully costed fibre-to-the-node network is based on a detailed calculation of the number of nodes required to reach 98 per cent of Australians. This includes the number of upgrades of exchanges and pillars into nodes that are required.

Why is it, Minister, that that claim was made yet now we are seeing enormous variations in the cost of this network, many times the amount that the minister claimed it would cost? We have seen the tender process that you are seeking to hide behind not getting fully underway because this very information that the minister claims he has is not available to telecommunications companies to make a bid. So I am just wondering what the basis of that statement by the minister was and, if Labor has all this detailed information that tenderers are interested in receiving so that they can submit a bid, why they just do not simply make that available.

On the same basis, we facilitated the passage of the ‘show-and-tell’ legislation for the minister after he comprehensively botched the parliamentary process in the Senate, not even allowing enough time for his own amendments to be debated let alone the valuable input from the opposition. That was done with such great urgency because it was said to be needed. Why has he not acted on any of that urgent power that he sought breathlessly to get through the Senate? It seems to make a mockery of the tender process.

Again, while not talking specifically about, as you mentioned, the number of bonds and deeds, and you pointed to people referring to the RFP process, the Auditor-General has drawn the minister’s attention to his public statements about noncomplying bids being acceptable and how the minister needs to actually vary the RFP to indicate what is acceptable noncompliance. I am sure that would be of interest to those bidders who have paid their bond. It probably would be of interest to those bidders who may have paid a bond had they known what that acceptable noncompliance was. I ask the minister to address whether that has been taken up by the minister and whether he has respected the advice of the Auditor-General and has done something about his own self-spruiking of non-complying bids, which is actually in contravention of his own RFP process.

Going back to the Tasmanian government interest, they are very focused on the transmission link between the mainland and the island, and the RFP that the minister speaks about encourages state specific bids. By definition, if you are linking Tasmania to Victoria, it involves more than one state and therefore that would be a non-complying bid under his own RFP. But he assured the Senate that everything was in order. How would he know that if he was not aware of the bid of his Labor mate from Tasmania and how would he be able to satisfy himself that it is complying? Again, I would seek some answers on that issue of process probity.

Finally, on the broadband issue, we are very interested in holding the government to account for its commitments to working families. I note that there has been enormous variation in the total project costs for this project and I ask whether the government has any idea of what the total project cost might be, given that the variations are threefold and fourfold. I also point to a recent report that suggested the pathway which the government is pursuing will actually have very adverse implications for working families. The Centre for International Economics in its findings suggested that there would be increased inflation, reduced national growth, lower wages and reduced national consumption. I wonder what modelling the government has done to actually assess the cost impact of its proposals on users and the diminution of choice that seems likely to result. (Time expired)

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of broadband and the broadband network is something that was brought into sharp focus in the course of the last 12 months and ultimately became one of the significant reasons for the change of government in November last year. In Western Australia and in my electorate of Brand—the southern metropolitan area of Perth—broadband issues are profound. Broadband issues significantly constrain small business activities. One small business in my electorate is run by a very active businesswoman, Esther Grogan. Her home business is a secretarial service, and she has been desperately in need of a significant upgrade to the broadband connectivity to her home in order for her to carry out her domestic business. I am pleased that through the budgeting process a substantial step forward has been made to create the framework for the delivery of a broadband network that will serve all Australians and, in particular, the southern metropolitan area of Perth.

I am reminded of the importance of government policy and government initiatives interlocking and creating a stronger fabric for strengthening both our communities and our communal activities. Last week in my electorate of Brand we received the very first computers of the computers in schools program. The connection between the computers in schools and broadband availability is obvious. We now have schools with a profound capacity to deliver computers to students, at a ratio of one machine to two students, and we have schools making incredible use of that capacity. Not only can students now take their work home with them via either a laptop or a home connection but parents can enter into a monitoring process to understand better the lessons that their children are undertaking and the progress of their children through the schooling system. What that means is that availability of broadband services to the home is particularly important. It is important for business, for education and for building a society that works in an effective way in the kind of future world that we can all envisage for our kids and for our families.

When I contemplate the rapid expansion of homes through the southern metropolitan area of Perth and the very large number of new homes being built with the expectation that those homes would be connected to broadband services and that families paying top dollar for those lots would be able to access not only good housing but also housing which is connected to a broadband network and at speeds that are meaningful for families, then this particular policy framework, which we announced prior to the election and which we take steps to deliver through this budget, is particularly important. The small businesses in my electorate extend from businesses which operate in the industrial precincts to growing businesses that operate from homes. Having the availability of significant network speeds to be able to carry out business from home and to be able to work in an environment that makes most sense to small business owners is extremely important to people in my electorate. The repeated petitions to my office directed to me particularly by Esther Grogan and her group of small business people bring home in sharp focus the importance of the program of getting broadband connections into communities and homes and allowing these businesses to grow in a way that makes sense to families and to those people who are trying to make those businesses work. I commend the government on the initiatives it has taken so far. I look forward to watching in future budgets as this program grows and we connect our suburbs, our homes, our families and our schools as part of the growing connectivity and connection to the world that is available to them through adequate broadband networks.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two quick questions, since the minister chided me last time for using my whole five minutes to ask questions. I refer to the minister’s comments in relation to the broadband program and the government’s decision to cancel the $900 million OPEL contract, which would have been delivering broadband services to regional Australians before the end of this year. When can country people expect to first receive some benefits from Labor’s plan? What is the current cost estimate of delivering this plan? I note that the government has decided to withdraw the legislation to raid $2 billion from the Communications Fund which was to go to Building Australia. Does this mean now that Building Australia is only going to be an $18 billion fund and not a $20 billion fund? How much of the Building Australia Fund will be used to fund the government’s proposed broadband program?

My final question relates to the minister’s comments regarding the digital TV conversion and I ask him in particular to make a comment about what the government proposes to do to convert all of the black spot transmitters in Australia, which were funded largely by the previous government, to digital transmission? There are scores of these transmitters, Minister, and some of them are in the cities, in case you think this is only a question about country areas. Will you be providing funding to convert those transmitters to digital transmission?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise to the shadow minister. If the shadow minister has a brief question, I am prepared to—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I expect that the minister has to depart to make sure that the forces of evil are in good shape for question time today and I respect the burden of that task and that of the tactics group. He has agreed that if I put some questions down he can come back at a later point in time.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The word you just used in the Main Committee, Bruce—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I know. There is no suggestion of spirits and I certainly hope that you are not pregnant, and I wish your family well, Mr Albanese, in the good nature that I undertake my work. Those quick questions are: when will adequate broadband services be delivered to the people of Wollondilly including the small businesses that have been completely neglected under the Labor government? How much funding has been allocated to service areas such as Wollondilly and on what date will work commence that will provide equivalent service to the users in Wollondilly and to those in the minister’s own electorate of Grayndler?

On the question of the Communications Fund, I am just looking for an explanation as to why the bill was pulled in the Senate last night. My friend and colleague the Leader of the Nationals has touched on that. There is no public accounting for that action. That legislation terminated with no indication about what is being substituted. I trust that the government has seen the good sense and the credible arguments that the opposition brought forward and that there is a reason why you are keeping that Communications Fund, because that is the right thing to do. So some explanation of that would be worth while.

I note the minister’s lauding of Infrastructure Australia and the virtue of Infrastructure Australia and I draw his attention to his own speeches in the parliament—and, in fact, those of the minister for communications—and pose the question: why does Infrastructure Australia not have a seat at the table of the so-called ‘expert panel’? I also draw the minister’s attention to remarks about the expertise and understanding of the ACCC and ask why they are not on the expert panel. I ask the minister to examine the credibility afforded rightly to the Productivity Commission in areas of public policy development and wonder why they are not included on the expert panel, and I would like an answer to that. In addition to those inclusions of people who could add to the national interest, I ask whether there are plans to have a consumer advocate on the expert panel, because the only things competing for the most neglected status with the national interest with Labor’s broadband plan are consumer interests and the challenges that the minister is having in turning election sound bites into sound public policy, and I would like an answer to that also.

In another area of the portfolio, in Budget Paper No. 4 is the allocation to the ABC. I am wondering why there is no provision of $60 million a year to the ABC to carry forward the Labor government’s election commitment to have the ABC adhere to the Australian content requirements expected of commercial channels. Much was made of that commitment by the ALP about the ABC but there is no funding to actually give effect to it. Is that a commitment that is not being carried forward or is there some expectation that budgets will be cut? I also ask the minister to advise on the future, and fate, of the dedicated children’s digital channel at the ABC and wonder where that is going. Given that the minister has made a commitment to switch over—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a stream of consciousness?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has recognised the perpetual stream of consciousness and insight that the opposition provides, and I thank him for that acknowledgement. I am just using the time that is available and the space that you have afforded to me. Could you have a look at that? Also, on the question of the cybersafety strategy and the funding that has been cut from that, we are looking for some update and advice on how the minister’s so-called clean feed proposal is working. I am aware of the UK experience, which may be of interest to those members opposite, about the shortcomings of this process. I believe the anti-impotence drug Cialis is of interest to some people because, under the British clean feed proposal, the word Cialis was completely contained within the word ‘socialist’. I understand some academics in the UK were unhappy that inquiries about socialists and socialism were cut off by the clean feed process because embedded within the word is a pharmaceutical of interest to some. I would also invite the minister to advise what is happening with NetAlert, the tool that helps parents as the primary ones responsible for the care— (Time expired)

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was wondering whether the chamber would facilitate a few points I have to add to what my two colleagues have just said.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was more than generous; I conceded the call to the shadow minister. I am sorry, but I do have other duties and we are now over time.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to some of the stream that came from the shadow minister, the member for Dunkley, who raised countless issues, it must be said. I think it was a cry for relevance from the shadow minister, and I will take it that way. It has been suggested that it is unclear what the government plans to do with the Communications Fund. Nothing is further from the truth. On budget night we announced the Communications Fund balance will be transferred to the Building Australia Fund. The Building Australia Fund has been established by the government as a financing source for future investment in critical economic infrastructure, including broadband. It is for that reason that the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008 is no longer required and has been withdrawn.

The shadow minister has speculated that the telecommunications needs of rural, regional and remote Australia might not be met. I can assure the honourable member they will be. The Building Australia Fund will be used to provide the government’s contribution of up to $4.7 billion for the national broadband network, which is expected to cover 98 per cent of Australian homes and businesses, including the vast majority of people in rural and regional Australia. In addition, $400 million will also be available from the BAF for regional telecommunications, subject to the government’s consideration of the Glasson review. This is in stark contrast to the previous government, which would have provided only around $400 million every three years to spend on improving telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. Under the approach of the previous government, regional Australians would be waiting 35 long years to reach the same level of investment that the Rudd government is prepared to do right away. The government is demonstrating its commitment to regional Australians by establishing the BAF.

I was also asked about OPEL and the government’s decision and announcement on 2 April that the OPEL broadband network will not proceed. This was not a political decision. The government had committed to honouring the funding agreement entered into by the previous government according to its terms. A condition precedent of the contract stated that OPEL would provide coverage reasonably equivalent to 90 per cent of underserved premises identified by the then Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy performed an analysis of the detailed testing and mapping undertaken by OPEL.

The department determined that the OPEL network would cover only 72 per cent of identified underserved premises within its agreed coverage area. On the basis of the department’s assessment, the government determined that OPEL’s implementation plan did not meet the required service coverage and therefore the funding agreement was terminated. Predictably, many opposition MPs, including the shadow minister, have criticised this decision—and he has done it again today. But the fact is that many rural members of parliament, who understand the communications needs of their constituents, supported the government’s decision. The former senior National and former Howard government minister Mr Bruce Scott stated that the decision to terminate the OPEL contract was ‘quite sensible’.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Billson interjecting

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister calls his colleague dead wrong; I think in this case his colleague is right and the shadow minister should have a good look at himself. Former National and now popular Independent Tony Windsor supported the decision, noting that fibre-to-the-node infrastructure is the best option. Support for the decision also came from National Party MP John Forrest, who said, ‘I did not support OPEL getting this contract in the first place.’ So did a range of councils around the nation, including the Central West Regional Organisation of Councils, which covers Parkes, Bathurst and Forbes.

The national broadband network, offering minimum connection speeds of 12 megabits per second, will roll out to 98 per cent of Australian premises, including a significant proportion of rural and regional Australia. For that reason, I commend the budget allocation to the House. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $811,330,000

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

I am pleased to have the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry here today—and I assure him I come here with no overtones of malice! I want to refer in particular to his extension of EC, and I compliment him on the areas that he has extended it to. But I have a difficulty with what is called the ‘Burnett addendum’, which is a boomerang or U-shaped area that goes around the Burnett region. It takes in, largely, my electorate and that of my colleague the member for Flynn and, to a lesser extent I think, the electorate of the member for Wide Bay. I find that the whole addendum has been included, except the Burnett Shire, not to be confused with the Burnett region, which is now part of the Bundaberg Regional Council, and the City of Bundaberg, which is also now part of the Bundaberg Regional Council.

What I find bewildering is that it takes in the names of the three former shires: Miriam Vale, which you have included in the Burnett addendum, to the north of Bundaberg and Burnett; Kolan—that is, the Gin Gin area to the west, which is in the original Burnett region; and Isis, the Childers area, which comes right across to the southern side of Bundaberg. In other words, the entire Burnett Shire and Bundaberg city are fully enclosed by former shires that have all been included. Yet the Bundaberg and Burnett areas operate the same crops and horticulture, come off the same river systems—the Burnett and the Kolan—and have the same irrigation rules. It will be argued, I am sure, by QR and others in Queensland that, ‘You get four inches or six inches on the coast,’ and that sometimes happens; however, if a drought is to be broken, any rain needs to fall into the catchments of what is known as the Fred Haig Dam and the Paradise Dam that feed the Bundaberg irrigation scheme. All those areas I have just discussed with you—Kolan, Isis and Miriam Vale—will be affected by the new irrigation rules. South of the Burnett River, the allocation is only going to be 10 per cent, so the drought has not broken in the traditional sense of the word.

I appeal to you to have another look at what was formerly known as the Burnett Shire and the City of Bundaberg, because you have included every other area around them without including them. I repeat: they work on the same irrigation scheme, they have the same crops—sugar, fruit and vegetables and so on—and I find it bewildering that you can have all the others in and those two out. My final point is this: as we all know, when you come out of a drought—and I am not denying there have not been good falls of rain in that area in the last three months; there have been—you need a recovery period of about 12 months or more. So would you reconsider the Burnett and Bundaberg areas?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While on the subject of drought, can I ask a couple of questions also about EC and the EC declarations. I welcome, in a general sense, the announcements made by the minister at 4.30 pm at the beginning of the long weekend prior to these declarations expiring. Let me express the view that, firstly, it would have been better if the announcements were made at least a couple of weeks earlier so that farmers could plan. Secondly, and more particularly, it would have avoided this business where you had Centrelink doing its job correctly, ringing up people to say that their benefits were going to end because that was the only advice that it would have had, when of course most of the people who were rung, in the end, had nothing to worry about. The reality was that their benefits were extended. I think when announcements are left so late it puts people under unnecessary stress. As there are a whole stack of additional announcements that are going to have to be made on exceptional circumstances for expiries in September, I appeal to you to make the announcements a month earlier than occurred in this case.

Whilst also on the subject of drought, can I also ask about the $20,000 grant made available to people in irrigation areas that have been declared for EC. My advice is that some of these people have been waiting for many, many months for their grants to be provided. I would have thought that this process was well established, that the government had agreed to continue these grants to irrigation farmers who are affected by EC, but it seems that the money is not flowing. I ask the minister to use his good influences to make sure that the farmers who are entitled to receive grants for infrastructure upgrading works et cetera on their properties do get them quite quickly.

I now switch quickly to another subject—and the minister may wish to respond to a number of these questions together—in relation to the future of the SeaNet scheme. SeaNet funding ends on 30 June. It has been in place, I understand, for decades. It has been an excellent cooperative partnership between the industry and the government. I understand that they have had to give notice to their staff that their positions will terminate on 30 June. Frankly, I am somewhat surprised that the government would not be proposing to continue to fund an organisation of this merit. They have done fantastic work in developing things like turtle extruder devices and bycatch programs, providing excellent liaison between the industry, in a whole range of environmental areas, and the department. I understand that this industry-government partnership, although sometimes the fishermen felt it was a bit of an intrusion in their lives, did provide an opportunity for them to work constructively with those who have environmental concerns about fisheries for the best interests of the sectors.

As a side point, I understand the government is spending $380,000 on a rollout of the national system for the prevention and management of marine pest incursions, which, critically, involves, SeaNet. Indeed, all the brochures printed have SeaNet’s name all over them, so it would seem rather strange to prepare a campaign built around SeaNet and then not fund the organisation itself.

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can I say before I ask that question that I am very proud to be part of a Rudd Labor government that has introduced a range of initiatives for the bush when it comes to, among other things, agriculture in rural communities. The minister, let me say, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, is a great advocate for the bush. They will need one too, not only in the seat of Flynn but throughout the whole of Australia. As I said in my first speech, farmers are the backbone of the Australian community, but they are doing it tough—we all know that. They are experiencing the worst drought in 100 years. Some of them are suffering from floods and all of them face the ugly prospect of climate change.

In my electorate of Flynn and to the south and the west of its borders, severe drought is causing terrible pressures for the farmers in those communities. I am told by a lot of farmers out there that there will not be a hoof on the ground within three to six months. As the chairman of the Prime Minister’s country task force I am acutely aware of their difficulties. I am proud that my government has introduced initiatives in the budget that focus on enhancing productivity, investing in infrastructure such as roads, communications and regional development, and equipping rural communities and industries to better manage the effects of a changing climate.

My question to the minister is: what other measures is the government taking to assist farm families who are in serious financial difficulty or who are recovering from drought while they adapt to changing circumstances, including climate change?

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 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry about the significance of the recreational fishing industry and what is in store for it in the Rudd Labor government’s first budget. I ask this with pleasure because the recreational fishing industry present in Solomon is significant. It is a significant industry not only for Darwin and Palmerston but for the Northern Territory as a whole. In fact, statistics taken back in 2000 show that some $25 million was spent directly on recreational fishing, including some $9 million by visitors to the Northern Territory—quite a significant contribution to our vibrant economy in the north.

It is often quoted that the people of the Territory, and in particular the people of Darwin and Palmerston, have quite a refreshing outlook on life. I suggest that this is a consequence of our unique lifestyle. A major component of our lifestyle is recreational fishing. Being able to go out any day of the week and catch a fish is something that we take for granted up there, and it also makes us the envy of a lot of our southern friends. In fact, as the member for Solomon I am often asked questions by all members of the House about the attractions of the tropical north, and one topic that always comes up is our fishing industry. As a keen fisherman myself I enjoy being able to take my kids out and wet a line when I am not in Canberra.

One of the benefits of living up there is that, generally speaking, it does not matter how bad a fisherman you are, you are able to still catch a fish and take home something in the esky—usually the beer has all been drunk—and, with a bit of luck, you might even pick up a mud crab or two as well, which the member for Flynn would enjoy. So, given the importance of recreational fishing, my question to the minister is: what budget measures is the government taking to help secure the sustainable recreational fishing industry?

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a few comments today; I will certainly ask a question of the minister but I will make just a few statements up-front. I think people would understand the electorate of Forde, which is an electorate near a capital city but one that is very diverse. It has the combination of a very high density urban area to the north and also, to the south, very large rural holdings. For me it is very interesting to balance those differences within the community.

Our minister is widely travelled and I am pleased to say that he has been to my electorate on a number of occasions. More importantly, in recent times—just last week, in fact—he attended a number of meetings. This is something I am going to reflect on.

I want to re-emphasise aspects of the budget and how they will help communities like those in the seat of Forde and the larger rural holdings as well. I believe this budget provides a major boost to the government’s plans for modern, competitive food production industries in Australia in the face of a growing food crisis. Of course, the production of food is very important. We understand certainly in our community that it is of major consequence; we also understand its consequence for some developing nations, and their concerns. Major initiatives to receive funding include the $35 million Regional Food Producers Innovation and Productivity Program. This delivers on a key election commitment. This program is part of the government’s commitment to nurture the growth of regional food industries and expand the use of new technology. As the minister has previously said, this is about looking right along the production line, not just in the paddock, to see where we can achieve best productivity gains through innovation. It is particularly important in my electorate of Forde.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you got a question?

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take your questions later.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know. But I will take your questions later.

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

A very good exchange. Through the chair, thank you, but it was a very good exchange.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I will get to the question. It is very important to substantiate some of the issues and explain how the budget affects my electorate. I am certainly happy for the interjection. It allows me now to continue before I ask my question.

As everyone is well aware, there is a growing global food crisis, and the Regional Food Producers Innovation and Productivity Program is part of the plan to address and meet the challenges of the future. I think this will allow the government to work in partnership with industry to help provide new technologies, processing or production methods and boost export market development. Of course this is very important for my electorate of Forde. The member over here might not understand that it is very important for combination rural-urban seats like mine, so it is on indulgence that I actually talk a bit about this.

This assistance will include dollar-for-dollar grants to regionally based food producers and processors and $10 million for innovation and productivity in the seafood industry. This is also a vital gain for south-east Queensland. This will help places like the Gold Coast prawn farm which the minister, as I said, visited last week. It will help them expand their businesses and become competitive in the global market.

Rural and regional businesses were a key topic of discussion, as we know, at the Australia 2020 Summit in Canberra but also in the electorate of Forde, where I held a number of those summits. This is all about agribusiness. It will give a flow-through effect to regional and rural economies. This will provide attractive career options for young people in rural and regional communities. Another 2008-09 federal budget initiative is the three-year $5 million Promoting Australian Produce program to help rural and seafood industries promote their produce. I now get to the question.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, before I get to the question—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get to the question.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to the question; okay. Can the minister explain what the government is doing to encourage the growth of regional food industries and expand the use of new technology? How is the government promoting agricultural and seafood produce domestically and overseas?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask only one more brief question, because I want the minister to have a reasonable time to be able to respond. Can I thank most of the government members—perhaps not the member for Forde—for in fact asking questions and not wasting the time of the estimates process by making long political speeches, which have destroyed so much of the estimates process this year. My question to the minister is: is the government conducting a review of managed investment schemes, particularly for forestry plantations but also in the wider scene? If so, what are the terms of reference and when can we expect to receive the results of that report? In particular, is it also going to deal with issues such as planning controls?

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

I want to touch on forestry this morning and ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry some questions on forestry. In my electorate of Bass, and in the Braddon electorate of the Deputy Speaker, Mr Sidebottom, the forestry industry is a major stakeholder. Minister, the major stakeholders in that industry were very pleased that very soon after the election—I think it was about four or five weeks after the election—you came to visit my electorate and gave a talk to them in Launceston. They were very impressed with your honesty and that you wanted to learn a lot about your portfolio, so they are very keen to work with you.

In the north-east, where forestry is significant, I have two mills that employ 300 people. What I would like to draw to your attention today is that those two mills have been in jeopardy for some time now. I have been a great advocate of those mills. I would like to acknowledge the hard work, commitment and dedication of Dean Smith and Eva Down, two people who work at those mills and have led a very strong campaign to keep them afloat. I think we all know that, as is the case for regional and rural communities, in a place such as Scottsdale, if we lose those mills and 300 jobs are lost, there goes a whole community.

I was quite proud that, as one of our key election commitments, a newly formed Rudd government would provide $1 million to tackle illegal logging. People in my electorate were very pleased about that. Through working with our regional neighbours and within Australia, this will restrict the sale of illegally logged timber.

There were two critical areas where the former government failed to act. They failed to address the skills shortage, which is a problem for a lot of areas across the country but is quite prevalent in the forestry industry. The second area was climate change, which, as we know now, they were very sceptical about. My question to you, Minister, is in relation to climate change and skills shortage. Could you please advise what the measures are we have taken in the budget which will affect the forestry industry? I would also like to ask a question about the $20 million package we announced for preparing Australia’s forestry industry for the future. What will it cover and how will the measures benefit the industry in my electorate? If you could answer those questions I would be most pleased.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also have some questions for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. As the minister and other colleagues know, I have an agricultural background, so it is great to be here today to ask some questions specifically in relation to agriculture and to represent people in my electorate who are farmers, whether in the sugar industry or the grazing industry, and also other members of the agricultural sector I worked with over 20 or so years in agriculture. My questions go specifically to the Caring for our Country program and also the weeds program. I want to give some background to that as well because I think it is really important that the minister understands a bit about some of the agricultural issues in tropical North Queensland. I appreciate the fact that the minister came up there on one of his first visits as a minister. He met with the member for Kennedy early on as well and got to talk to him about some of the issues down around Innisfail. He also came up and hosted the first meeting of agricultural ministers in Cairns. I think that was a very worthwhile meeting. One of the outcomes was a real strengthening of the focus on climate change. I think that is a very important issue as well. I am sure the minister will touch on that in his responses to some of the questions that I have, particularly in relation to the Great Barrier Reef.

As the minister knows, I have worked for a long time in agriculture out in the extensive grazing areas, doing property management planning and business planning with graziers. Weeds are a huge issue out in that part of the world. Woody weeds are impacting significantly on the extensive grazing industry, and farmers and graziers are looking for what government is doing in the current budget to respond to the weed problems and the challenges we have out there. So I am looking forward to getting some response from you particularly in relation to weeds.

The other important area I have worked in relates to the Great Barrier Reef, particularly water quality issues. I know there have been some measures in the budget relating specifically to water quality and the impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, so I would like some feedback on that as well. Out in the extensive grazing areas there are real issues about ensuring that we reduce the amount of sediment that is running off and impacting on the reef. Graziers are doing some great things out there and have adopted some fantastic new farming systems or grazing systems in order to better match the numbers of cattle to the landscape. They are looking at how they can fence off waters, better manage the pastures that they have with the rainfall and in particular take a risk management approach to the way that they are working with the climate. I touched on the issue of climate change earlier on.

Climate change related to the management of their country is directly related to the sort of groundcover that we have and the level of sediment that is running off—or could potentially run off—into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. It is particularly important that the government provides the appropriate supports to the Caring for our Country natural resource management boards and that it has some significant incentives for farmers and graziers within the budget. I am particularly keen for the minister to touch on that.

The rural and regional areas along the coast from Cairns in my electorate of Leichhardt down to the electorate of Flynn are effectively represented by good Labor, whether that is the member for Dawson, the member for Capricornia or the member for Flynn, who I am glad to see is here—he is also a great Queensland rural and regional representative. Of course, the member for Herbert, who is a Liberal, represents a provincial city there and then there is the Independent Mr Katter. But, effectively, Labor pretty much represents rural and regional Australia north of Bundaberg and it is great to work with those members.

The sugar industry is also looking for outcomes from the budget in terms of supporting sugar farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. I am sure that there are things in the budget in the Caring for our Country program. I think the Great Barrier Reef Rescue Plan is a very positive initiative. I would really appreciate the minister providing us with some feedback on that.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will go through the issues that were raised in the order in which they were raised. Given the sensitivity of some of the issues, I do not want to scan over them, so I may have to request a second or third call to be able to work through all the issues. I first of all want to thank all members for their questions and their contributions, particularly for the sensitivity with which the EC issues were raised. Governments of each side have provided assistance to people very genuinely in need and often in some of the most desperate times of their lives. The way that sensitivity was shown on each side of the House is certainly appreciated.

The member for Hinkler raised EC extension issues, particularly with respect to the Burnett addendum. The best way to answer the member for Hinkler’s question is to explain in more detail than I have had the opportunity to do so in this place up until now the precise process that was followed in making those exceptional circumstances determinations. In all cases, the initial assessments made by the National Rural Advisory Committee were made under the current boundaries—that is, the boundaries by area which had previously been the subject of determinations by the previous government, based on applications made to them by the state governments.

When the NRAC advice came back to me, there were two areas which were flagged by them. These were areas where they believed that the state governments in New South Wales and in Queensland may be invited to put forward new boundaries on a more restrictive basis. Given that NRAC determined the boundaries as they were, on balance they did not feel they could remain in EC, so they had to reject them. But they said to flag up in lights that should there be a resubmission by the state governments, they would be willing to have another look at it. The areas that NRAC flagged were the Ashy Downs area in Queensland and the Bourke-Brewarrina area in New South Wales. In advance of making the announcements, I provided advice to the opposition and to the different farming organisations in Queensland and in New South Wales. Following discussions with AgForce and the Queensland Farmers Federation, it was put in fairly strong terms that the Queensland government might be encouraged to also resubmit for the areas surrounding the Lockyer Valley and to have another look at the Burnett addendum. Even though those areas had not been flagged in the first instance by NRAC, they formed the basis of a new submission which came to us from the Queensland government. I referred that to NRAC for advice. NRAC, while they had flagged that there were two areas that they thought might be subject to new boundaries, they were presented with four. In each case, those new boundaries were boundaries that were put forward by the Queensland and New South Wales governments following initial rejection under the old boundaries. On looking at those four new boundaries once they had been provided, NRAC, within a 24-hour period, had been able to hold a meeting by teleconference and recommend that all four new boundaries be accepted for exceptional circumstances. An announcement was made within a very short space of time—I think maybe just over 24 hours—by me that the extensions had been made. That was the order of events.

It is easy for me to misrepresent the Queensland position and say the boundaries that they submitted cut out areas and, therefore, try to blame the states. The truth is that under the old boundaries NRAC had determined that, on balance, they could not be extended for EC and so the Queensland government had to put forward as best it could a new pitch for fresh boundaries with respect to the Burnett addendum. That is why we have ended up where we have. (Extension of time granted)

I think the problems which the member for Hinkler has referred to are real and they go to the fact that EC, as it currently is, and for the bipartisan support that it enjoys, is a system which is not entirely needs based. It is region based in the first instance and then needs based within that. That does create some of the problems to which the member refers. The fact that that is the technical way the system works provides no comfort at all to families who in a purely needs based system would have relief. The transitional income support payment goes a small part of the way there, but it goes nowhere near full EC relief. Certainly I hope that is one of the issues that the reviews currently underway will have a look at. I take in good faith and accept that, under the current regional based system, there will be people who would qualify under a purely needs based system who simply do not when lines are drawn on a map. Therefore, on the question that the member for Hinkler asked as to whether there is a belief that the drought has broken, the NRAC decisions are not whether or not the drought has broken; the NRAC decisions are whether or not they are now looking at a one in 20- to 25-year event and whether or not the recovery has begun. Within that framework, the determinations were made as recommendations to me. On each of the two rounds, I accepted all of NRAC’s recommendations.

The Leader of the Nationals asked further questions concerning EC declarations and made the point, which I take in good faith, that earlier would have been better. There is no doubt that is true. You want to give people as much notice as you possibly can. As I said in the chamber a couple of weeks ago, there is always a tension between having the assessment as early as possible and presuming that normal weather patterns will follow and having the assessments done later to make sure that they are accurate. The latter runs the risk of not giving people enough notice. I have been in correspondence with the Prime Minister, trying to work through ways that we can bring forward the dates. We are working through that, but we do not want a situation where the advice from Centrelink does not turn out to be the advice that people end up having to deal with.

The Centrelink delivery issues which have been raised in terms of delays on the $20,000 grants in irrigation areas is something that I will certainly refer to that agency, which has administration of it, rather than my own department. On the issue of SeaNet, as the Leader of the Nationals is aware, under Caring for our Country we are trying to move to a system where there are funding rounds for which people bid. We are close to announcing quite a large funding round. I have no doubt that SeaNet will be one of the groups wanting to participate in that. The process that we are going through is to have, as much as possible, a competitive tendering process which will hopefully then provide a better way of dealing with some of the issues that were raised by the Australian National Audit Office.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you have a look at doing something for them, because they only have a week to go?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look at it in the terms in which I have just described. The member for Flynn asked for other members for families while they adapt to climate change. I have referred briefly to the transitional income support, but there is also the project through Australia’s Farming Future, which aims to help people, as much as we can, in the preparation for the challenges that the climate will bring in the years to come. I am sorry to be racing through the important issues that have been raised, but I now have to. The member for Solomon raised issues about recreational fishing. I am aware of the importance of recreational fishing in particular to the way of life in the electorate of Solomon. The Australian government has committed $2 million over three years to having the formal development and implementation of a recreational fishing industry development strategy. The member for Forde in many ways answered the question in advance of asking it with respect to what we were doing with food production down the whole value chain. The regional food producers grants will certainly go a long way to those benefits down the production chain to which he referred.

The Leader of the Nationals asked about managed investment schemes. During the election campaign we promised that there would be a review of non-forestry MIS. While the promise was made in my portfolio, the appropriate agency to conduct that review is Treasury. Soon after getting the portfolio I wrote to Treasury and they are undertaking the review of non-forestry MIS. (Extension of time granted) The member for Bass, whose seat I was privileged to visit very early this term, has made me aware from day one of just how important to north-east Tasmania the forestry industry is and, in particular, the opportunities that come for value-adding through the mills and though downstream processing. The $1 million to combat illegal logging is an important part of this. Combating illegal logging is complex and I have had some in-depth conversations with my counterpart in New Zealand about how we might be able to do some of this work together. Long-term work on combating illegal logging requires that there be an engagement with China, which is the primary receiver of timber for manufacturing. Once manufactured, it becomes hard to identify whether or not we are dealing with timber which has been illegally logged. With climate change, we often talk about drought purely in terms of farmers, and we need to remember with respect to forestry workers that if a drought kills their crop it is not an annual problem, it is a 40-year problem. The impact of climate change for forestry workers is very real, and the climate change initiatives that I discussed previously go part of the way towards dealing with that.

The member for Leichhardt raised the issues of weeds and the future of weed management. The previous government had not continued the weeds CRC and it was not to be funded after 30 June this year. I am pleased that the government has now been able to announce the establishment of an Australian Weeds Research Centre, which will allow the important work that was previously being done by the CRC to continue to be done for the benefit of people working on the land.

The reef rescue program, which was also raised by the member for Leichhardt, goes further with respect to the need to make sure that part of saving the reef is not just work that is done in the water. A whole lot of work also needs to be done on the land. That is why the largest part of the money dedicated for a single purpose within Caring for our Country on the election promise front was the money provided for the reef rescue program. Natural resource management is exactly that: it is not only management of land or of natural resources on farm or of natural resources on public land; it goes to entire methods of managing natural resources, from our land, to our river systems and all the way through to something as iconic as the Great Barrier Reef. I am happy to commend the appropriations to the House.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Human Services Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,828,805,000

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

I have a number of questions, and I would not expect the minister to be able to answer all of them now but to take them on notice. I am taking a keen interest in this area only because I used to be the Minister for Human Services. I believe that there is a mutual interest in having better service delivery from the government and, therefore, a very bipartisan approach to it. So I hope that a number of the initiatives that were undertaken when I was the Minister for Human Services have continued. I will go through a few of them. If the minister at the table is able to provide information—not immediately but certainly over time—on those initiatives, that would be helpful.

Firstly, in relation to the allocation of funding, I have always had the strong view, even when I was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, that the funding for Human Services should be both capital and recurrent funding. This is a very important fact, because there was resistance from some of the policy agencies, the policy departments, to funding going directly to Human Services for various initiatives. I always, even in the policy department of Employment and Workplace Relations, wanted to give Human Services full control of their budget. So I suspect with a budget allocation of only $1.8 billion there is still an argument between the policy departments and Human Services about funding allocations. I really hope that Human Services gets the full funding allocation. I ask the minister to bear with me while I go through these things. I know her colleagues want to chat, but going through some of these issues might take more than the initial five minutes.

Secondly, in relation to information technology, I am keen to know what the total budget spend for IT is in Centrelink and across the Human Services agencies and what money is being allocated to the access card mark 2. I still believe in the access card. I know that the government are looking at smartcard technology; they have already announced it, but in a limited form. I think it is a stored value card or some variation of that. I would be interested to know more about that.

Thirdly, sharing is a very important issue. The comments of the Minister for Human Services in an article on 14 June seem rather bizarre to me. The article states: ‘About $1 million in overdue child support payments will be recovered from more than 500 parents as a result of the merger of the health fund MBF with Bupa Australia’—owner of several health funds. Bupa is required to pay ‘$2.41 billion to MBF’ as a result of the merger and ‘cross-agency data was used to identify the MBF members who were also in the sights of the Child Support Agency’. I am intrigued to know the background of that. This involves two private sector businesses merging. How can they have data-sharing arrangements? I was also one who believed strongly in the right of Centrelink, Medicare and the Child Support Agency to have full, unfettered data sharing to help address welfare fraud. A classic example of that is Centrelink being unable to identify whether people were genuinely disabled when they were claiming a disability pension. I know there are significant privacy issues here, but I am interested to know what is happening with that.

I understand that, under the changes to Welfare to Work, there are no longer any face-to-face interviews with people to make sure that they actually do go to interviews. I hope and expect that Centrelink is not going soft on people who should be breached for not attending job interviews. I am also interested to know whether there has been any diminution in the job report program that was set up, where people actually had to carry a book with written evidence that they actually went to job interviews. I think that is very important and I would appreciate the minister finding out the answer to that.

Something that is near and dear to all of our hearts is red tape. The former government made, I thought, valiant efforts to reduce the size and length of forms that Centrelink had. (Extension of time granted) The greatest battle I had in Human Services was trying to reduce the number of letters and the forms that people had to fill out and, particularly, the detail required in those forms. I recall one particular form where in order to claim the baby bonus, even though it was at that time non means tested, people actually had to list not only their income—which Centrelink should not have captured as information—but, significantly, all the times over the previous few years that they had been into and out of the country and the exact dates. How that was related to the baby bonus God knows but somehow it had been. The original form to claim the baby bonus was something like 32 pages, which was ridiculous. I really hope Centrelink have not drifted back to the 32-page form, when we got it down to four pages. There was an entire program that we set up to address and reduce the amount of paperwork associated with Centrelink in particular—where the greatest amount of paperwork is—and also some of the others. I would really like to know where that program of reducing the number of forms and letters has gone.

In relation to the Child Support Agency, I am keen to know how it is going with the 1 July reform, which is a very significant reform—and I know it is a very difficult thing. The Child Support Agency does a very good job in very challenging circumstances. There is a huge number of issues that need to be dealt with. I also understand that there is a debt of $1 billion to the Child Support Agency, which is a huge debt. I am keen to know how it is anticipated that that money will be recovered. That is a very tough ask; I recognise that. Also, the Child Support Agency was in need of significant upgrades to its IT systems, from recollection—I am going back 2½ years. I really hope there is a responsible allocation for the upgrades of its IT systems.

Some very good officials from Human Services have just arrived in the chamber—I say to them that I was just reminding the House that I really hope Human Services is getting the full budget allocation, both capital and recurrent, and that the policy agencies are not taking that money. In fact in the previous government I instructed my policy agency to start arrangements to ensure that Human Services received all the funding, not just the capital associated with its obligations.

In relation to the Child Support Agency, I am very keen to know how that $1 billion is being recovered. If I can give some gratuitous advice to the Minister for Human Services, it is to be very up-front about some of the challenges that he is facing in the implementation of the bipartisan changes to the child support formula. It was bipartisan policy at the time, and I always found it was useful to continue with that approach. Certainly it should be recognised in relation to the Child Support Agency that it does a very good job and it should meet that challenge in a bipartisan way.

In relation to Medicare, I would be very keen to know how e-claiming is going. I understand that it is quite poor. There was resistance from some parts of Medicare but also from some doctors to e-claiming of Medicare. That is a very significant initiative in reducing the day-to-day operational costs of Medicare. Medicare was also undergoing significant transition in their offices so that the Medicare offices were also family assistance offices. The end goal we had—if I can indulge for a moment—was to have the harder, more difficult welfare cases in Centrelink and the family payments essentially in Medicare offices. The reason why we wanted to have the family payments in Medicare offices is that they are better located in shopping centres, but also it is a different type of demographic that goes into those Medicare offices. That was very important. That is why they became family assistance offices. Also, they are a different type of staff in the Medicare offices, so it was very important to try to get them to handle some of those more difficult family cases. If you were not aware of this as ministers, the best illustration of that was the rebate for the LPG scheme, which was run by Centrelink but was actually going through the Medicare offices. (Time expired)

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question relates to some of the things that the shadow minister has spoken about today but more precisely to the electorate of Forde. I know the member for Wide Bay did not really want to hear too much in my last statements about my electorate and the people and their concerns, but they are very much related to other issues to do with human services. As I said, it is a diverse electorate, very much rural and with some high-density urban areas. The issues of mobility are large in my electorate and, of course, the use of technology is a very important feature of the budget, and certainly my question will relate to that. If you look at the seat of Forde, which is the Gold Coast hinterland, it is 3,100 square kilometres, which in that region is quite large considering the Gold Coast seats are about 60, 70 or 90 square kilometres. That gives us a whole range of issues in terms of transport and mobility. My question to the minister today really is about plans for making things easier, the use of electronics and, of course, e-claiming and electronic transferring for Medicare claims.

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

I wish to continue on e-health. In relation to e-claiming, there was significant resistance from the department of health to the implementation of e-claiming, for a whole lot of different reasons—and I am happy to have individual chats with the ministers about that so that they are fully aware of the background. In relation to e-claiming, there was also a push from doctors to receive a clip of financial support to implement it, but there is a very strong argument that doctors get huge benefits out of e-claiming, such as getting the money immediately, not having bad debtor issues and also HICAPS, which is run in relation to obstetricians and a range of others—physiotherapists and so on. There is an e-claiming process that is run by the National Australia Bank that is a very good process. If it works for obstetricians and for a range of allied health professionals as well, there is no reason it could not operate for doctors. So I just make that suggestion as well.

Also we certainly had a push, from our perspective in Human Services, to have mobile doctor provider numbers and for the provider numbers to be not constrained by region but mobile. That would have made a very big difference to regional and rural Australia, particularly for doctors going up to regional and remote areas and not having provider numbers that are constrained by individual areas. The push from Human Services in part was so that doctors going to remote areas could carry around mobile devices—the equivalent of those hand-held devices that operate in restaurants—and you could put in the Medicare card and the doctor provider number would be linked into that hand-held device.

That leads me on to the point where there were initial moves—I know quite difficult—to simplify the MBS item number schedule, which would have made it a lot easier for Medicare. A lot of doctors did not understand what the correct item number was for billing purposes, and in regional and remote areas, particularly in Indigenous communities where there are a lot of foreign doctors operating—and thank God they do—they did not know exactly which was the right item number and they were undercharging. I would also be keen to know if Medicare have kept their people out in the Western Desert. They had a person located out there and I started a program where they could stay with Indigenous communities and ensure the Indigenous communities had the right item numbers. A Medicare person was located in one Indigenous community west of Alice Springs and, because they were explaining to doctors the right item number, an extra $¼ million a year was going into that Indigenous community. Because Medicare is uncapped, it is a great way to get real money into those communities simply by the doctors and nurses knowing what the appropriate item number is to list. Medicare was undertaking that, but there were some difficulties getting some Medicare personnel into regional and remote areas. I know that Medicare had a person in Far North Queensland who did a great job and we were trying to get more Medicare people out in the field rather than in the offices. The whole e-claiming area is probably a topic about which I can have a private discussion with the minister. I think there is a very bipartisan agreement that we have to get e-claiming and e-health right and one of the greatest challenges is embedded views within the various departments.

In relation to Australian Hearing, I would be keen to get an update on how the telephone deafness check is going. That was a program that I initiated three years ago with Australian Hearing after seeing it operating in London. This is where individuals can ring a phone number and have a hearing test over the phone. Elderly Australians would benefit most from that. The program was launched and it was probably the best program in the world, so I would be keen to find out how that is going. I would also be keen to get a general update on how the hearing test program is going in Indigenous communities, because Australian Hearing started that program. (Time expired)

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question of the minister today, Mr Deputy Speaker. My question will be in relation to Medicare. I am delighted, honoured and proud to be part of a government which has delivered a Medicare office for one of the communities in my electorate. As you are probably aware, it covers a distance of some 314,000 square kilometres—give or take an inch or a yard.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Plibersek interjecting

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My word it does on many late nights coming home at two or three o’clock in the morning after travelling to various rural communities throughout the electorate. To the west of Gladstone is a community called Emerald, a bustling community full of good people, full of hard-working families who are involved in the development of the coal industry in the community of Flynn. Unfortunately for the people of Emerald, for many years now they have not been provided with a Medicare office and substantial difficulties have arisen as a result of that. As I said, I am pleased to be part of a government that has delivered a basic piece of infrastructure to the community of Emerald. The announcement was well received by the community and they are very grateful to the Rudd Labor government for delivering on that pre-election commitment. I would like to ask the minister about the finer detail—that is, when will the Medicare office be opened in Emerald and when will Medicare services be delivered to the community of Emerald?

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

I would like to talk about the income management card but, first, could I ask the minister to pass on my thanks to Minister Ludwig. He will be visiting my electorate at the end of July to open a new purpose-built Centrelink building. There are two of them there at the moment. They will be closing down and everyone will be relocating to the new Centrelink building.

In speaking today and asking some questions in relation to the income management card, I think we are all very well aware that this is being trialled in Western Australia and the Northern Territory at the moment. We know that the existing process is cumbersome; it is paper based and it is particularly hard on small business. We want to change that. Under the budget measures, we are looking at the income management card utilising the EFTPOS network in order to simplify the process for people on income management, and for small business and for Centrelink as well. So at the end of the day this will inevitably reduce red tape. My question to the minister is: could you give us some more detail in relation to this? As we know, this trial is quite significant. It is significant to those areas, but it may have flow-on effects to other areas. I am wondering whether the minister might be able to give me some more detail.

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

I will not take long because I know that other members want to speak. There are three other things I want to touch on. The first is an update on the status of the drought buses. Again, it is not necessary for you to do it now, but I am keen to get an update on the status of the drought buses—whether they are still operating. They were very important, particularly in the remote communities, and particularly for the women in those communities because the men were often far too proud to raise the issue of needing help. The drought buses were reach-out facilities. They also had the capacity over the longer term to be emergency service providers. One of the challenges we had in Innisfail when the cyclone hit was getting information out and services up there in a timely fashion. So I am keen to find out about the status of the drought buses.

Finally, if I can indulge for a little bit, I would like to place on record my appreciation to Jeff Whalan for his outstanding work as chief executive of Centrelink. When I became the first Minister for Human Services and created the department, we had to make some changes. Moving Jeff from Medicare—as it was the HIC—into Centrelink was a significant task. But Jeff Whalan is one of the most outstanding professional public servants I have ever dealt with. He is a man of immense integrity. He is a genuinely hard-working, loyal and incredibly well-intentioned individual. He won the respect of everyone across the Public Service and I think it is to the loss of the Australian people that Jeff Whalan is retiring as chief executive of Centrelink. It is one of the most difficult jobs in the government.

Matt Miller in the Child Support Agency is doing a fantastic job. That is an incredibly difficult job. Cathy Argall had the position before him and did a very good job at that time as well—now the head of Medicare. I found the human services department itself to be a very good department. It is a very small department with limited resources, but the staff are doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances, particularly when they do not drive a lot of the change. The change comes out of the policy departments. The capacity of Human Services and the agencies to respond to changing policy and to give full and frank advice on the policy meant that the policy was delivered in a far more timely and professional manner. So I really do want to place on record my personal appreciation to Jeff Whalan, who is retiring, and also the appreciation of not just the opposition but also the government and everyone else who recognises that Jeff Whalan is one of the most outstanding public servants we have seen in Canberra for a very long period of time. We wish him and his family all the very best in the future.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start answering some of the questions that the member for North Sydney, the shadow minister, has asked, I support his comments about Jeff Whalan and the excellent work that all of our public servants do. The area of Human Services is a very difficult area. I know that because I was the shadow minister for some time. When the now shadow minister, the member for North Sydney, was the minister, although we did not always agree, I would say that the work that I saw was always very highly professional. I would also like to put on the record that it was very plain that the member for North Sydney was very committed to this portfolio, particularly that project of reducing red tape and forms. I think he and I shared the view about the baby bonus form and having to write down every single entry into and exit from Australia for the previous 10 years for both parents. In fact, I remember calling the department and asking, ‘Why on earth do you need to know this?’ They were asking whether you were an Australian citizen or eligible for social security benefits overseas. Why not just ask that question?

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

Mr Hockey interjecting

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or data-share. I would like to congratulate you on that. In the brief time I have available, I will make a few very brief general comments and then go into some of the specific answers. This year’s Human Services portfolio budget has balanced the need for fiscal responsibility and continued high levels of service delivery for all Australians. It has contributed significantly to our efforts to reduce spending and increase efficiency while maintaining high standards of service delivery. The portfolio has contributed $1.477 billion worth of savings, including $280.4 million in 2007-08, and most of those, as you would know—

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

A billion, did you say?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, billion. Most of those savings are through the abolition of the access card—something that the member for North Sydney was very personally committed to, although it was a terrible policy idea.

The department has delivered on election commitments and is now turning to improving the service delivery system for the 21st century and beyond. Some of the seven major measures that provide extra resources for the department are the Centrelink consolidating technology capability and extra funding of $13.3 million for Centrelink in 2008-09 to maintain its IT infrastructure from the IT Refresh Project. That measure will ensure the ongoing viability of Centrelink IT infrastructure in 2008-09 by ensuring that equipment and software are replaced as they reach their end of life. For Centrelink call centre supplementation there is additional funding of $59.1 million in 2008-09. Fraud and noncompliance funding of $138 million is to expand Centrelink’s compliance activities, which will deliver an estimated net saving of $589.2 million over four years. On the Medicare Easy Claim increase take-up, we are contributing $8.6 million over four years for Medicare Australia to simplify electronic claims processes, which will then be rolled out in medical practices. I will go into a little bit more detail about that later in response to the questions.

The member for Flynn asked me about the Medicare office in Emerald. I am happy to inform you that there is funding of $1.6 million over four years for the establishment of a Medicare office co-located with the existing Centrelink customer service centre in Emerald from 2008. Congratulations to you, Member for Flynn, for campaigning so strongly for that service in your own electorate. The town of Emerald, which I was so happy to visit with you, is obviously a town of terrific people, working hard and getting on with their lives.

On service delivery reform, there is an extra $10 million for the development of service delivery initiatives in the Human Services portfolio. That funding will allow the Department of Human Services to examine new, better and more cost-effective ways to deliver social and health related services to all Australians. There is an extra $5.8 million in 2008-09 for Centrelink’s role in Close the Gap for the upgrade of Centrelink agency sites in remote regions of the Northern Territory, which will enable customers to continue accessing mainstream services in those remote areas. There are a number of other budget measures that I—

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

Does the minister require a little extra time?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like it.

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

Perhaps I could just ask one further question. I am keen to know what happened to the Centrelink office in Wadeye. Was one opened there in the end? I do not know. Because of the violence in Wadeye, Mal Brough and I had immense trouble trying to get a Centrelink office open.

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

Thank you; that is another question. Minister, do you require a bit more time?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I could have a couple more minutes because we have so many excellent questions and I will not have time to answer all of them. I would just like to run through some of them.

Let me say to the member for North Sydney that there are a number of questions here that require more detailed responses, and I will take them on notice and send them to you because we are running a bit short of time. I just want to clarify: with regard to the stored value card, which I think you called the ‘access card mark 2’, that is certainly not the way we see it. This debit card is designed to improve income management. The member for Bass also asked about this. With regard to the debit card, the contract is being developed at the moment. We are investing more than $17 million to improve the delivery of income management by providing a personalised PIN-protected debit card for customers to use when purchasing essential goods and services. Certainly the work on negotiating the contracts for designing the system and so on is well underway at the moment, and I can provide you with more information about that in the future.

You have asked about the data-matching program as well. There are two elements to the data-matching program announced in the budget—that is, data-matching with the banks and the ATO. I think you asked another question about the cross-agency area; I will give you more written information on that. There was a question about whether the government is going soft on shirkers, and that is certainly not the case. We are of course very concerned that people who are able to work do work. We have changed some of the design features of the previous government’s system that drove people into poverty and into homelessness through the lack of flexibility and discretion that was allowed in the case of the eight-week breaching process.

The child support reforms: the letters have gone out relating to the child support reforms. Of course, that is underway at the moment. The mail-out ended on 22 May. Letters were sent to about 1½ million separated parents, who, of course, are responsible for 1.1 million children who are affected by that. With regard to the e-claiming process you asked about, the Australian government is investing $8.6 million over four years towards streamlining electronic claiming processes. The investment will benefit medical providers and their patients by making e-claiming easier and more efficient, removing the need for patients to visit a Medicare office in person to claim their benefits. We are reducing the workload of medical staff and streamlining the claiming process, so that benefits both the medical staff and the families who are making those claims. The member for North Sydney asked a number of other questions about Australian Hearing, the drought buses and the Centrelink office in Wadeye. Because of time issues, I will get back to you in more detail on those.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,708,603,000

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate to the Attorney that I have an extensive list of questions. I appreciate that he is the representative of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship rather than the minister himself. I ask the Attorney, through the chair, whether I could provide him with my list of questions. That will save the Committee from having to listen to me reading them into the Hansard, which would take some time. I ask this on the basis that the Attorney gives me an undertaking that the questions will be passed on to the minister and will be answered in due course. These questions are detailed and obviously it would not be possible for the Attorney to answer them here and now. It seems to me that what I have suggested is the most sensible course, both for the convenience of the chamber and for getting the questions answered.

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

Is leave granted for the questions to be tabled?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that course of action and will certainly undertake it. I am aware of my inadequacy insofar as I am representing the minister, so I am very pleased to make that commitment.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Attorney for that.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Attorney-General, I am aware of many cases in my electorate of Fremantle where the temporary protection visa scheme, introduced by the Howard government in 1999, placed genuine refugees in a long-term holding pattern, unable to properly settle in Australia. Refugees are people who have had to flee their homes in situations of persecution and trauma. It is cruel in the extreme to make these genuine refugees then suffer the uncertainty and indignity of not knowing their future, of having their status re-examined every three years, of not being able to access initial accommodation bond assistance to rent a house or to access social security payments, of not being eligible for English language training or for assistance to find a job, and being prohibited from travelling outside of Australia or for family reunion in Australia. This has meant the separation of families for indefinite periods of time.

Australia is party to the 1951 UN refugee convention, which provides, in article 34, that Australia should facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees. Many human rights organisations—including the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Amnesty International, the Refugee Council of Australia, and Human Rights Watch—have expressed concern that the temporary protection visa scheme is contrary to Australia’s obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. A 2002 report by Human Rights Watch on Australia’s asylum policy entitled By invitation only notes that visas, such as the temporary protection visa, should be reserved for use in mass influx situations where they are given to asylum seekers prior to any determination of refugee status.

I know from my own experience in Kosovo that Kosovo Albanians, during their mass exodus to neighbouring countries in 1999, were given temporary protection visas. This was precisely the situation temporary protection visas were intended to deal with. The Howard government’s use of temporary protection visas in Australia after refugee status had been confirmed was a grotesque distortion of the purpose and intent of the temporary protection visa system, and it is only right and just that it be abolished. Attorney-General, can you please provide some further information on the government’s decision to abolish the temporary protection visa?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question and I recognise her experience in international human rights law. I appreciate the input that she has provided for the benefit of the Committee. The temporary protection visa was introduced in October 1999 by the previous government. Abolishing the previous government’s unjust and punitive temporary protection visa system for asylum seekers fulfils one of the Rudd Labor government’s election commitments.

The temporary protection visa was one of the worst aspects of the Howard government’s punitive treatment of refugees, many of whom had already suffered enormously before fleeing their country of birth to seek safe asylum in Australia. Under the previous government’s regime, refugees faced further uncertainty and punitive visa conditions after arriving in Australia. The scrapping of the TPV fulfils the Rudd government’s commitment to providing refugees with a fair and certain outcome. People found to be refugees will in future receive a permanent visa regardless of how they arrive in Australia.

In addition, about 1,000 refugees currently in Australia on TPVs will have their status resolved and will be afforded the same benefits and entitlements as holders of a permanent protection visa. They will not need to have their protection claims re-assessed, and—provided they meet health, security and character requirements—they will be granted permanent residence in Australia. This will be achieved through a resolution of status visa. This permanent residence visa will allow TPV holders access to the same benefits and entitlements as permanent protection visa holders and will provide people with certainty about their future, enabling them to engage fully in the Australian community. Indeed, many in the Australian community—including in rural and regional Australia—were quite outraged at the situation of TPV holders, including the children of TPV holders, who were part and parcel of school, sporting and community fabrics, and had a precarious future ahead of them.

We need to resolve the status of current TPV holders as a priority. Regulation amendments to implement the decision will be made as a priority by the minister in the first quarter of the 2008-09 financial year. The abolition of temporary protection visas is consistent with the government’s broader commitment to treating people in need of protection with fairness and decency. Unlike the previous government’s policy, our policies on asylum seekers will be based on the principles of decency and fairness: on the evidence, not on divisive politics.

If we look at the evidence for all of the former government’s bluster on temporary protection visas, what they did not tell the Australian people was that almost all of the people granted temporary protection visas have since been granted permanent refugee visas. As at 7 March 2008, 11,126 people had been granted temporary protection. The overwhelming majority—some 9,680—have since been granted permanent visas. The temporary visa was not a deterrent to unlawful arrivals, as described by the previous government. While there was a temporary drop in the rate of boat arrivals after the TPV regime began in late 1990—3,042 boat arrivals intercepted between December 1998 and November 1999, compared with 2,921 boat arrivals in the following December 1999 to November 2000 period—the introduction of the TPV regime did not stop boat arrivals from increasing. From December 2000 until November 2001, 6,540 boats were intercepted. It was a harsh policy, it imposed harsh visa conditions with no appreciable national security benefit and it caused additional suffering to people who had already suffered in their countries of birth, and actually impeded their safe and complete integration into the Australian community. I am pleased to say that policy has been reversed by the Rudd government.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that the Attorney-General has come into the Committee himself to take questions on the Immigration and Citizenship portfolio. The questions that I would like to put to him are particularly pertinent to South Australia, and the need for South Australia to attract new migrants—particularly skilled migrants—not only to meet our needs but also to meet challenges in terms of population and the growth of our state. I notice the member for Port Adelaide is in the chamber, and I am sure that he would regard this as a very bipartisan issue, given the need of South Australians for a higher population. Both the state Labor government and the federal Liberal Party have been in lock step over this for the last few years, particularly with my role in the APop—the Australian Population Institute in South Australia—and my work with Kevin Foley in relation to the need to grow our population.

There are a number of areas where the federal government has in the past played, and could again play, a very practical role in attracting migrants to South Australia. One of those I would like to specifically ask the Attorney-General about is reinstating the value to international students of studying in South Australia. Prior to the 1 September changes to the general skilled migration program last year, there was a significant benefit to international students studying in South Australia. It helped South Australia attract a significant increase in the number of international students that studied in Adelaide, because the system awarded applicants with five points for studying in a regional area. While these points are still available under the revised program they do not have the impact and attractiveness they had previously. I will give an example.

Under the old system, a 25-year-old international student studying for a Bachelor of IT in Adelaide would have obtained the following points—60 for skill, 30 for age, 20 for English—obtaining a minimum of six in each of the four components of the IELTS test—five for Australian qualification and five for regional study, which is a total of 120. By comparison, a student studying in Sydney, for example, would obtain the following points: 60 for skill, 30 for age, 20 for English and five for Australian qualification, which is a total of 115 points.

Under the previous system, this student would need to study in South Australia in order to be eligible for the five points for regional study so that they could meet the 120 points requirement. One of the biggest changes to the new GSM program introduced in September 2007 is in English. Previously, a score of six in each of the four components of the test resulted in 20 points. Now six equals 15 points and seven equals 25 points. Using the same scenario as before but substituting the applicant’s score from six to seven in each of the four components of the IELTS test, the results would be as follows in South Australia: 60 for skill, 30 for age, 25 for English, five for Australian qualification and five for regional study, which is 125. Using the same scenario for a Sydney based student, it would be 60 for skill, 30 for age, 25 for English and five for Australian qualification, giving them 120 points in total, therefore wiping out the previous five regional study points that gave South Australia its advantage. It would therefore give the 120 points to the student who might choose to study in Sydney. As we have known in the past, that is often a choice that they make.

I am asking the Attorney, in a rather longwinded and complicated fashion, whether the current government will consider reinstating the advantage that a regional student studying in somewhere like Adelaide would have by altering the points that are available, particularly under the English component of the IELTS test.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Changing what your government did.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, my government made a mistake on that. I can admit that!

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

Given the time constraints, I call on the member for Moreton to ask his question and then I will hand back to the Attorney-General.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many people in my electorate have contacted me to express their dismay at the length of time it takes to sponsor a parent to migrate to Australia. I know when you visited Moreton during the election campaign, Attorney-General, you met some of these people. Moreton is obviously a very multicultural community, where one in three voters come from overseas. Obviously family is important around the world, as it is in Australia. They are very concerned about the length of time it takes. One such family in Moreton who contacted me recently has been waiting more than 10 years for their mother—now aged 75—to be able to migrate from China to Moreton. As the only family member remaining in China, the family was understandably concerned for their mother’s health, safety and wellbeing, especially as a 75-year-old. Unfortunately, although this family is working hard it is just not in a position to pay the $31,000 required for the contributory parent visa, which would fast-track their mother’s departure from China. However, despite applying more than 10 years ago, I have been advised that this family will need to wait a further four years before the parent visa is approved. This is not an isolated case. I could list many other people. I could give names of people who have contacted my office since the election, many of  whom saw the former member and have trotted out the same desperate case, but obviously their desperation has increased over that time.

There are many other cases: people from Zimbabwe, South Africa, Taiwan, China and Sudan, to name just some of the major groups in Moreton. As I said, I represent an electorate where more than one in three voters was born overseas. I have spoken to many of these constituents in the same situation, eager to be reunited with their families. Can the Attorney-General outline any improvement included in this budget for parent migration?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with both questions. I appreciate the spirit in which the honourable member for Sturt has asked his question with respect to the skilled migration program generally, but specifically the student migration program and its application in South Australia. With respect to the latter part of the question I can assure him that I will refer his comments and those figures that he presented to the minister and request a detailed response to the specifics. I note it was a change that was made under the former government, but I appreciate the spirit in which the question has been raised.

If I could say briefly with respect to the skilled migration program: it is a priority. All the evidence indicates that Australia is suffering from a skilled labour shortage, which is going to become increasingly acute. That is why the Rudd government has expanded the skilled migration program by an extra 31,000 skilled migrants in 2008-09. This is in fact a 30 per cent increase on the previous year. Overall, the skilled migration program will make up 133,500 places, which totals 190,300 for 2008-09. In addition we will increase the family stream by 6,500 places, which includes an allocation for 4,000 places for parent visas. That is probably a convenient place to break in to answer the question from the member for Moreton. That allocation of an additional 4,000 places through the parent visa program will be welcomed in the community, for humanitarian reasons, to promote family reunions. But the ability for a skilled migrant to bring their parents out is also an incentive. We believe that it will actually be an attraction to what we need to happen—that is, to attract skilled workers to Australia.

The budget provides for 1,000 additional places for the non-contributory parent visa and 3,500 places for the contributory parent visa. These increases will come into effect on 1 July this year. The non-contributory places have increased now to 2,000 places, which is a 100 per cent increase. The contributory parent visa places are up by 85 per cent from 3,500 to 6,500. These increases are expected to cut waiting periods by 15 per cent in some categories. If we had failed to address that issue, it was potentially the case that some Australian families in the non-contributory category would have been waiting for more than 15 years before they could be reunited with their parents. Obviously, the simple ageing process means that at the end of the day that may well have been thwarted. I know in my area, which is quite an extensively multicultural area, that where parents are able to be reunited with their children—in this case they will be skilled and in the workforce—it makes a tremendous difference to the respective family units and indeed their grandchildren. I believe that the community frequently obtains, particularly with close-knit migrant families, as they generally tend to be, a tremendous value in terms of the assistance those parents provide in caring for their grandchildren. So these increases will restore some balance to the structure of Australia’s migration program and will reduce the time it takes families to be reunited with their parents. The policy recognises the desire of many Australian citizens and residents to be reunited with their parents, and the social benefits which the honourable member has outlined and which I have noted in reply.

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

I refer to the budget papers that relate to Australian citizenship, particularly output group 2.3 in table 2.2. I refer to the contributions section, where it states:

The Australian Citizenship output will:

…            …            …

• encourage the community to value citizenship and promote the acquisition of Australian citizenship.

Given that the Labor government has reduced the amount of funding for the promotion of Australian citizenship, how serious is the government about promoting citizenship? And given that the overall budget for citizenship has only increased by 1.68 per cent, according to table 2.2, can the minister confirm whether the government has any intention of watering down or abolishing the current citizenship test which forms part of the process of becoming an Australian citizen? More specifically in relation to the citizenship test, Richard Woolcott, chair of the review of the citizenship test, was quoted in Monday’s newspapers as saying the citizenship test was ‘still flawed because you can get 19 of 20 questions correct and still fail’. He was referring of course to the mandatory rights and responsibilities questions. Will the government rule out making any changes to the requirement for applicants to answer all three mandatory questions correctly?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the moment, the age limit for skilled migration is 45. I would like to ask the Attorney whether the government would consider raising the age limit for the skilled migration program from 45 to 50 in regional and low population growth areas like South Australia, because of the advantage that it would give to South Australia in attracting skilled migrants. Our two biggest competitors are Canada and New Zealand for skilled migrants. Both of those countries have a higher age limit than does Australia. I am sure he would agree that people at the age of 50 can still make a useful contribution to working life.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been significant community disquiet around the various temporary skilled migration programs, particularly the 457 visas. Can the Attorney tell us what proposals the government has to improve the integrity of the temporary skilled migration program?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, dealing with the Australian citizenship test, I can assure the honourable member that the government has no intention of watering down the test. It is true that we have established a review panel. It consists of seven eminent Australians: Richard Woolcott AC, as was noted; Olympian Rechelle Hawkes; SBS Director of Radio, Paula Masselos; refugee advocate Juliana Nkrumah; Australia Day Council CEO, Warren Pearson; former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Chris Ritchie AO; and legal expert Professor Kim Rubenstein. They are conducting a review. That committee is consulting with the Australian community and examining aspects of the content and operation of the citizenship test. It is the case that almost 95 per cent of people are passing the test, but we need to assess the impact on some categories. For instance, I think 99 per cent of skilled migrants are passing the test and 91 per cent of family migrants are passing the test compared with 82 per cent of test candidates who came as refugees or under humanitarian programs. We assume that they obviously have had greater disadvantages in life or they would not have applied under those categories, so we need to make an assessment as to whether they are being disadvantaged because of the nature of the test. We also want to look at whether the material that is being covered in the test and in preparation for the test, most importantly, is helpful in assisting applicants to become better citizens as well as whether the process is equipping applicants with a knowledge of the rights and responsibilities that becoming an Australian citizen entails. In terms of the funding issues, I do not have those figures in front of me but, if the honourable member does not mind, I will refer those issues to the minister for a more detailed response.

In respect of the question from the member for Sturt, I could not disagree, having turned 50 in January of this year, that people are still useful at the age of 50. Personally, I think these age restrictions are often ham-fisted. There would be a range of occupations that a 50-year-old could willingly, happily and competently discharge. I think the days have long gone since St George would have considered putting them in the outside centres. I agree that there is some scope, and I will refer that suggestion to the minister. I think the military, police forces and intelligence agencies have found that senior recruits, while they may not be all that useful in street jobs, can serve a useful role. I think there is a valid point to be communicated to the minister in that context.

In terms of the 457 visa program—and I thank the honourable member for his question—we have appointed an external reference group to examine the program to ensure that it is operating fairly. It is important. It does bring skilled workers temporarily into the country. We are addressing issues such as having three dedicated centres, located in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, to assist the program’s implementation. We are also looking at a situation where low-risk employers and employer groups will have their applications processed faster.

Ms Barbara Deegan of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is conducting a review to assess whether terms and conditions of employment are being applied equitably to people in this category, to ensure that they do not create a situation where they undercut Australian workers and to ensure that they are not exploited. In that context, we are also ensuring that the minimum salary level is indexed in accordance with the baseline movement in employees’ total earnings. That will result in an immediate increase of 3.8 per cent and it will be indexed to ensure that there are not two tiers of workers in the workforce. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Attorney General’s Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $3,875,155,000

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

I call the member for Dawson.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is he getting the first call? This is the opposition time.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was standing first.

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

The member will be aware that during this procedure whoever is standing first gets the call. I assure the member he will get a call.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a number of questions for the Attorney-General about the appropriation bill. As the Attorney-General would be aware, preparing for natural disasters such as floods is of critical importance to the people in my electorate of Dawson, which lies on the Central Queensland coast. Earlier this year my electorate, particularly the area around Mackay, was hit by serious floods, resulting in large-scale evacuations and significant damage and disruption. Of course, it is important to recognise that preparing for natural disasters is an issue of increasing urgency for communities across Australia. I am pleased to say that with the election of the Rudd government we finally have a federal government that is prepared to face the reality of climate change and the challenges it poses for our economy and our community. So I ask the Attorney-General: what does the Rudd government’s first budget do to assist communities across our nation to become better prepared and more resilient to hazards and disasters such as storms and floods? Finally, it is plainly a sad reality of the times that threats to our community infrastructure come not just from natural disasters but also from human sources, in particular the threat of terrorism from those who wish to do us harm. I ask the Attorney-General if he would outline to the community what the government’s budget contains to help with the protection of critical infrastructure from threats, both natural and man-made.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dawson for his questions and I look forward to visiting his electorate on Sunday week as part of the community cabinet visit to Mackay. I congratulate the member for his excellent and tireless work on behalf of his constituents during the devastating floods earlier this year. I received a number of phone calls from the member during that period, despite the fact that I understand his office was flooded, making representations through me to Emergency Management Australia in my portfolio.

A key priority for the Rudd government is to ensure that all levels of government work together in partnership to prepare for disasters such as the one visited on the honourable member’s electorate this year. The better we become at preparing for and mitigating disasters, the less adverse impact they will have on Australian communities. This government understands the impact in particular of climate change, which makes dramatic weather events more frequent and more intense. Both internationally and domestically, it is going to have an impact.

In this context, recent studies into the impacts of climate change show that the intensity, frequency and overall impact of some natural disasters are an inevitability well into the future. That is why this year’s budget provided $19.2 million over the next 12 months to facilitate projects such as structural works to protect against damage, including levies, retarding basins and channel improvements, permanent firebreaks and also disaster warning systems. The funding will be delivered through the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program, administered by Emergency Management Australia.

Of course, this will complement other programs that assist communities such as those for the honourable member’s electorate. For example, funding will also be provided to the Mackay region through the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements, following the flooding earlier this year—and the honourable member made considerable and very forceful representations on behalf of his constituents in that respect. It will include funds for cleaning up and recovery grants for eligible small business and primary producers, as well as personal hardship and stress payments for Mackay region residents.

The honourable member also asked, appropriately, about protecting critical infrastructure against both natural hazards and human threats such as terrorism. Indeed, we have seen the consequences of the gas explosion in Western Australia—that was addressed in question time. There is no doubt that natural disasters and indeed man-made threats threaten critical infrastructure, 90 per cent of which is in private hands. It is therefore important that government work in partnership with business to build resilience against such threats, including natural and man-made threats—most concerningly, terrorism. We saw this threat vividly evident, for example, in the case of Faheem Lodhi, who was convicted of threatening to attack an electricity supply station.

For that reason, the budget provided an additional $23.4 million over the next four years to obtain cutting-edge critical infrastructure protection modelling and analysis capability, known as CIPMA. CIPMA is world-leading technology. It is a computer program which enables sophisticated modelling to be undertaken of the consequences of different disasters, to ensure better preparation and more effective responses. The funding in this year’s budget will ensure that the current pilot CIPMA program becomes an operational part of Australia’s national security architecture. Importantly, industry has been instrumental to the success of the pilot program, and government is committed to strengthening and building on these relationships to ensure that we have a critical infrastructure protection program that is second to none. I thank the honourable member for his interest and his concerns in asking these questions.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a series of questions, most of which go to the Minister for Home Affairs. I am grateful that he has decided to come to the Main Committee to go through this important part of the budget process. The first question goes to the announcement in the budget to do with the 500 new sworn Federal Police officers. The analysis that I have done of the budget and this particular announcement indicates that 19 per cent of the funding for this initiative will be spent before the next election, due in 2010—only $36.7 million, according to Budget Paper No. 2, part 2, page 89. This suggests to me that in the coming year there will be 31 new sworn officers, in 2009-10 there will be 30 and in 2010-11 there will be 39. This means that only 99 of the new officers will be in place before the next federal election. Another 213 would follow in 2011-12 and 188 in 2012-13. I ask the Minister for Home Affairs to confirm, at the appropriate time, whether these figures are in fact correct and whether it is true that only 99 out of 500 new officers will be delivered before the next federal election and that, in fact, the vast majority will be delivered after the federal election, suggesting that this is a heavily back-ended program. If that is the case, could he explain why it is the case. If the answer to that is that they take some time to train, I think that he needs a better and more credible answer than that—with due respect—because obviously many of the sworn officers could be in place within the next three years.

I would also ask the Minister for Home Affairs what the government intends to do and what action it is taking in terms of the police officer shortfall at airports around Australia. There have been numerous reports in the press and elsewhere about the 70-officer shortfall in police officers at airports around Australia. This was a promise that the previous government was building and putting in place over time. The Wheeler review of airport security, released three years ago, indicated a certain number of officers that needed to be put in place. Reports this year suggest that they are 70 short, and the government does not suggest in its budget that this will be solved in the short term. I ask the minister to indicate how the government intends to address this very substantial shortfall.

On the protection of children online from child predators, I note that the government has abolished the previous government’s program in relation to the role of the AFP in the online monitoring of overseas child pornography sites, which are, unfortunately, visited by paedophiles and those people who would seek to be paedophiles, with the government cutting the Protecting Australian Families Online program by $2.8 million and rebadging it as the cybersafety plan. The opposition does not have any particular objection to the cybersafety plan, quite evidently, but in cutting our program and introducing a new program there has been a $2.8 million cut. I think you will find that in Budget Paper No. 2, part 2, page 415. This is of great concern to us, and we want to know exactly why the government, at a time when there is even more heightened concern about child pornography, paedophilia and the activities of the sort of scum who prey on children, would cut the program. To many people $2.8 million would seem not to be a substantial amount of money, but it has meant that the AFP will not be able to continue their very important program of monitoring the online sites that push this kind of disgraceful material. I will leave it there because I will not be able to ask the other questions I have in 26 seconds—I hope I get another opportunity to ask them.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to those general questions from the member for Sturt, although possibly not quite in the same order that he asked them. First of all, concerning the recruitment of 500 new police, I point out that the government has, in fact, redeemed its election commitment to increase AFP sworn officer numbers by 500 by allocating $191 million over five years and by doing so in a manner that is both operationally sensible and financially responsible in the present budgetary circumstances. That is in addition to $20 million already provided by the government to allow AFP to develop their recruitment and retention strategies.

I point out that the Australian Federal Police Association has applauded the government’s commitment to boost sworn police officer numbers. The national president, Jon Hunt-Sharman, said at the time of the initial announcement that the government had demonstrated a clear understanding of police resources and our ability to protect Australians from the dual threats of crime and terror. The commissioner of the AFP said at Senate estimates that the AFP’s training college could best cope with the rollout that has been designed in the context of the election commitment—and, as I have said, the Federal Police Association essentially agrees that it will take some time to organise the recruitment of so many officers. It is true—and the government has made no secret of the fact—that recruitment will be modest in the first years and increase rapidly in the later years of that recruitment program. But, as I say, that is the way that it is appropriate, from several points of view, to organise the recruitment process.

I mention also that the budget has included $49 million extra to support the AFP’s child protection operations team, with 91 additional AFP members dedicated to online child protection by 2011. It would be a reasonable thing to be concerned if funding for child protection had been cut, but it has not. The $2.8 million that the member for Sturt has mentioned concerns only corporate support funds, not operational funds. There is no effect whatsoever by that change on the government’s general capacity to deal with the protection of children. There is, in fact, no decrease; there is a significant increase in child protection funding. It may be that I can provide a more detailed technical or financial account of those particular initiatives in order to wholly satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

I turn briefly to the question of the police in airports. As has been indicated, the Wheeler review made a series of recommendations about the so-called unified policing model. The implementation of the Wheeler review is itself kept under review by two processes. One is an ongoing internal review by the AFP and the other is a review by the secretaries Transport Security Working Group. I believe that includes the secretaries of a number of relevant departments but certainly those of the Attorney-General’s Department and the department of transport. The first of those reviews, the internal review by the AFP, is underway. (Extension of time granted) It will inform the Transport Security Working Group, which in turn will continue to look at the implementation of the recommendations of the Wheeler report and, I take it, recommend any modifications if they should deem that to be a reasonable thing to do.

Apart from the sorts of vacancies that occur in the course of any operation—that is to say, sickness or people resigning and being recruited; leaving aside those sorts of changes in the numbers—all of the states have committed to the number of police that were required under the Wheeler arrangements, except for Queensland and Western Australia. Queensland will fill 46 existing vacancies by the end of the year. A small number of vacancies continue to exist in Western Australia. But, overall, the proposals of the Wheeler review are in place and are themselves under ongoing review.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In view of the time, I will keep my next series of questions relatively short. The first concern ACLEI, and I refer specifically to the David Standen issue in New South Wales. It is of course a New South Wales Crime Commission issue, but it highlights the very real importance of funding and supporting the government bodies and instrumentalities that oversee our crime-fighting and law enforcement agencies. John McMillan, the former head of ACLEI—I am sure the minister knows what ACLEI stands for, but for the record it is the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—said in July last year that ACLEI needed an extra 50 staff to be able to do its job properly, and a substantial injection of new funds. I ask the minister: how many staff does ACLEI have now and how many staff does he believe ACLEI will be able to employ under the funding promised in the budget? I would also ask him how he feels about the promise made by Arch Bevis, the member for Brisbane, when he was homeland security spokesman:

We intend to give teeth to this tiger … There can be no cloud of uncertainty hanging in the  public’s mind when it comes to the probity of Australia’s law enforcement bodies, particularly those charged with the fundamental task of national security.

Of course, we would agree with that. It appears that the increase in the budget for ACLEI is only about $750,000 in 2008-09. That will certainly not employ the extra 50 staff that John McMillan, the former head of ACLEI, indicated were necessary. A recent newspaper article said of the current head of ACLEI, Philip Moss, that in Senate estimates hearings recently:

… he admitted that the ACLEI did not have the resources to conduct proper investigations of suspected corrupt officers.

In a recent joint committee appearance, Mr Moss said:

… it will be a quantum leap for this organisation when we get to that stage—if we get to the stage beyond responding to notifications and referrals and get to the point where we more proactively engage these intrusive powers in the detection of corruption and corrupt conduct.

In fact, John McMillan, the former head, said that, because of the resources they had, they could not possibly undertake the kinds of activities you would expect of such an organisation, such as tapping lines. Minister, how can the public have confidence in the government’s commitment to supporting the oversight bodies of our law enforcement agencies if they are starved of resources and funds, particularly in the light of the case in New South Wales concerning David Standen, which is not the first case of a breach of trust by a member of an organisation that should know a great deal more about it. For the minister’s elucidation—you seem slightly confused—David Standen is the member of the New South Wales Crime Commission who has been charged with offences.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. That is Mark Standen.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Melham interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mark Standen. It does not matter. We now know who it is. ‘Standen’ would have been enough. In your career, member for Banks, Standen would have been enough; you would not have needed the extra prompting when you were at the bar.

So I ask the minister whether he can confirm to the public the $750,000 increase in the ACLEI budget and how much this falls short of the necessary funds that would be required to employ an extra 50 officers. How many officers currently work for ACLEI? How many people will the $750,000 employ and how can we have any confidence in the capacity of the ACLEI to do its task?

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, to seek some clarification, given the late start to this session, on whether you will allow the questioning to continue until 4.40 pm to make up for the 10 minutes.

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

My understanding is that they are indicative time frames on this table, so we will continue with this minister.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the fact that the next minister is not present, will you allow the questioning to continue?

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

Yes, it will continue.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As has been indicated, I was not confused; it was the member for Sturt who was confused about the name of that New South Wales officer.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

The member is not assisting.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! Members will settle down. We have limited time and if the member for Sturt wants an answer to his question I would ask you all to pay attention.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems obvious enough that, whatever the circumstance with the New South Wales Crime Commission, its oversight would never have been a concern for ACLEI.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was using it as an example.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can only observe that the member for Sturt is a late convert to the idea that there should be strong oversight of the operations of the police and similar organisations within the Commonwealth through an integrity commission of this sort. The truth is that ACLEI was only created quite recently and it was created with a very small budget. In this budget, despite the very severe constraints under which we were at the time of framing the document, the funding was increased by 40 per cent. As soon as the new government came to power, it increased the budget of ACLEI by 40 per cent. The funding will jump over a number of years and, as the funding increases, so will the staffing. I have had conversations with the commissioner, who, I might say, has expressed his delight at last at beginning to receive something like respectable funds.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he was able to point out that he will now be able to employ more people than he was able to employ when those opposite were in power. That is indeed what he will do. I understand that there will be three or four more staff during this year—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three!

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

Order! The member for Sturt asked me to keep people under control. I would ask him to assist in that.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and that the numbers will continue to increase. If the honourable member thinks that ACLEI should have had a staff of 50, I can only suggest that it is a pity that he was not saying so last year or the year before.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the Attorney-General to the appropriation bill that our very civil Committee is considering in detail. Attorney-General, each and every fair-minded Australian would agree that all Australians are entitled to be treated equally regardless of their sex, age, disability, race, religion or sexuality, whatever that might be. Despite this, many Australians have been discriminated against in Commonwealth laws for way too long. In fact the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Same-sex: same entitlements found that same-sex couples and their children experienced discrimination in 105 Commonwealth laws relating to superannuation, taxation and social security.

I refer the Attorney-General to the government’s election commitment to begin removing from Commonwealth laws discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships. I know that the concept of core and non-core promises is anathema to Kevin Rudd and his government; it is forked-tongue speak for truthful promises and a lie. Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General: what does the budget do to honour the government’s election commitments in this area and what steps has the Attorney-General taken to implement these commitments?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. It is the case that, for far too long, a group of fellow Australians has been discriminated against. It is about time that that is addressed. State and territory legislatures have removed discrimination on the basis of sexuality, and the Rudd Labor government is committed to doing that. As the first tranche of reforms, I introduced some three weeks ago the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. That bill will provide equal treatment to same-sex partners in terms of death benefits and taxation concessions and, significantly, to the partner and children of a same-sex partner who has the superannuant entitlement under the fund. The former government, in their 11½ years, did nothing in this area. Regrettably, they will delay the implementation of the laws by reference of this bill to a committee. We had intended to commence the legislation on 1 July 2008.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can backdate it.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the honourable member interjecting. He indicated in his speech, in fairness to him, that this legislation was long overdue, and I recognise that. But the trouble with the backdating issue is several-fold. Firstly, it has not been confirmed by the shadow Attorney-General. He said in an interview on Melbourne radio, ‘I am not in a position to give that commitment because no such decision has been made by the coalition.’ That is the first point. The second point is that backdating is itself going to cause an injustice because the nature of these payments is that they are usually by way of a fortnightly or monthly annuity—in other words, they provide the income to sustain the family, to pay the mortgage, to pay the grocery bills, and if a superannuant dies there will necessarily be a hiatus until the legislation is passed. The situation raises very complex issues with respect to recovery of funds. The law is that the trustees have an obligation to make payments in accordance with their existing legal obligations. If those obligations subsequently change with the introduction of the reforms, there will be very complicated issues indeed regarding the recovery of payments made currently, under present laws, by the trustees.

So for a range of reasons we would implore those opposite to have regard to the principles involved here and to really do what they can to expeditiously pass this legislation. It is long overdue. There are people who are unquestionably discriminated against and there is a real chance of injustice if the laws are not passed expeditiously.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a very brief question, and I thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is not surprising, given the civil nature of this chamber. My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Given the sharp increase in recent months, since the beginning of this year, in the importation of cocaine as well as chop-chop, or illegal tobacco, how does he think that Customs will be able to meet that challenge and the attempts by organised crime to bring in huge amounts of cocaine—and I am sure he knows the figures for narcotics, or he can ask his advisers—and chop-chop, given the $51.5 million cut to Customs in the budget?

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is not a $50 million cut in the budget. The actual efficiency dividend will be worth around $13½ million. We are not talking about $50 million; we are talking about $13½ million. Indeed, there are other, new funds within the budget for Customs—for instance, funds to better check containers in small regional ports like Darwin, Launceston, Newcastle and Townsville. So the reality is, and I have been so advised by Customs, that they do not expect to have any diminution of their operations as a consequence of the budget that has been brought down. I say again: the honourable member has rather frequently claimed during the last several months that there is a $51 million cut—I think he says it is 3.4 per cent—but that is simply not so. As I have said, the essence of the cut, so far as the efficiency dividend is concerned—and there are several other small changes—is that most of the changes that have occurred in the allocations relate to what are technically called changes in the funding profile of existing measures. They are not cuts.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,935,213,000

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

I call the member for Dunkley.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you for that, and for the warmth of the chamber. Congratulations to you, ma’am. My questions to the member for Rankin, the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, are quite numerous. I will use the time to basically go through the range of issues that we are facing. I do not envy the member for Rankin. The industry community have no idea what the government’s forward agenda is, and I expect he might be in a difficult situation having to explain some of these peculiar and contradictory decision-making processes. We will see how we go.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Emerson interjecting

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank him for his interjection. I have noticed a rather strange process in this chamber since we have swapped sides, so I am just going with the flow, Sir. Thank you for the encouragement. I recall being on the receiving end of questions, and it was a courteous question and answer process. It seems to be a remarkably different process this year, but allow me to persist, if I may. I thank him for his encouragement.

A couple of issues are of particular interest. One is the Commercial Ready program overseen by AusIndustry. It came as an enormous shock to many in the business community that a program that had offered so much in terms of encouragement for innovation, for new technology development and for the very goals that this new government talks about—and the Commercial Ready program was actually a bit of meat on the bones of those words—had been cut. From contact with businesses not only in my electorate but across Australia, I understand that there does not seem to be any alternative pathway for people to get that assistance. I have had conveyed to me, Minister, examples where AusIndustry officials—whom I have always found to be very professional, very engaging and in touch with enterprises including those in my own community—were reassuring people that they were in the mix, that things were going well and that the decision-making process was the same as it had been, only to be forced to make a rather sheepish phone call a couple of days later to say, ‘The program has been axed by this government.’

The work in developing innovations and securing the economic benefits that are derived from them will possibly get some help through to the proof-of-concept stage. So the idea, the innovation and the creative work get to that point. Commercial Ready was then able to pick up that proof-of-concept work, prepare it for the marketplace and actually give it the opportunity to fulfil its potential. With that gone, many industries—not only in my portfolio area of the information and digital economy but beyond—are left wondering; they are left scratching. One of my many questions to the minister is: what do these people do now? There was no consultation about the cancellation of this program. There was no transition period that allowed people to adjust their business strategy. As he would know, it takes some time to develop these innovations and bring them to the point where they not only achieve what they aim to achieve but are prepared for the marketplace.

That leads me to the other areas of questioning. In the area of commercial readiness, what has happened with those programs? What happened at the advisory committee meetings between 28 April and 13 May? Who was there? Also, what actually happened to the applications considered at those meetings that were approved and recommended? There had been some indication given to the companies involved that they were in the mix, only for them to then find out that they had been dropped like a hot spud. They have nowhere else to go and are ringing me wondering whom they turn to.

Never has there been so much fog around an industry as the Rudd government has created for the auto industry. They are being bombarded by inquiries. Seemingly political stunts propel the car industry into the political topic of the day. It has to deal with not only an industry inquiry, for which it does not have the analytical horsepower that the Productivity Commission could bring, but also a bunch of fellow travellers—who I am sure are very well intended. I wonder where the analysis and policy rigour are coming from for that industry inquiry. They are getting mixed signals. The minister is one day making statements about the despairing climate of manufacturing and other aspects of the industry, only to follow up the next day by saying it is a wonderful, vibrant area of our economy and things have never been better. Which one is it? Which of these interventions into the car industry should the industry be focusing on? The green car fund, with no funding guidelines, has allocated money well in advance of the time frame within which it was indicated those funds would become available. (Time expired)

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the questions and the spirit in which they have been asked. Commercial Ready was subject to a cut in the budget. There is no doubt about that. It was announced in the budget.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was axed!

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do want the answer? I am just checking.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just giving you some encouragement!

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want to make a second speech, we can do that. I will sit down and you can make the speech. That is no problem. Commercial Ready was closed to new grants from 28 April, the date that the minister mentioned. All existing commitments are being met, and they are worth about $200 million over four years. The total budget savings, as you will see from the budget papers, are $707.2 million over the four-year period. One piece of evidence—and I know the member in his second question asked about evidence based decision making in relation to Commercial Ready—was a report of the Productivity Commission. It is ironic that the coalition is saying, ‘Well, you should listen to the Productivity Commission.’ The Productivity Commission, in its report of last year called Public support for science and innovation, found:

There is robust evidence indicating that the Commercial Ready program supports too many projects that would have proceeded without public funding assistance.

I am answering a question with a question back to the coalition: is it the coalition’s view that the government should listen to some Productivity Commission advice and not to other Productivity Commission advice, to all advice or to no advice? The fact is that Commercial Ready was subject to that budget decision. We needed to do that for reasons of managing a budget fiscally responsibly, and we are doing that. The budget made significant savings and that was always designed, as members opposite would know, to put downward pressure on inflation and therefore downward pressure on interest rates.

If time permitted I would expand on that greatly, but I want to provide information that is of greater value perhaps here in this particular forum. Almost three-quarters of the savings from Commercial Ready in 2008-09 had already been earmarked in the election policy Clean Energy Plan to tackle climate change to offset the government’s new $240 million Clean Business Australia package. Then, of course, there is the Enterprise Connect network. It is another initiative with $251 million to provide a national network for manufacturing centres and five separate but interlinked innovation centres.

The shadow minister did ask what other programs are available. Other programs are the R&D tax concession, where businesses have got sufficient income, and the R&D tax offset, where they do not have sufficient income. Then there is the Comet program, which I recall was introduced by the previous government as part of Backing Australia’s Ability in 2001. So there are other avenues and other opportunities for business to access innovation programs.

Fundamentally, the government has announced a major national innovation review, and that is being chaired by Dr Terry Cutler. This review will report in the next few months. We have been concerned about inadequate support for innovation in this country and as much by the fairly ad hoc nature of the innovation programs. I think even members opposite would agree that although Backing Australia’s Ability pulled in a number of ideas from different places—and that is okay—we can do better than that by having a national innovation system. That is why Senator Carr has initiated that work. Dr Terry Cutler is very competent in this area and I fully expect that we will have a very useful report so that we can take Australia well and truly into the 21st century by building a modern innovative economy.

In relation to the auto industry, I think it is pretty important that the coalition indicate whether or not they actually support the funding of $35 million from the Commonwealth for the hybrid car. They like to criticise it, but I just cannot get an answer from them. If they really want to criticise it, tell us that they oppose it and here is an opportunity to do so. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 that the Main Committee is considering. As a member for an area that contains a lot of small businesses, which I know the minister knows well because parts of it were formerly in his electorate—Coopers Plains, Rocklea, Salisbury, Acacia Ridge, some of the manufacturing and small business hearts of Queensland, Eight Mile Plains in particular; a lot of innovation is going on in that part of the electorate—after all the red tape of Work Choices, business activity statements and all the various visitations left by the former government, I ask the minister to outline the budget initiatives in relation to business enterprise centres.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moreton. He is certainly right in that Moreton is an area on Brisbane’s south side built on the hard work and entrepreneurship of small businesses. For the information of members, around one-third of the current seat of Moreton was in the seat of Rankin, so we have a lot of overlap and a lot of familiarity. The Australian Institute for Commercialisation is in Eight Mile Plains. So there is a lot happening that is really good in Moreton, and that is assisted in no small part by the election of the new member for Moreton, who is taking a very big interest in the small business community.

In relation to business enterprise centres, the Rudd government has done what it has done in so many other areas—that is, it has kept its election promises. When I first became the shadow minister for small business it became clear from talking with small businesses that what they would value most highly was the idea of a one-stop-shop advisory centre so that they did not have to go to all of these different places getting advice on how to set up a business, whether to incorporate, whether to be sole traders or partnerships, how to do their GST from day one and how to do the complicated BAS. They had to be an expert in tax before they could be an expert in small business.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Especially from overseas.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. There were a lot of complexities, including advice on public liability insurance and so on. I thought the smart thing a Labor government could do if it did happen to win the election would be to provide one-stop-shop advisory centres. To my delight, I learned upon further inquiry that indeed these existed around Australia in the form of business enterprise centres. There were 107 business enterprise centres around Australia, so we would not need to invest in the bricks and mortar, which is very expensive; we would need to support them.

When I got more familiar with the management of the business enterprise centres, I asked them what Commonwealth funding they received for providing this one-stop-shop advisory service. The answer was: none. I thought: ‘Surely this could not be true?’ Surely a Liberal-National Party government that says it is the champion of small business was supporting 107 business enterprise centres in suburban and rural and regional Australia? There was not one cent of ongoing funding.

We have made a very substantial down payment on remedying that deficiency. We have been able to fund 36 business enterprise centres—not 107, it is true. What we would need to have done to fund all 107 was divide the available amount by 107 instead of 36. That would have been a very small amount of money and may not have made a lot of difference to individual business enterprise centres. We worked with BEC Australia, the overseers of the BEC network. They provided advice to us. But the decision as to which ones we would fund was ultimately that of the Labor opposition. We funded them in suburban Australia, we funded them in regional Australia and we funded them in rural Australia. For those who might be a little bit cynical about whether we funded them only in Labor seats or coalition seats, there was a press release on budget night which showed exactly where they are. They are distributed around Australia. We are doing what we said: we are funding them on time and in full. The funding starts from 1 July.

We have already established—and I know the member for Banks would be interested in this—some accountability with these business enterprise centres. While we do not want to micromanage, as the coalition government used to do, attaching strings to every dollar that it spent, we do want to make sure that there is proper accountability and transparency, so those agreements are being settled with the business enterprise centres around Australia. I think it is a great development. It is a great initiative for small business. It shows that the Rudd Labor government understands the value of these one-stop-shop advisory services. I can tell you that the business enterprise centres are thrilled with this initiative.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be very disturbed to hear the laughter on the part of the members opposite, who obviously think it is a ridiculous initiative. As we approach the next election I will be very interested to see whether they offer extra support.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to reinforce a point that the member for Dunkley made: when the minister gives his response to this answer we will be seeking that he withdraw the completely false statement that he made that we on the coalition side were suggesting the BECs are ridiculous, when in fact what we were chuckling at was the ridiculous statement that was made by the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. I invite the minister to withdraw those comments when he answers the question.

I turn now to the questions that I want to ask the minister about the business enterprise centres. I was first going to inquire what the services that the BECs will be offering are, but the minister has already addressed that. I invite the minister to address each of the following questions in turn. If he cannot answer them in turn, I would be looking for him perhaps to provide answers to these in some other forum or in writing. I acknowledge the minister’s agreement to do that and I am grateful for it.

My questions are these. What services being offered by the business enterprise centres are different from the services that were offered through the Small Business Field Officer Program? What are the locations of the 36 business enterprise centres that the Labor Party has chosen to fund? I note that the minister indicated that the Labor Party did in fact choose which of the 36 centres would be funded. Could I also have a breakdown of how many of those 36 centres are in Labor electorates and how many are in coalition electorates? In addition, of the 36 BECs that are being funded, are all 36 already established or are some of them new centres that are yet to receive funding and, if so, will that be in the near future? The minister also indicated that 36 BECs will receive between $100,000 and $350,000 a year. On what basis has the exact yearly grant been calculated for each BEC? Has the department undertaken any analysis or investigation as part of determining the exact grant given to each BEC? And what analyses or investigations were conducted or undertaken by the department to determine whether this program would be effective?

In addition, on what basis was the selection of the 36 out of 107 BECs determined by the Labor Party when they came to power? What analysis or submissions did the department conduct, receive or consider when determining how the amount of funding was to be provided to this program? How many small businesses contacted the department or minister requesting the introduction of this program? Did the direction for funding, including the amount, originate in the minister’s office and, if not, whereabouts in the Labor Party did it originate? What is the exact status of contracts between the department and each BEC, and have the contracts been executed? How will the success of the BEC program be measured? Finally, what relationship has the department had with the government’s Small Business Working Group in the preparation of these service contracts and the initiative for BECs?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not withdraw the previous remarks. You thought it was mirthful when I said that we support BECs. That is a matter of record. In relation to the location of BECs, I will go through them for the benefit of the member for Moncrieff. In New South Wales, the first BEC on my list is the Murray-Hume BEC, which is located in Albury and I think also relates to Wodonga; the Northern Rivers BEC; the Penrith Valley BEC; the Macarthur BEC in Campbelltown; the Clearly Business BEC, in the eastern suburbs of Sydney; Capital Region BEC, which is based in Queanbeyan; the Central West BEC, which covers a number of locations but the electorates are Parkes, Calare and Macquarie; the Central Coast Business Mentor Services at Ourimbah; the St George and Sutherland BEC; and the Hunter Region BEC. In Queensland, they are the Ipswich BEC, the Townsville BEC and the Caboolture BEC. In Victoria, they are the Box Hill BEC and the Ballarat Business Incubator. In Western Australia, they are the Bunbury-Wellington BEC, the Stirling BEC, the South-East Metro BEC, the Belmont BEC, the East Metro BEC, the South-West Metro BEC and the Coastal Business Centre BEC in Fremantle. In South Australia, they are the Tea Tree Gully BEC, the Inner Southern BEC, Eastside BEC, the Southern Success BEC, the Salisbury Business and Export Centre, the Northern Adelaide BEC, the North West Business Development Centre and the Inner West BEC. In the Northern Territory, it is the Darwin BEC. In Tasmania, they are the Launceston BEC, Business and Employment at Mersey, the Break O’Day Business Enterprise Centre at Saint Helens and the Meander Valley Enterprise Centre at Deloraine. They are all set out in a press release that was issued on budget night. The member could have saved a lot of time if he had bothered to have a look at that press release.

In relation to whether we are funding any BECs that do not exist: no, we have not adopted the practices of the coalition in the ‘regional rorts’ program—where the coalition did, in fact, fund a number of projects that did not exist. We only fund projects that do exist, and all the business enterprise centres that we are funding are existing business enterprise centres. We did operate, for the benefit of the member, on the basis that it would help in the decision making if they were members of the BEC network. I think the member himself could have a look at where business enterprise centres network. I think probably since the election some extra BECs have become members of that network. But that was a guide to us in opposition as to how we determined which ones would receive funding. I think the member himself could have a look at where these are located. I think it is a bit of a waste of time to go through all that.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How is it different from BSFO?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is interjecting about the small business field officers. They are not obviously in exactly the same locations. Never have we asserted that. The small business field officers go out from place to place, as do members of the BEC. A small business field officer tends to be one person. BECs tend to operate as a team. The BECs, as I indicated, provide any sort of advice in relation to setting up a business or expanding a business—legal advice, commercial advice on marketing and so on.

The basis of the decision making was this. We talked to the BEC Australia network and got from them an indication of those BECs they thought were performing well. We used that as a pilot, if you like: if we could back those that were already performing quite well and were well established, that could provide a positive demonstration effect more broadly. In opposition, I am not saying that any of these processes was absolutely perfect—nor in government. Given the finite resources—and the resources were finite because we were not going to continue the spending binge of the previous government—we needed to make decisions. I thought it was better to fund 36 BECs than none.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the minister refused to withdraw his quite untruthful account of the opposition’s view of the BECs. He refused to withdraw that, and I regret that greatly. I do not know why he would choose to make such false claims when the opportunity was afforded to him.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding, having been advised—because I was not here for the exchange—is that the point that was made was a political point and not a matter that the Deputy Speaker could require to be withdrawn under the standing orders.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an interesting account of things. Thank you for that.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you moving dissent?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister, if he could turn his mind to policy rather than showing his less endearing qualities—

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tanner interjecting

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good that the hubris of the minister for finance has come in on chime. That is terrific! I noticed the minister for small business refused to answer the questions on the allocation of funding in the car industry. My question is related to where that payment is going to be sought.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was asked two questions. I answered one in full, and I began to answer the car industry question and then time expired. I am happy to continue.

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

We do have, I gather, an informal arrangement whereby certain ministers are here at certain times. I am advised that it is not a matter for the chair to enforce the time limits for each department. Given the fact that individual ministers and colleagues are here to examine expenditure in relation to various portfolios, there has been up until now a courtesy that one understands that there is broadly about half an hour for each portfolio. The minister has just resumed his seat. His interrogation commenced eight minutes late. We are really on half an hour.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what date did the government formally decide to provide Toyota with the $35 million? What was the decision-making process behind the arrival at that decision? On what date was Toyota formally advised of the government’s intention to provide the money? The minister referred to the Commercial Ready program not having the worth he had hoped it would because, according to the Productivity Commission, some projects would have proceeded anyway without the funding that was available under Commercial Ready. How does that logic then carry over to this allocation of funding, when it has been widely reported the project would have proceeded without any funding? On what date was the communication between the minister, his staff and his department and Toyota about the announcement and the press releases issued from both parties? Also, is the funding actually coming from the $500 million green car fund? If so, from what year is that funding being rephased and where in the budget papers would we seek to find any accounting for the $35 million that the Toyota grant has identified?

Has the minister’s attention been drawn to accounts of the decision published in an article prepared by Paul Kerin where he points to the fact that the carbon emissions from vehicles account for 44 million tonnes per year and even if the Camry’s entire annual hybrid production replaced conventional cars, it would cut emissions in Australia by only 0.000015 per cent and that a similar outcome could be achieved by converting only 0.2 per cent of the 12 million vehicle fleet onto LPG? Is the minister aware of the environment, energy, security and health benefits of LPG and is there a plan to extend the grant program to transition away from petrol onto an existing reliable, clean and safe fuel? Has he seen the analysis about the cost of the decision and the impact on vehicle behaviour and on fuel use of the green car decision? Also, have Ford and Holden been advised of the nature of this payment, afforded the courtesy of some explanation as to what the selection criteria may be and the conditions that are attached to it, and informed about how they, too, could also access some of this funding?

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

I am told that actually this portfolio commenced 12 minutes late. The 12 minutes are up but it would only be fair for me to give the minister the opportunity of responding and then, in a spirit of consensus, given the presence of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, my preference would be then to move on to the next portfolio, if the Main Committee agrees.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The series of questions—

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

Thank you for the promotion!

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This series of questions tells us yet again that the coalition is opposed to this funding. I have had occasion to ask this of the member for Sturt and of Senator Brandis, who is the shadow Attorney-General, in the public arena. I have asked them time and time again to indicate whether they support the funding for the hybrid car or oppose it. I think it is about time that we had an answer to that. If you do not want to provide that here, maybe you should go outside—or in parliament tomorrow—and get someone who can actually make a decision, and then indicate whether you support or oppose the funding and the development of a hybrid car in Australia.

For the benefit of members gathered here today, last year in Australia one million cars were sold. Do you know how many hybrid cars were sold? It was 5,000. So 995,000 cars were sold that were not hybrid cars. This is an investment in the production of hybrid cars here in Australia. We consider it is a good investment, not only for the automotive industry but as a contribution to combating climate change. Now, if the coalition is against that, let us know.

There was a series of questions about when various people were told about this funding and so on. The head of Toyota in Japan indicated publicly that this funding was crucial to the decision. The member for Dunkley might feel he knows more about the production of hybrid cars than the CEO of Toyota Japan. I would be interested if he thinks so, but I would think that the CEO of Toyota would be a pretty good authority both on the production of hybrid cars and also on the desirability and support of the funding that has been provided by the Rudd government. There is green car funding for this. This was a pre-election commitment. Yet again you have got an example of the Rudd government saying one thing before the election and doing exactly the same thing after the election. I know that confuses the coalition, but that is the reality. We keep our election commitments, and I do think it is about time that the coalition made it clear whether it supports this project or not.

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

Does the honourable member for Dunkley wish to make a brief response?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I am just not certain whether the member for Rankin’s intemperance got in the road of actually addressing the question. Is he planning to respond to any of those questions? Or is he just brushing them aside as being immaterial and not suited to his political purposes? I am happy to get an answer on notice. That is perfectly fine but, if there is someone else I should speak to and that would help the coalition understand the basis of some of these decisions, I am happy to go somewhere else. If I could get an indication of what he plans to do with those quite important, quite serious and quite legitimate questions of interest to many people, that would, I think, help the process.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is more than enough information on the public record for the coalition to make a judgement about whether it supports this project or it does not. Therefore, I ask the coalition to make a judgement and to make that announcement, rather than dillydallying about particular dates and so on and who was told before whom. That is not central to the issue of whether the coalition supports this funding or opposes it. Just let us know whether you support or oppose it.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Finance and Deregulation Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $523,465,000

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the minister is as follows. Minister, the 2008-09 budget historic series shows real spending growth deflated by the consumer price index. Previously, the non-farm GDP deflator was used. Why has the CPI been used, given that a large amount of government spending is not included in the CPI basket?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable member’s question is that what has historically been used as a deflator for the purposes of getting an accurate picture of movement and changes in relative prices, the non-farm GDP deflator, has actually in recent times become quite volatile because of the impact of the mining boom. Therefore, it was felt that there was a better way of reflecting the changes over time, through using the CPI, because there have been considerable fluctuations as a result of the impact of the mining boom and major changes in mineral prices. If you want to see the impact of that, for example, look at the projected nominal GDP figures for the forthcoming financial year.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. I also want to ask the minister a question in relation to second-round effects. It appears that second-round effects have been included in the budget measure ‘Humanitarian migration program—additional 750 Special Humanitarian Program places from 2009-10’. In this instance it appears that the extra migration will result in additional tax revenue of $12.1 million. How is this different from the impact on taxation revenue from, say, employing additional staff, given that this would mean that overall employment has increased?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been a long-standing debate about this question within the relevant government department. What has happened historically is that the additional revenue that does arise from an increase in migration as a result of increased taxation has been factored into budget estimates because, by definition, it ends up in the totality of estimates about taxation revenue, but it has not been specifically identified. So the only thing that is changing in this instance is that the additional revenue that is expected to flow from a given increase in migration is factored in, as has historically been the case with additional expenditure, because by definition an increase in migration produces both increased spending requirements in Centrelink and various other government programs and also increased tax revenue.

What has previously been the case is that there has been a specific identification of the increased spending obligations that flow but not a specific identification of increased tax revenue. Even though the increased tax revenue was in effect built into the overall estimate of taxation revenue for the government, it was not specifically identified in the measure. All that has changed is that now both sides of the impact of the measure are reported in the measure in the budget.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to ask some questions in relation to consumer sentiment. Minister, I refer you to the June 2008 Australian Retailers Index, which is published by the ARA, which states:

Support among Australian retailers for the federal government recorded a dramatic fall during the quarter, falling 28 percentage points over the past quarter.

I just draw your attention to that quote. The relevant point of course is in relation to the federal government. Minister, why has business confidence in the Rudd Labor government fallen so far following this budget?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can just ask for clarification from the shadow minister. My impression is that he referred to the last quarter. Of course, the last quarter ended on 31 March and was, therefore, prior to the budget.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to clarify the question for the sake of the minister so that he can directly address that particular quote, because the reality is that the confidence in business and consumers has been falling since November. It certainly fell in the quarter that the minister spoke of. The response so far from the Australian Retailers Association has been that the anecdotal advice from their members following the budget in May is that they expect a further dip, on my understanding, over this quarter as well. I would ask if the minister could confine his remarks to the confidence which has fallen in relation to the federal government, particularly since they have taken control of the Treasury and, in particular, since the May budget was delivered.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a matter for the minister to confine his remarks as he wishes.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would appear that we have a false premise underpinning the member for Dickson’s question. On the one hand, we are dealing with a survey that relates to the period from 1 January to 31 March this year. On the other hand, he is referring to the retail businesses’ response to the federal budget. Unless the retailers surveyed were clairvoyant, presumably they were not aware of what the contents of the federal budget were in relation to survey material that had been elicited from the period 1 January to 31 March.

The view of the government has been outlined on this question during question time both today and on one or two other occasions. We believe that there are have been a number of factors which have generally influenced business and consumer confidence that have flowed through into the surveys that the minister and the opposition have raised both today and in question time. They are factors such as the global increase in petrol prices, and the US subprime crisis and the credit crunch that that has produced. So you have seen not only interest rate increases, which of course are another factor, but also additional interest rate increases that have flowed as a result of the US subprime crisis. That is the government’s view. I think the opposition’s attempt to seek to score cheap political points is underlined by the fact that the member for Dickson here today has suggested that a survey of retailers’ attitudes in January, February and March is a basis for determining their views on the efficacy of the federal budget handed down on 13 May—I think that illustrates what the opposition is on about.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to follow up on that issue of consumer sentiment and bearing in mind the remarks that the minister has just made, and leaving aside the issues of interest rates, leaving aside the US subprime crisis and the credit crunch resulting from that, what factors specifically does he believe the federal government has control over which have led to this 28 percentage point drop? Does he believe that there is nothing that the federal government has done which would have undermined consumer confidence to the extent that it has fallen over that quarter, whichever period he wants to look at? If he wants to deal with the period of 1 January to 31 March that is fine. Putting aside those factors, does he accept any responsibility at all, and what are the factors that the federal government itself directly has responsibility for that has undermined that confidence of consumers?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have nothing further to add to my previous answer. On the question of what the government accepts responsibility for, we accept responsibility for our decisions, we accept responsibility for managing the Australian economy and we accept responsibility for tackling the problems that exist in the economy, including problems that we inherited from the previous government, most importantly the serious inflation problem that we are dealing with. I will leave it up to others to comment on whether or not the responses of the government to those issues are the appropriate responses. That is the right of the opposition and commentators. We accept responsibility for the decisions we make and I am happy to debate any of the merits or alleged lack of merits of any of those decisions.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question in relation to the price of petrol and the influence that has on consumer confidence. Do you think, as a result of the expectation that was ramped up in the election period of last November and where prices have tracked since then and the fact that the government has not been able to address that expectation, that it has played into consumer confidence falling by 28 percentage points over the first quarter of this year, or would you suggest that Australian motorists’ concerns and views about petrol prices—part of which I am sure is reflected in this particular survey finding—be dismissed?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will answer the member’s question but I would point out that these questions are straying into areas that are not really part of my portfolio responsibility. I do not mind answering the questions but it is perhaps worth noting that they are outside my areas of responsibility and they should have been or will be directed to the Treasurer.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is not going to come before us.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is too scared.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you hang around for a while you will get the opportunity to ask him, because strictly speaking they are his responsibility, but I will answer the member’s question. It was a little convoluted and confused but, as I understand it, the thrust of the question is that the government when in opposition raised expectations amongst consumers that certain things would happen and that these things have failed to happen and therefore that has been a factor in the surveys that he refers to. My answer to that suggestion is: no, I do not believe that is the case.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the emissions-trading scheme, the government’s intention obviously is to start the scheme from 2010. Businesses now are understandably concerned that they have no detail from the government in terms of their own out years budgeting for their firms. Why has the impact of the emissions-trading scheme on the budget not been included in the forward estimates and what do you say to business when they are looking for that detail as they start to plan now?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the absence of specific decisions about what the emissions-trading scheme will consist of and the dimensions of the scheme—how it will function, what the overall framework will be and how it will be phased in—it is, first, not possible to make forward estimates judgements on the basis of things that are completely unknown and are yet to be determined. Second, my primary responsibility with the forward estimates—and again this is a question about where my responsibilities lie and where the Treasurer’s responsibilities lie—relate to government spending. It is true in a narrow sense that there is an element of the emissions-trading scheme issue that relates to government spending. In particular I refer to the fact that we have a review of existing climate change amelioration programs in the government being undertaken by Roger Wilkins. No changes in forward estimates for those programs have been made pending the review, for obvious reasons, as we do not yet know what the content of the recommendations will be.

Clearly, as the implication in the honourable member’s question suggests, there is every prospect that some of those programs will change in the wake of new arrangements following the recommendations of that review. But until we receive the recommendations and are able to consider them and respond to them, clearly it is premature to change forward estimates in advance of going through that process. He may well want to ask the Treasurer the wider question, because essentially these questions go more to the Treasurer’s responsibility than to mine.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same issue, I wonder whether the minister could advise whether he has seen any modelling or received any advice, verbal or written, from his department in relation to the impact this will have on the emissions of government departments and government owned enterprises. Does he have any idea of what costs there will be in the out years for government emissions under an emissions-trading scheme?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My department does not have a modelling capacity, so I am not aware of any modelling being done. It clearly will be an issue that, along with all other organisations, both my department and the other areas of government will need to give consideration to. But, prior to the government both engaging in wider community consultation in the wake of the Garnaut report, which is expected soon, and developing the details of an emissions-trading scheme arrangement, it is premature for those things to be developed by my department. But clearly that is an issue, and once the process of putting in an emissions-trading scheme regime starts to unfold, then along with all other organisations the government will need to give consideration to how it deals with its own emissions.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the minister is in relation to the emissions-trading scheme. Has there been any provision in the contingency reserve for likely expenditure for the Commonwealth in relation to the trading scheme? I just refer also again to the part of my question which remained unanswered, and that was in relation to any advice. I understand his response to the aspect of modelling, but has he received any verbal or written advice from the department in relation to the local consequences?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not prepared to canvass what advice I do or do not receive from my department, just as a matter of general principle on these things. Sorry, what was the first part of the question again, Member for Dickson?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Essentially, it was in relation to contingency.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies—the contingency reserve. I am not aware of a provision being made in the contingency reserve. I am happy to take that on notice. Again I would point out to the member for Dickson that the question of whether or not a provision should be made is in a sense premature because, although the government is committed to the introduction of an emissions-trading scheme by 2010, the question of the very short-term impact of that scheme on the spending—whether it is the government or, indeed, any other organisation—is at this stage not possible to predict because of the details of the scheme not having been determined. So I doubt whether there has been any provision made in the contingency reserve on that front, but I am happy to take that question on notice.

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

The minister has given an undertaking to respond on notice and I thank the minister for that, the honourable member for Dickson. I just mention to the Assistant Treasurer that we are running a little late and, on behalf of the Main Committee, I apologise to the Assistant Treasurer.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to ask you in relation to the efficiency dividend process that took place how many departments applied for an exemption from the efficiency dividend as part of this budgetary process?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not say that there were any applications per se but, as you would expect, there were one or two instances—probably fewer than I expected—where individual departments or agencies indicated that they felt that this was going to put considerable pressure on them. In fact, there has probably been a number of instances where communication has come back to me informally either by colleagues or through my department indicating that they felt this might cause them some difficulty. To the best of my recollection, there was no formal application, no formal proposal, brought to the Expenditure Review Committee as such.

It is hardly a great secret that the imposition of a one-off efficiency dividend is going to cause a degree of tension, shall we say, because you have got, inevitably, people with existing arrangements being asked to dig deep to find greater efficiencies. That will be easier in some departments and agencies than in others. But we felt it was necessary, as an important savings measure in order to strengthen the position of the overall budget surplus, to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates and also to help to push back against what had been a very substantial blow-out in spending, particularly the total head count in the Public Service under the previous government. We had seen the numbers in the overall public sector rise quite substantially and well in advance of overall employment in the Australian economy since around 2000-01, particularly at the SES level, which rose by something like 44 per cent in that period of about six or seven years. We felt it was entirely appropriate to put that one-off efficiency dividend in place.

The honourable member is probably aware that there are a limited number of exemptions from the efficiency dividend. Most of the defence department is exempted—not all, but most. There are one or two other agencies with relatively specialised functions that are exempt. We have maintained those exemptions. We applied our one-off efficiency dividend on the existing efficiency dividend base, which of course we inherited from the previous government, and we do not challenge or criticise that, but we did not change the base of exemptions.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to ask you a question in relation to government advertising and government spending. Could you outline to the House the process by which government advertising is approved? Who sits on the committee that discusses the issues before it? What are the criteria by which these decisions are made?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These questions are under active consideration at the moment. I would expect that we would be resolving those matters in the near future. Responsibility has been moved to within my department. There has been very little significant activity on the government advertising front since the election, as you are probably aware. In fact, a number of the budget savings measures that we have taken included previously budgeted advertising measures. These questions that the member for Dickson has raised are under active consideration at the moment and I expect will be resolved in the relatively near future. The member for Dickson will find out when the rest of Australia finds out. We will announce in due course the detail of the new arrangements, but they are under active consideration at the moment.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, on that same issue, I wonder whether you could outline the process that has taken place between November last year and today, because there have been some advertising programs which have taken place. Could you explain to us the decision-making process that is currently in place?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been one or two instances. For example, there were campaigns with respect to SunSmart and so forth which were approved by me on the recommendation of my department.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also want to ask a question of the minister in relation to state government debt. The minister has made a number of public comments both in the House and outside in relation to government expenditure of the previous government and of his own. Leaving that aside, would a state government going into debt for recurrent expenditure be good policy? Is that a policy that the minister would endorse? Would a state government going into debt to pay recurrent expenditure for an increase in the number of public servants in a state government department, for argument’s sake, have an inflationary or deflationary effect?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is absolutely clear that that question has nothing to do with my ministerial responsibilities. In fact, it probably does not have much to do with anybody’s ministerial responsibilities but, to the extent it does, it would be the Treasurer who the question should be directed to.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes directly to comments the minister has made, as I say, both in the House and outside in relation to the issue of inflation. He has spoken about government debt and government expenditure. Of course, that encompasses not just the federal but the state and territory governments as well. It is a comment that he has been happy to make in the past. It relates directly to his portfolio and public statements that he has made. So my question goes to public statements that he has made in relation to these matters and specifically—

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

Regrettably for the honourable member for Dickson, there is no veracity in the point of order as the question before the Main Committee is the expenditure of the Finance and Deregulation Portfolio.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: if your ruling is that it is not within this budget measure, I accept that. I accept that the finance minister refuses to answer questions about state debt. He refuses to talk about the inflationary impact of state government expenditure, particularly when they are ramping up significant debt. I accept that he refuses to answer that question.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could ask me a question about football too, if you like. That would be out of order.

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

I would rule that out of order, Minister, as you would expect me to do. Are there any further questions of the minister? We have about three minutes if we are going to observe the half-hour deadline.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the minister back to—

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

I have given the call to the member for Dickson, but I gather that the honourable member for Blaxland was seeking the call.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was.

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

I have given the call to the member for Dickson but, in the event that you should seek the call after the minister’s response, I will give the call to you.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to return for a moment to the efficiency dividend process. I wonder if the minister would make available the details of departments which sought an exemption from the efficiency dividend and any details of ministerial correspondence or departmental requests from the minister in relation to programs which would have been cut as a result of the efficiency dividend. If he has to take that on notice, I am happy for that.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is no.

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

Does the honourable member for Blaxland wish to ask a question in the Finance and Deregulation Portfolio? The answer being no, I call the honourable member for Dickson.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to ask a question of the minister in relation to expenses within his own office. I wonder if he could outline to the House the process by which he receives media monitoring advice. Who carries out transcripts—is it done within his department or is it sourced to a third party? On a daily basis, how are the press clips, for argument’s sake, delivered to him personally, his chief of staff, his media adviser and other advisers?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only piece of information I would give in response to that question is that we have cancelled the press clippings to my office. That was why I refused the member’s request for the clippings. My understanding is that that happened some time ago—I cannot recall exactly when.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to the question of transcripts, who meets the cost of those?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have to take that on notice because I do not believe that anybody is transcribing my media appearances or anybody’s in the department. I do not believe that is occurring but I am happy to take that on notice. I do not believe that there is anybody in the department providing that service.

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

Before I put the question, I would like to congratulate both the honourable member for Dickson and the minister on the interactive nature of the discussion of appropriations in this portfolio. It is good that not everyone feels it necessary to take every five-minute spot because you can have many questions back and forth.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Treasury Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $3,794,986,000

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

I will begin by noting your comments about the interactive nature that the shadow minister just had with the minister. I will invite the Assistant Treasurer—and I understand we are in his hands when it comes to these things. If he feels on top of his portfolio, then I think this is a worthwhile process for the accountability through this parliament. I have been watching this process, and ministers who feel comfortable in their portfolio come in here and they are able to do that. We have had other ministers, who I would consider to be weaker ministers, who have come in and organised dorothy dixer questions. They have taken five minutes to answer every question that has been asked, then obviously with only—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that the expenditure before the committee relates to the Treasury portfolio. Does the honourable member for Stirling have a statement to make in relation to the expenditure of the Treasury portfolio?

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

I do have questions, Mr Deputy Speaker and, as I said, I will invite the Assistant Treasurer to answer them in the spirit in which they are asked. My questions are in relation to the strengths of the Australian prudential regulatory system, and obviously APRA is an agency that is funded through this appropriation. I am interested in how APRA assesses the depositor risk in relation to Australian banks, and will the Assistant Treasurer inform the House whether APRA publishes those ratings in relation to depositor risk?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

APRA is an organisation which answers to both the Treasurer and me, meets regularly with us and updates us on its views in relation to the strength of the Australian financial and monetary system. Certainly, the advice APRA has given both the Treasurer and me is that the fundamentals of the Australian financial system are robust and it has have no concerns about any institution in particular at this point.

As relates to what APRA actually publish, I imagine that, if they publish it, it would be on the public record. I am happy to check that while the honourable member is asking his next question and, if I can, advise him during the night as to exactly what APRA do release or, alternatively, to take on notice the full details of what APRA do release. As I say, what they release is on the public record.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask a question of the Assistant Treasurer about online home buyers. The minister will be aware that I referred this matter to his attention in January of this year when I identified half-a-dozen or so companies that were offering to sell people’s homes or buy people’s homes from them very quickly, avoiding real estate agents in the process. I expressed concern to you at that time that that this was predatory behaviour and that there was a risk that some people were being ripped off in the process, whereby these companies were looking to buy the houses of individuals who were in a vulnerable position at less than market value.

I expressed concern to you at that time that they were targeting people who were under housing stress and had failed to keep up with their repayments. People were being targeted because they had recently been divorced, lost their job or been unwell. At that time you gave me an undertaking that you would refer the matter to the ACCC for it to investigate what actions it considered appropriate in this circumstance. I thanked you for that at the time. On the weekend you were able to provide me with additional information on what the government is doing in this regard to ensure that people are prevented from finding themselves in circumstances where they do not get a fair deal, where they get ripped off by predatory behaviour in the marketplace. I thank the minister for that and would appreciate more detail about his approach to this matter and the actions of the ACCC.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I use this opportunity to place on the public record my thanks to the member for Blaxland for bringing this to the government’s attention. He did bring to my attention some time ago the practice that he refers to of businesses which rely on people being under significant financial stress. They approach those people, or advertise for those people to approach them, and offer to buy their house from them very quickly. In fact, one of the websites indicates that the transaction can take place in a matter of days, not weeks. This is of some concern to the member for Blaxland and to me. Any business model which is based on relying on vulnerable people—people at some considerable risk and stress—is a business model which concerns me and the government greatly.

I did refer the matter to the ACCC. The ACCC have advised me that there is some grounding to argue that the actions referred to would be regarded as unconscionable conduct under the act and they would take appropriate action. The problem, of course, is that there is a very narrow window of opportunity for taking that action. It is very important that people who may have entered into such a transaction but have not yet completed it contact the ACCC immediately because once the transaction is complete the options open to the ACCC are fewer. There is another thing that the ACCC have done in consultation with the government. We feel it is important that people under financial stress are educated and advised of their rights, and we have instigated a new page on the ACCC website known as ‘Managing your mortgage’, which gives advice to people, particularly about seeking further advice and not making any rash decisions when selling their house. If you sell your house quickly but at substantially below market value and allow somebody else to then onsell it at substantially more, it gets you out of a very short-term problem but does not solve the problem for you in the long term and can make your problems worse because you lose your house but still have considerable debt.

I am glad the honourable member for Blaxland has taken this opportunity for us to put this on the public record. In both his electorate and mine you see signs advertising this on every second telegraph pole. The honourable member for Blaxland has done a considerable internet search and done considerable research on the different businesses that do this. I must say there are some reputable ones. I do not want to categorise them all as disreputable. There are some businesses which do pay market value. But there are clearly some that do not, and the government will continue to take the appropriate action.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is in relation to Fuelwatch. I ask the Assistant Treasurer: what consideration did he give to those motorists who purchase on ‘cheap Tuesday’, at the bottom of the cycle, who are typically pensioners and low-income earners? Is there any proposal to compensate those motorists for the loss of the bottom of the fuel cycle?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member clearly did not listen to the 13 hours of evidence before Senate estimates—four hours from Treasury and, I think I am right in saying, a full day of evidence from the ACCC. Both the Treasury and the ACCC made it clear that the econometric analysis shows that even if the assumption is that 100 per cent of people buy on the cheapest day of the week, which is generally Tuesday, then they will be better off—less better off than the others who buy on expensive days of the week but still better off. The honourable member for Cowper indicates that the government should compensate people for being better off. That is a concept I have some difficulty with because, as I said, the econometric analysis shows that even people who buy on the cheapest day, even if the assumption is built into the model that 100 per cent of people buy on the cheapest day, are better off.

As I have pointed out in the House, and as both the Treasury and the ACCC pointed out in very considerable evidence against which the opposition was not able to land a blow of any description as to the econometric analysis or the ACCC’s recommendations, the reasons for Fuelwatch are threefold. Firstly, it provides consumers with a lot more information about where they can buy the cheapest petrol. The difference between the cheapest and most expensive petrol in any city on any given day is substantial. It can be as high as 30c a litre. If you can find petrol which is 30c a litre cheaper, that is a considerably greater saving than, say, 5c a litre. That is a considerably greater saving which Fuelwatch would give people the opportunity to make.

Secondly, it deals with information asymmetry, what the ACCC has called as close to collusion as you can be and still be legal, which the ACCC has identified in its very substantial report into the petrol industry in Australia. The third reason is that the econometric analysis showed a slight downward pressure on prices. As I have said several times, and as I indicated even on the day we announced this, you would do this even if there was no downward impact on prices, as long as you reassured yourself there was no upward impact on prices. You would do this even if there were no downward impact on prices, because of the information asymmetry and because of the much greater information given to consumers which currently retailers share amongst themselves. I can confirm the government will not provide compensation to people, because they are actually better off under the modelling.

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

As a courtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I would just like to mention we are running maybe five or six minutes late.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the Assistant Treasurer, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a question in relation to taxation policy, which is an area of interest to me in particular. Throughout the course of the election campaign, I know the government—then opposition—made a number of election commitments, but in the course of campaigning throughout my electorate one of the key concerns that people raised with me was the need to improve our taxation system at a number of levels. I think one of the primary concerns is to ensure that we have a fairer system of taxation. The principal concern that people raised in relation to fairness is to ensure that everybody is paying their fair share of tax and that the system has an array of integrity measures in place that ensure that tax is being levied equitably across the board. I would like to ask the Assistant Treasurer to comment on that.

But also the other aspect of what people raised with me is the question of international competitiveness. I know that taxation policy is a key indicator of the international competitiveness of any given economy and there is always a range of measures within the taxation system that can be looked at that will allow us to compare ourselves either favourably or not to other nations on an internationally competitive scorecard.

I would ask that the Assistant Treasurer direct his comments to both questions of fairness, particularly in relation to low- and middle-income earners, and I know that they are the overwhelming majority of taxpayers in my electorate. For a long time they have seen a skewing of where the benefits of taxation policy and tax cuts have been delivered to higher income earners. They are very much concerned that the taxation system—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s rubbish! You don’t seriously believe that. You’re only saying that to impress the minister.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There are too many interjections.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are very concerned that taxation policy under the former government had delivered benefits—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

Order! The honourable member for Sturt will remain silent or I will deal with him.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

Order! The honourable member for Sturt will not defy the chair and will remain silent. Otherwise, it will be necessary for me to deal with him.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to low-income earners in particular, I note that the government has proceeded to implement the low-income tax offset, a policy that I think is long overdue. I think that policy in particular not only will benefit low-income earners in my electorate but will also assist those second partners in families in my electorate. Many of them are being forced back into the workforce as a result of the rising cost of living and the increase that they are facing through increased interest rates. So I ask the Assistant Treasurer to outline what measures not only deliver on election commitments that were made before the last election but also deliver real benefits in terms of the particular areas of interest that I have outlined, directing benefits to low-income earners and also ensuring that our tax system is internationally competitive.

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

While each honourable member does have the opportunity to speak for five minutes, it generally gives the opportunity for more questions to be asked if questions are concise. But it is, of course, a matter for the honourable member who has the call.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am more than happy to give as concise an answer as I can to the honourable member, who is, I must say, somewhat of an expert in taxation matters given his previous professional experience. The honourable member asked me a range of questions. He asked me about fairness, and of course it is important that everybody pays their fair share of tax. The government has given the ATO full support in their measures, such as Operation Wickenby, which are all handled at arm’s length and are not interfered with by the government, but the ATO certainly keeps me very regularly updated on progress and in terms of resources. The government has increased the resources to the compliance section of the Australian Taxation Office, which we believe will provide a substantial dividend as well. In relation to fairness, I note the honourable member’s comments on the low-income tax offset, which of course I endorse. This budget increases the low-income tax offset from $750 to $1,200 and it continues to phase out up until $30,000. I think one of the great problems in Australia is the high effective marginal tax rates for the lower and middle income areas of the spectrum. We hear a lot about high marginal tax rates at the upper end of the spectrum and that is fair. But we have very punishing effective marginal tax rates for people transitioning from welfare to work. This was one of the major focuses of the Henry review of the taxation system. If we can achieve reform in that area, it will be a major advance for Australia.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer on the subject of Fuelwatch. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of recent research widely publicised in much of the eastern Australian media which showed that a motorist in Perth, who had a typical buying pattern of purchasing fuel once a week, was paying some 1.25c a litre more than a motorist in Melbourne and in the order of 1.5c a litre more than a motorist in Sydney? What are the Assistant Treasurer’s views on this research and was it taken into account in any decision that was made by the government with regard to the implementation of Fuelwatch?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The evidence taken into account by the government was that done by the independent—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you are not aware of this research?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been going for six seconds, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe I have five minutes to answer the question. I will try not to take the full five minutes so that honourable members opposite get a fair go, but I will take as long as it takes to answer the question and I will take a little bit more than six seconds if it is okay with the honourable member for Cowper. The government took the advice of the independent regulator, which showed downward pressure on prices as a result of Fuelwatch. It also showed that fuel prices in Perth have on average been lower than the eastern capitals every month for the first five months of this year. I am aware of the research that the honourable member refers to and I am also aware of who conducted it. I will simply say that we take independent research; we do not take research that is conducted by people who are not independent. We take all evidence into account—as we did. The honourable member for Cowper may choose to outsource his research to others who are not independent; we do not.

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

Again I say that the way this particular proceeding is being conducted, as opposed to how it has been conducted by previous ministers, who have not felt need to bring in people to ask dorothy dixers and waste the time available in this committee, speaks volumes.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Stirling has the call and the minister would like to hear the question.

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

I will list a series of questions, and I will ask the minister to respond to them. I think that is a shame, but if that is the only way it can be done then that is the way that we are forced to do it. In relation to APRA, and in view of the questions that I asked previously, do they pay close attention to the ratings agencies’ reports on banks? If so, which one do APRA look at? Did any of the particular Standard and Poor’s ratings in the last six months give APRA cause for concern? Does APRA have a responsibility to inform the market and the consumers of particular financial institutions of possible or actual downgrades in a bank’s credit rating? How do depositors find out when there is a change in the underlying ratings for a bank in which they have deposits? Would the Assistant Treasurer be concerned if this has occurred and he has not been informed?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, APRA is an independent body which conducts its affairs at arms-length—

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

Which reports to you.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

from the government. That is five seconds I have been going.

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

The member for Stirling will not interject.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take the interjection. APRA reports to me in terms of its administration. I do not interfere in the way APRA carries out its prudential regulation process. If the honourable member opposite who seeks my job proposes to interfere, if and when he ever has my job, that is a very interesting revelation. APRA conducts its prudential regulation at arms-length. It, of course, appears before Senate estimates twice a year, at which time the chairman of APRA and the other commissioners take questions. I think I am right in saying from my experience on the committee that they also appear regularly before the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. I assume that is still the case. I am no longer on that committee, obviously, but I assume it is still the case that honourable members are entitled to ask APRA those questions.

If I could answer the question that the honourable member asked me before: APRA publishes a range of financial statistics about authorised deposit-taking institutions—banks, credit unions et cetera—but it does not publish credit ratings for individual banks as such. I must say I would be somewhat concerned if it did. It is very important that APRA has a full and open relationship with the banks and other financial institutions which they monitor and that they manage any issues which arise in full consultation with that financial institution. APRA is one of the most respected prudential regulation organisations in the world. It does a very good job, and it is one of the reasons that our economy is going so well. We have withstood the financial turbulence of recent months so well because of the work that APRA does. I note that the United States, for example, has indicated they are interested in following the Australian model.

In relation to the details about whether they take into account rating agencies, that is a matter I am happy to explore with APRA and take on advice. As I stress, APRA—appropriately—conducts its prudential regulation at arms-length from the government. It would be improper for me to say to it, ‘I think you should take into account the rating agencies’—if it does or does not—or, ‘I think you should take into account certain elements of a bank’s operations,’ or, ‘I think you should take into account the following.’ That would be highly inappropriate. APRA is a very respected organisation which is made up of some of the most experienced financial regulators in the country, and it should continue to do its work at arm’s length. I am happy to take on notice the individual questions from the honourable member.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question relates to the licensing and oversight of mortgage brokers. The minister would be aware that something in the order of 40 per cent of mortgages are now prepared and organised via mortgage brokers, which is a marked increase over the last decade. My office and I have, because of my interest in this area, received a number of complaints and calls of concern about mortgage brokers from not only residents in my electorate but also people outside of my electorate. One young lady contacted my office a couple of weeks ago and was very upset. She said that a mortgage broker had—

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Byrne interjecting

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

Order! The member for Blaxland has the call. The parliamentary secretary will refrain from interjecting.

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

Mr Keenan interjecting

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Byrne interjecting

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

Order! The member for Stirling and the parliamentary secretary will cease interjecting.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I can advise you that you are all taking up the time of the committee. If there are questions you want to ask, the time may expire before you get a chance if this continues. The member for Blaxland has the call.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was only 10 seconds away, but I have a funny feeling that it might be two minutes, the way we are going.

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

The member for Blaxland will ask his question.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My concern is about mortgage brokers. I make the point that the Baird committee in the previous parliament made important recommendations about it. I make the point that a green paper has now been released recommending the licensing and the oversight of mortgage brokers by either APRA or ASIC. I think that is a good thing; I think it is an important thing. Constituents of mine and others have made that point to me; they would like to see some action. I would like some advice from the minister about what the government’s intentions are with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Baird committee and, more importantly, the options that are canvassed in that green paper.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member has raised this issue with me previously, and I am aware of his concern about mortgage broking—particularly in his electorate, which is one of the areas of highest mortgage stress in the country. The Council of Australian Governments decided earlier this year that the Commonwealth would take over on mortgage broking. My colleague the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law has released to me and other Treasury ministers and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation the green paper that you refer to, in relation both to that and to the Commonwealth taking a broader role. This is something under consideration by the Council of Australian Governments and also, although not deliberatively but in a consultative fashion, by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, on which I sit. We are very interested in taking more of a role in relation to payday lenders and others.

The honourable member is right: the Baird committee recommended a Commonwealth takeover of mortgage brokers. It is something that this government is committed to doing. The green paper goes to that and to a broader schema, and we will respond to the green paper in due course.

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

I return to the series of questions that I asked earlier on. I am interested in whether any of the agencies—APRA or any others that he is responsible for—actually inform the Assistant Treasurer if there has been a downgrade to a credit rating for an Australian financial institution.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Chairman of APRA and the other commissioners meet with me regularly—usually once a month though occasionally more regularly; sometimes, due to pressures on them or me, it may be slightly longer than monthly, but usually, on average, it is once a month—and we discuss the state of the Australian financial institutions and they brief me on any issues of concern. Those briefings, as appropriate, are confidential.

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

I am really interested in whether the minister actually has information in relation to the status of Australian financial institutions, which I think is a reasonably important thing for the Assistant Treasurer to have knowledge of. If the Assistant Treasurer is not getting that information, I wonder how much confidence customers of these banks can have, and how they are expected to receive this information. If you are an Australian who has a bank account, how are you expected to receive information if the credit rating for that institution has been downgraded?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

Order! The Assistant Treasurer has the call. The member for Sturt will desist from interjecting.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the honourable member opposite has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority does not release credit ratings of individual institutions. There are credit rating agencies that do that. The honourable member might be aware of them: one of them is called Standard and Poor’s and another one is called Moody’s—they are the big two; there are probably others. If Standard and Poor’s or Moody’s changes the credit rating of a financial institution, they make it public.

As I have said, I meet with APRA regularly, the Treasurer meets with APRA regularly and they brief us fully on any matters which may be causing them concern. I can reveal to the honourable member that the consistent briefing that I have received from APRA since taking over the portfolio in November last year is that the fundamentals of Australian financial institutions are sound and that Australian consumers can be confident that the Australian financial system and the component parts of it are in much better shape than those in, say, the United States or the United Kingdom.

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

If this information is public, then can I ask the Assistant Treasurer if he is aware of any Australian financial institution having their credit rating downgraded in the past six months?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow Assistant Treasurer might be interested in creating turbulence in the Australian financial market; I am not. The briefings that APRA have given me are that the fundamentals of the Australian financial institution are sound and the Australian financial system generally is sound.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $420,033,000

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak briefly on the portfolio budget statements under the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio area, I will take this opportunity to make a few points, particularly with respect to the new expenditures that are contained within the portfolio budget document. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will play a key role in coordinating relevant portfolios, state and territory governments and other stakeholders to progress priorities through the Council of Australian Governments.

The department portfolio budget statements 2008-09 include five new expense measures totalling $67.3 million over five years, including $3.9 million in 2007-08 and two capital measures totalling $1.1 million in 2008-09. The new measures contained within this budget for the Council of Australian Governments are additional resources to support the COAG reform agenda. The government will be providing a total $25.2 million over five years, including $0.3 million in 2007-08 of additional funding to support the COAG reform agenda. Of this, $9.8 million will be provided to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to provide expanded coordination and secretariat support for COAG meetings, working groups and projects and to meet the requirements of the expanded COAG agenda.

The government provided $2.6 million in 2007-08 to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the Australia 2020 Summit on 19 and 20 April 2008. With respect to the social inclusion agenda, the government will be providing $14.6 million over five years, including $1 million in 2007-08, to establish a social inclusion unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The unit will have a role in policy advice and coordination of the government’s social inclusion agenda, operating in conjunction with the new Australian Social Inclusion Board. This measure delivers on the Australian government’s election commitment. There is also the cabinet committee secretariat support funding, which is additional funding. The government will be providing $3.3 million over four years in additional funding for the cabinet committee secretariat within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. To facilitate the development and implementation of the government’s policy agenda, six new cabinet committees have been established and an enhanced role has been given for the Expenditure Review Committee. The additional funding will establish the appropriate level of secretariat and coordination services within the department to support the ongoing operation of the new and enhanced cabinet committee structure.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet enhanced strategic capability is another portfolio area. The government will provide $38.1 million over four years to allow the department to take on an expanded role in supporting the government in delivering key priorities. These priorities include the government’s commitment to deliver its reform agenda through the Council of Australian Governments and progress initiatives identified at the Australia 2020 Summit. This measure includes $1 million for IT equipment.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a series of questions which I will put to the honourable parliamentary secretary—and which no doubt he will note down and respond to with as much candour as possible! My first question is: when was the new ministerial support unit created within PM&C and what will it do? Was the unit created after consultation with the Prime Minister’s office? What appropriations have been allocated to the new ministerial support unit? How many staff will be employed in the new ministerial support unit? What level and duration are the staff positions within the new ministerial support unit? Has the head of the new ministerial support unit been appointed? If so, at what level and for how long?

In general, what is the total number of staff being employed by Prime Minister and Cabinet? In terms of some of the other offices that have escaped the razor gang of PM&C, $5.2 million is being provided for the creation of the Office of National Security within the department. What is the $5.2 million being spent on precisely? Has the national security adviser been appointed and will he or she represent the head of the office? At what level and for what duration is his or her contract? In developing the office, apparently care had to be given to the resources supplied by the departments or agencies. What are the resources that the other departments or agencies will be committing to the Office of National Security? Will the Office of National Security be housed in the current Prime Minister and Cabinet building?

The Office of Work and Family has been established and $7.9 million is being provided for the creation of the Office of Work and Family within the department. What is the $7.9 million being spent on? In developing the office, apparently care was given to having resources supplied by other departments or agencies. What are the resources that the other departments or agencies will be committing to the Office of Work and Family? What is the $200,000 worth of capital funding contained within Budget Paper No. 2 for the COAG reform council?

The parliamentary secretary mentioned the enhanced strategic capacity of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is a new item in Prime Minister and Cabinet, and $38.1 million is being provided for the department to take on an expanded role in supporting government within the department. What is the $38.1 million being spent on? It is a very substantial amount of money for supposed enhanced strategic capacity, and I would hope the parliamentary secretary would have details on what exactly that money is being spent on. And $1 million is being spent, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, on capital funding for IT equipment. How much IT equipment is being purchased? I am after the numbers and type of IT equipment that is being purchased for this new office of enhanced strategic capacity.

The parliamentary secretary also mentioned the new cabinet committee secretariat support. What will these cabinet committees be doing that was not being done before? What are the names of the six cabinet committees that this money provides funding for? How many staff will be employed with this new funding?

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many questions is that?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nineteen questions.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister, through the parliamentary secretary, the present situation facing pensioners. Last Thursday, there was a group of pensioners from the Moreland Seniors Action Group who had a rally at my office and presented to me a petition concerning—

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

What’s that got to do with it?

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Liberal Party are not concerned about the situation facing pensioners, it is little wonder they are languishing where they are!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wills will not respond to the interjection from across the chamber.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could do with some protection from interjections, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

You have the protection and you have the call.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The situation, as outlined by these 1,500 signatures, asks the federal government to increase pension payments. For example, Mr Gino Iannazzo, a 71-year-old Coburg resident, has said that everyday expenses have been increasing—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: I want to ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would make a ruling as to the relevance of material that may be brought up in the consideration in detail stage. My understanding is that it must be relevant to the portfolio. This is Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the material that is being discussed by the honourable member would be dealt with in another portfolio. I simply put on the record that the Liberal Party is enormously concerned about pensions, but it is not relevant to this particular debate.

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

The member for Mackellar has made her point of order. The member for Wills is asking a question relating to seniors, veterans and pensioners. I would suggest that the Prime Minister has overall responsibility through Prime Minister and Cabinet to—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could raise Regional Partnerships.

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

I would imagine you could also. The Prime Minister has overall responsibility for all his ministers.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is outrageous time wasting!

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt ought to study consideration in detail in Hansard for the last 10 years. If he did so, he would find that government members routinely spoke for five minutes during consideration in detail on matters of concern to them and to their electorates. That is exactly what I am doing.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have acknowledged that pensioners are struggling. I welcome the fact that the government is carrying out a review of the adequacy of pension payments and that in March the Prime Minister indicated that the government would be examining ways to deliver increased financial security to pensioners. I look forward to that review and, more importantly, to action to address the present financial plight of pensioners. The Prime Minister has told the Victorian Labor state conference that Treasury secretary Ken Henry is preparing a report on how we can confront the long-term interrelated challenges of our tax, welfare and retirement income systems, which will include a review of age pensions. I believe it is important that the attention of the Prime Minister is drawn to the situation facing pensioners, which is precisely why I am raising these issues. I am disappointed to see members opposite have no interest in this issue, which is one of the issues confronting senior citizens in our community, who are, in my view, entitled to support and who are, in my view, struggling to make ends meet as a result of increasing prices of electricity, gas, pharmaceuticals, food, petrol—you name it. Prices have been increasing and therefore senior citizens are entitled to support.

The petition which they have presented to me is being presented to the parliament next Monday. I think that it is good that people are pursuing these issues through petitions and other processes. I hope that they continue to do that—that people in my electorate and indeed in other electorates continue to sign these petitions and to make their feelings in this matter clear. It is regrettable that their circumstances were not helped by the previous government, which fitted them up with a GST which has had very adverse effects on their capacity and their spending power. That is very regrettable. (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. It relates to the latest announcement from the Prime Minister that he is going to take over two of the refuelling aircraft that have been purchased for the single purpose of refuelling RAAF aircraft to protect the nation and will fit them out with great luxury—with bedrooms and first-class compartments—and have two of these for his personal movements. I have several questions with regard to this. How will it affect the RAAF’s capability, as the planes have been acquired for air-to-air refuelling? What is going to happen if the RAAF requires the planes and the Prime Minister says, ‘No, I need them for my comfort’? Does he get precedence? More particularly, I want to know whether PM&C is going to pay for the conversion of these planes—

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fifty million dollars!

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

at $50 million, as I am reminded by my colleague. Or is Defence going to be made to absorb the $50 million that it is going to take to convert these functional aircraft needed for the defence of Australia into comfort zones for the Prime Minister, presumably so he can take the butler and probably even the childcare person and the stylist? They will all be very comfortable. We will be pleased to know about that.

I also want to know precisely why it is that, when estimates were on and these questions were being asked about the VIP fleet—two weeks ago this is—the CDF, who is a man who always tells the truth in a very straightforward way, said that there was nothing planned by way of doing something about the VIP fleet. Then suddenly we have Mr Rudd saying no, he needs to have two new aircraft at his disposal. Considering that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority estimates that the total operating cost of the Airbus A330, the aircraft that are going to be commandeered, is $6,372.73 per hour—as against the BBJ737 at $3,309.69—how is this additional cost to be met? Is it again to be the Department of Defence absorbing the cost? While we are on the question, you do love to talk about reducing carbon emissions; what is the carbon footprint that is going to be generated by the comfort zone for the Prime Minister?

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker—

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I actually get a chance to respond?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Herbert has the call. He is on his feet.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary about the government’s 10 National Employment Standards, which were announced earlier this year. Do they apply to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Is the parliamentary secretary aware that staff in the Prime Minister’s office work very long days? They will still be at work now. How is this consistent with the 10 National Employment Standards? The Prime Minister has also made it very clear that he expects the Public Service to work even harder. How is that consistent with the 10 National Employment Standards?

I would also like to ask the parliamentary secretary about the 2020 Summit. What arrangements are in place to action the items that came out of the summit? When can we expect to see those action items? In fact, has the 2020 Summit simply been a talkfest with no action at the end of the day?

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start off with the member for Wills and his concern about age pensioners. Whilst those on the other side might be somewhat concerned about the fact that he did not raise that in the appropriate manner, the Prime Minister’s office, through the Ministerial Correspondence Unit, does in fact receive a very large number of responses and letters with respect to issues from across a gamut of areas. The fact is that we do deal with some of these issues in correspondence, so I think it was pertinent for the member for Wills to raise that. We do not take constituencies for granted. We do not just ignore certain constituencies, like the previous government did for 12 years, and then write it off and disparage someone—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

hang on a second—for raising concerns. We have a legitimate member of parliament that is raising concerns about a constituency, and these constituencies do communicate with the Prime Minister through the Ministerial Correspondence Unit. So it is perfectly legitimate his raising that particular issue.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

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

The member for Mackellar and the member for Sturt will remain silent.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may wish to quibble about this. I will address some of your 19 questions. The Ministerial Support Unit is to be established on 1 July. The unit has been advertised nationally and it will be on an officer SES band 2. It is not a new resource. It brings together existing functions of the department such as ministerial correspondence and briefing and the official establishments. We have recommended an independent audit of the department by former ombudsman Rob Maclean with respect to this issue.

With respect to the COAG Reform Council, there are set-up costs of $2 million for IT and office fit-out. The Commonwealth contributes 50 per cent to the CRC in conjunction with the states. With respect to the Strategic Policy Unit, there is $38 million for additional staffing, $1 million for IT and desktop equipment, and an office fit-out of $495,000 for staff. With respect to the question about the cabinet committee, there are six additional staff positions in the cabinet office.

With respect to the other member’s question about the Prime Minister’s use of special aircraft, the RAAF manages the fleet in accordance with the principles governing the use of special purpose aircraft circulated to all senators and members in September 2002. The fleet of special purpose aircraft is available for use in various circumstances by other office holders, including the Governor-General, the Minister for Defence, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, leaders of the other parties represented in the Senate and presiding officers, some parliamentary committees and delegations, other members of parliament where special circumstances apply, the Chief of the Defence Force and service chiefs, comparable persons visiting Australia representing their nations, state governors and the administrator of the Northern Territory and other persons where the Minister for Defence or the Prime Minister considers it just.

The use of the SPA fleet is totally transparent, with the Department of Defence tabling in parliament twice yearly the scheduled special purpose flights. The schedule for the period January to June 2007 was tabled on 11 March 2008, and we will—

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

Why don’t you just say you don’t know and get the information to me?

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You raised the point about the Prime Minister using two aircraft. As I recall, that arose out of a tragedy in Yogyakarta. You may wish to make light of that. There was a request, as I understand, due to the loss of life of Australian journalists that there be two aircraft. If you want to dismiss that and dismiss the loss of lives of Australian journalists travelling with the Prime Minister then on your head be it. That is exactly what you have done. On the refitting: we have no knowledge of the refitting of the aircraft. Trying to score cheap political points on the Prime Minister travelling overseas to undertake the business of the country and to represent the country is pretty reprehensible, but I have come to expect that from you.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Sturt.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the call, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since this is a time for opposition—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt was on his feet.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot help it if the member for Isaacs is daydreaming!

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

He will get the next call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary did attempt to answer some of the questions that I raised about PM&C, but there were three that he noteworthily left out. One of the most important of those is the enhanced strategic capacity for the department, where $38.1 million plus $1 million for capital funding—so almost $40 million—has been set aside for a new item which we are told is to advise the Prime Minister and cabinet on enhanced strategic capacity. Having been here 15 years, this sounds to me like a very busy empty log into which $40 million has been stashed to be used as the government wishes to campaign against the opposition at election time—out of PM&C. We would like some specifics about this new enhanced strategic capacity of almost $40 million. He also completely ignored the issue of the $5.2 million to establish a new Office of National Security. He ignored the $7.9 million for the Office of Work and Family. What are these offices? What resources of other departments are going to be provided to these offices? Are they coordinating the re-election campaign of the Rudd government in, we assume, 2010? In particular, what about the enhanced strategic capacity, which the parliamentary secretary has totally ignored? That is a massive spending of taxpayers’ money. We would like the details of the numbers of people involved; what exactly they will be doing and what level they will be paid at?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no more—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He refuses to answer.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Sturt, the parliamentary secretary will get an opportunity. The member for Isaacs has got the call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am waiting for the member for Sturt to be quiet. There is no more important area of government policy than providing for the safety and security of the Australian people, but that would appear to be a matter which the member for Sturt is not interested in. It is an area which greatly interests me and, for that reason, I felt privileged to be appointed by this House a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That is, of course, the committee that provides parliamentary oversight to the national security agencies: the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Office of National Assessments. The oversight of these agencies by the elected members of this parliament is important because it provides the assurance of accountability of these agencies to the people of Australia.

It is a fact that our nation at present faces serious security challenges—some of them old and well known; some of them new and not so well known—and I refer to the changing nature of the challenges of terrorism; the need to build and sustain regional stability; our ability to support our Pacific neighbours and ensure that failed states do not become the rule for our region; the havoc being wreaked by HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis both in our region and further afield; and the potential havoc that we would face with a communicable disease pandemic. These kinds of security challenges require us to think with clarity and to respond strategically. They require integrated and well-coordinated policy making at the highest level of government, which is why I seek to raise these matters in the consideration in detail in this session on the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.

We need to be strategic in how we gather and assess intelligence, in how intelligence informs policy making through the advice provided by our security agencies and in how these policies achieve the national security outcomes that will ensure that Australia maintains security. The recent release of the papers from the Hope royal commission are a reminder that recognition of the need for national security planning and coordination is not new. It was as clear when Hope was considering these matters as it is today. It has been part of the long-term direction of several Australian governments that there be coordination and integration in the security and intelligence area.

Our government made an election commitment to establish an Office of National Security in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—and the member for Sturt has raised the Office of National Security among the many questions that he has posed to the parliamentary secretary. The Office of National Security is to be headed by a national security adviser and, as has been accepted by the member for Sturt—which I took to be something of a compliment—the government has delivered on our election commitment by establishing and funding this new office. Its objective is to develop, provide advice on, coordinate and integrate comprehensive whole-of-government national security policy and provide strategic oversight on its implementation. The questions that I have for the parliamentary secretary are these. What will be the role of the Office of National Security? How does the role of the office differ from the national security division in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Is the parliamentary secretary able to provide the House with an update on the progress of the appointment of the national security adviser who is to head up the Office of National Security?

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with the issue of strategic policy first and then move on to the issue of the Office of National Security. The question I think that the honourable member asked was: what is the role of the strategic policy unit? The unit will provide advice of a forward-looking strategic nature to the Prime Minister and the government. The unit will oversight and manage project teams engaged in strategic policy development and setting strategic directions. Teams will be variously comprised of staff from the unit, policy divisions and other agencies and external sources such as academics and members of the business and community sectors.

It is expected that the unit will also assist the government to set the strategic policy agenda through sectoral scans to identify needs in areas of future policy development. The unit will form a knowledge hub in relation to strategic thinking and policy development and, in time, disseminate information on strategic thinking within PM&C and the broader Australian Public Service. In full operation, the unit will require about 30 or 40 staff, comprising a core staffing of roughly 20 officers and others drawn—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This from an opposition that used a government advertising unit—I think it was—comprised of seven people that, on my figures, spent something close to $1.8 billion. You talk about accountability. You are the group of people who should least be talking about accountability within this department given how you ruthlessly used that to spend $1.8 billion of taxpayers’ money without accountability.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the parliamentary secretary refer to members via their seat because, when you refer to ‘you’, you are referring to me.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How disrespectful.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am never disrespectful to you, Member for Sturt—not intentionally anyway.

The unit will be sufficiently well resourced to retain external expertise from both government and non-government sources. The final budget of the unit has not been determined. Between now and July 2008 the department is conducting a business planning and budgeting process to determine the final budget. The PM&C will receive $9.925 million in 2008-09 for this budget measure. The department has conducted a diagnostic audit of the department which will inform the allocation of this funding. The final allocation will be determined following the business planning and budgeting cycle, which is currently underway. I expect the majority of the funding to be used in the set-up, establishment and operation of the strategic policy unit. However, funding will also be used in a targeted way to boost the strategic policy capability of some other areas of the department.

The initial work of the unit has not been determined. The program will be determined in consultation with the Prime Minister. The department has advertised several positions within the unit, including the position of head of strategic policy and implementation, which is the position at deputy secretary level. The department has recruited Mr Simon Miller in an ongoing capacity at the first assistant secretary level to fill the role of executive director of the unit for six months. Mr Miller will have day-to-day management responsibility for the unit, including its establishment. Mr Miller has held various positions within the New South Wales state government, including lead adviser to the Premier and the Treasurer on fiscal policy and deputy director-general of the New South Wales Department of Water and Energy. Recently, Mr Miller has worked with a management consultancy firm.

The member for Isaacs has asked me about the Office of National Security.

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

Did he? He made a statement.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he did actually. It was a very good question.

Opposition Member:

Opposition member interjecting—

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he is on the intelligence and security committee, which is actually quite an important committee in the parliament.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about my question?

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will deal with your questions when we can.

Its role is to develop, to provide advice on, to coordinate and to integrate comprehensive whole-of-government national security policy and to provide strategic oversight in its implementation. This includes liaison with relevant departments and agencies at all levels of government; coordination and integration of national security policy; coordination of national security advice to the Prime Minister and to the NSC; oversight of the whole-of-government implementation of the government’s national security policy; and an increase of focus and insight on emerging issues that may impact on national security.

A key priority of the Office of National Security is to develop the National Security Statement, to outline a holistic approach to national security. The role of the ONS may further evolve following the implementation of any government response to the Homeland and Border Security Review. The ONS builds on the previous National Security Division, which was created by the Howard government. ONS retains all the roles of the National Security Division while increasing its focus on emerging national security challenges, including international security stabilisation and capacity-building operations in fragile and failed states; economic, resources and trade security; impacts of climate change and environmental issues; and security. (Time expired)

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I ask the parliamentary secretary to answer the questions that I asked him, please?

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask a question in relation to community cabinets. I think that the thrust of my question is to ensure that the community cabinet process is being adequately resourced. The reason I ask the question is that I have firsthand experience from the tremendous opportunity that a community cabinet does provide for a local community to engage with government at the very highest levels. In terms of the community cabinet meeting that was—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt was part of a government that were so out of touch that I can understand that the notion of a community cabinet is so foreign to them—that is why ultimately they ended up introducing Work Choices. But we are determined to ensure that we are not going to be a government that ends up being as out of touch as the former government. That is why I think the community cabinet process is so important.

The reason I am asking the question is that the community cabinet process, in my experience, has gone a long way towards bridging some of the gaps, some of the divide, between those of us that are elected to represent our communities and those people out there looking for a voice to be actively represented in government. I have seen firsthand how empowering it is for local community members to meet, to sit down one-on-one with the Prime Minister or one-on-one with the Deputy Prime Minister or any other member of the cabinet and to raise an issue they have been trying to make penetrate the bureaucratic networks of government for many years, in some cases. I think it is a process that empowers individuals within their local communities. It also shows great respect to local communities, as the cabinet comes into the community and provides local residents with those opportunities.

The reason I am concerned to ensure that this process continues and continues to be adequately resourced is that I think expectations have been lifted. Certainly that is the case in my community, a community that was not listened to all that much by the previous government. Work Choices would never have been introduced had the former government listened to the concerns of people within my community. So I am concerned to ensure that, with those expectations having been raised, there will be adequate follow-through.

A number of issues were raised directly with ministers, a number of issues were raised directly with the Prime Minister and we have already seen some of the evidence of the follow-through. I know in particular that one local resident, Mr Craig Midgely, raised some concerns in relation to the cost of living and the impact it was having on his family. He has a family—his wife and he are looking after four young children—and reflects many of the challenges that local people in my community face. Not only was he listened to on that occasion but subsequent discussions with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister led to him having an impact on the drafting of the budget, which I think is a great thing—that his particular circumstances were taken into account, as a symbol or a representative of many other families within my electorate.

I note also that Ms Catherine Murray was at the community cabinet and raised some important concerns in relation to carers. Not all that long after the community cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister made some additional announcements in relation to carers. Those announcements went very much to addressing some of the core concerns that were raised with the community cabinet meeting.

As I indicated a little earlier, my real concern is to ensure not only that we are out there allowing people an opportunity to provide consultation and feedback to the government but that there will be an effective mechanism by which these particular concerns can be responded to. As a result of those responses, I believe we will be going a long way towards giving people a greater stake in this democracy and giving them a greater stake in the operations of government. My question to the parliamentary secretary is: in what way is this particular process being resourced, and is it being resourced adequately?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar and everyone is mindful of the time, but I just advise the Main Committee that I as the chair have no capacity to stop the debate, notwithstanding what agreements there may be between whips. If you have an agreement about a time limit, you need to exercise your power as whips with your members. I call the member for Mackellar.

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

To assist the parliamentary secretary with his answer on my initial questions concerning the commandeering of two RAAF refuelling planes, I would refer to the answer he attempted to give before in which he said that they needed two planes so that they could take journalists. I would tell him that the configuration of each plane is a first-class chamber for ministers and then a business class compartment for journalists and then a bedroom for the Prime Minister—and this is duplicated. So your answer was misleading and it tried to imply that I in fact was not caring about the safety of those people, which was quite unwarranted.

I want to go now to page 284 of Budget Paper No. 2, One National Circuit—adjustment for leasing expenses. It says:

The Government will provide $4.4 million over five years for office lease expenses of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to ensure compliance with accounting standards.

I would like to know what precisely is the purpose of the lease. Is this an additional $4.4 million? What is the overall cost of the lease? How many people will be housed in those premises and who is the landlord?

I would also like to ask you about page 117 of Budget Paper No. 2, Tackling climate change—renewable energy target. I notice that the government is abolishing the energy target established within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and is transferring it to the Climate Change portfolio. We have already seen that the very efficient rebate system the Howard government put in place for solar panels has been chopped because it was successful. John Howard said that it would be a demand-driven program and anyone could get the subsidy for the solar panels who wanted to do so because the aim was to get as many residences set up with solar panels as possible. Now I see that the responsibility for renewable energy target, which was established by John Howard within Prime Minister and Cabinet, has been shifted out of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Is this another indication that, although the target has been raised and there is a statement that the amount of money would increase to $15.5 million, you are claiming a saving of over $12 million by taking it out of Prime Minister and Cabinet? What is the nature of the intent, and why has it been taken out of Prime Minister and Cabinet? The last question that I will ask of you concerns the COAG process and the additional funds that are being made available to COAG. Do you have specific details of how that additional money is meant to translate into, supposedly, ending the blame game?

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to the questions that have been put to me by members opposite, I am mindful of the fact that we had half an hour allocated for this particular questioning. I am also—in terms of the 10 employment standards from the member for Lindsay—mindful of the fact that we have staff from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as well. They expected to be here for half an hour and in fact one of them has to leave. May I suggest that I take all of the questions on notice, and we will respond to you appropriately.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,524,405,000

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I cannot see the minister. I can see the parliamentary secretary but I cannot see the minister. I would have thought that the minister would have the decency to come to this forum.

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

You never did in your time. You never did when you were in government.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I fronted as minister.

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

You never did when you were in government.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please assist the chamber, given the time constraints, by not interjecting.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important part of transparency and accountability. Notwithstanding the capacity of the parliamentary secretary, who I have a high regard for, he is not responsible for many of these areas of foreign affairs, and the minister should be here.

The federal opposition was surprised and disappointed by the Rudd government’s first budget—disappointed by the budget in general but also disappointed by the foreign affairs component of the budget. I was amazed that, only weeks after the Prime Minister returned from his 17-day world trip telling everyone that Australia will be more engaged, that Australia is back on the world stage and that Australia will be a creative middle-power activist, the Treasurer then in the budget revealed that the government will cut over 300 jobs that carry out exactly this work—sort of a loaves and fishes effect, I think.

According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio budget statements, the government is cutting 305 jobs from that specific section of the department with primary responsibility for developing and implementing foreign and trade policies on matters of international security, trade and policy and global cooperation that advance Australia’s national interest. I would be very keen for the parliamentary secretary to explain how the government can ramp up activity in a host of areas across the world and do so when they are cutting 305 jobs from that particular area of the department responsible for those activities. These cuts of staff, as part of the—

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Mr Robb, could you just repeat that last bit? There was a bit of noise before that last comment, the last couple of sentences. I missed the point you made there.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I am making is: how can the government deliver on a whole raft of international initiatives—

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr McMullan interjecting

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will go through some of the examples that you have given. Those cuts of 305 are part of a total of $107 million announced in the forward estimates against the departmental budget. It does make a mockery in a way of the raft of tasks already identified by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I am also concerned that we have cuts to the teams negotiating the free trade agreements. As well, we have funds, not identified, to continue the government’s much hyped whaling surveillance. I am also concerned by the Prime Minister’s recent practice of outlining international initiatives without any evidence of thoughtful consideration, without any evidence of detailed preparation, without any evidence of considered diplomacy and without any evidence of common regional courtesies. We have, for example, the Asia-Pacific union, which is hasty, is ill conceived and smacks of policy on the run. Even the chosen envoy was approached only two hours before the announcement and, again, with no detail.

Against that background, my questions to the parliamentary secretary representing the minister are as follows: can the parliamentary secretary inform us when the minister became aware of the Asia-Pacific union initiative? Was it discussed in cabinet? Where in the budget would I find the funding and staff numbers set aside for this prime ministerial whim? What funding and staff will be made available to the envoy, Mr Woolcott? Will there be new resources or will the resources come from the already stretched department? The same questions apply to the Prime Minister’s nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament commission. Where is the detail? Where is the funding? Where is the staffing? Where do I look in the budget papers for these items? Are these new funds?

When it comes to other initiatives, the same is true. The attempt to pursue a seat at the UN Security Council: what will this cost; where will the money come from? (Extension of time granted) Where are the funds to pursue a seat on that council? What analysis has been done on the likelihood of success? What will be involved in securing that success? What diplomatic efforts will be required? What is the potential cost of this bid? What analysis has been done on the cost? Will the government be considering new embassies and missions to boost its chances of success? And how does this correlate with the government’s intention to cut 25 overseas diplomatic jobs?

Finally, the government has signalled its intent to pursue Pacific Partnerships for Development. This should be the parliamentary secretary’s sweet spot. How many Pacific partnerships does the government intend to establish? How will the government go about prioritising which country to pursue Pacific partnerships with? What mechanisms will the government put in place to ensure that Pacific partnerships will achieve their objectives? Are there any Pacific nations that the government has ruled out pursuing a Pacific partnership with? What part of the funding allocation in the budget is expected to be absorbed in pursuing the Pacific partnerships initiative?

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the several matters that were raised, the minister and the government are confident that we have the resources and the structure within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to carry out the government’s tasks in accordance with the new priorities that we have set down. Of course we have also in parallel talked about a review of the department, because new governments come in and they have new priorities and they need to be reflected in the manner in which departments and agencies are conducted. But at the moment there is no concern within the government that there is not the capacity to undertake the tasks that have been outlined. I will come back to some of these specifics in a moment, but I am advised that the number of staff in the DFAT negotiating teams with regard to the various FTAs is unchanged. That is my understanding of the situation that relates to one of the specific points that the member raised.

With regard to the role of Special Envoy Woolcott, and with regard to the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament co-chaired by Mr Evans, these are recent announcements and the funding arrangements are still under consideration between PM&C and DFAT. They have not been finalised. As to what went on inside the cabinet, the minister no more expects me to answer that than I expect to answer it. If I had asked him the previous time, he would not have told me the character of the internal discussions between the minister and the Prime Minister or within the cabinet, and I do not intend to do so.

With regard to the Pacific partnerships, we have announced the first two countries with whom we are in negotiations: Papua New Guinea and Samoa. Those negotiations are well advanced and it is our hope that we will have framework agreements in place for signature at the Niue Leaders Forum. We will outline reasonably soon a timetable for subsequent negotiations, and the Port Moresby declaration outlines that broadly. We are looking at establishing such partnerships eventually with all the countries of the Pacific. As to who has been excluded, at the moment we are not in a position to negotiate that sort of partnership with Fiji. In the long term it is our ambition to do so but we are not in a position to negotiate such an agreement with Fiji at the moment. In the budget and in the forward estimates we have got ample resources to fund the partnerships through the development assistance portfolio.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just pursue some of those points that the parliamentary secretary sought to respond to. In particular, one of the critical elements in this budget was the question of people resources. We did know from the announcement in January that some $57 million would be cut from the department. There were immediate announcements of staff cuts—I think some 19 positions across the world, including the one serving the UN. It was surprising, given the subsequent announcement of the pursuit of a Security Council seat, to remove specific resources from that area.

I draw your attention to table 2.11 of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio document. It goes on in some detail to explain over subsequent pages the activities under outcome 1: strengthened engagement with United Nations including by building support for Australia’s election to the UN Security Council in 2013-14; advance coordination on key regional issues through the trilateral strategic dialogue; build support for Australian inclusion in any regional security mechanisms arising from this six-party talks; develop further strong relations with Japan et cetera; and strengthen relations in South Asia, particularly high-level political engagement. They are all strategic key initiatives designed to give a large measure of effect to being a creative middle-power activist. Yet when you go to the budget papers it says that average staffing of outcome 1, this very important area, is currently 2,338 and the estimate for 2008-09 is 2,033, a reduction of 305 staff. The department is deeply concerned about the 19 key staff they had to remove in January. In the budget papers, 305 staff are anticipated to be removed in this key area of activity.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true. If you go to other areas it is counterbalanced; overall the numbers have not changed dramatically because of the Shanghai initiatives. There are a large number of people going to promote world expos, I understand, in Shanghai. That is in terms of overall departmental numbers but what about in terms of the critical areas? And what have we heard since then? In all of these areas that are identified in outcome 1 we have heard of these major initiatives to create the European Union in the Asia-Pacific and to set up a commission for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. All of these initiatives—to pursue the UN Security Council seat—presumably require very significant resources. I am very keen to know the detail of all of these initiatives, what work is going in, what staff levels are required. There is no answer given to that. I am sorry, Parliamentary Secretary, but the answer is totally inadequate in that sense. The government need to advise—the opposition needs to know on behalf of the community—how in fact all of these things can be delivered when you are cutting 305 staff out of outcome 1, and when there is no detail as yet on a whole raft of critical initiatives.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will clarify a number of things that I have been able to confirm. The claim that has been repeated today that 300 staff have been cut from key areas of DFAT is not right. As I am reminded, there is a footnote to the table that the member for Goldstein is referring to which states clearly that the 2008-09 average staffing level figures are based on a different methodology for the allocation of resources across outcomes. So staff numbers have shifted between outcomes because of the changed methodology and measurement, but that is not a reflection of change in jobs; it is just a change in presentation. There is a different table in the budget papers—at the back of Budget Paper No. 1—that talks about staffing level outcomes and that indicates that there will be a net increase in the department staff of 17 in 2008-09. There is also an increase in AusAID, but that is separate. This increase reflects the combination of the previously announced staffing reductions to which the member refers, and I will make a comment about that in a moment, and increases in the staff within the department. It comes to a net plus of 17.

My understanding was and my advice now is that no staff have been withdrawn from the UN mission in New York or other multilateral posts. On the United Nations Security Council candidacy, the government are committed to running a serious campaign for a seat. Much of what we need to do in this initial stage can be done from within existing resources, but in future we will allocate some resources to run a campaign. We regard it as a very genuine attempt. It is a high-priority activity for the government and we are looking for and hoping to receive bipartisan support for it. But in this early stage of the campaign what we need to do can be done from within existing resources.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to pursue this a little further. I do see the footnote and I understand footnotes. I understand tables. As I read it then and as I read it now—and nothing that the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance has said changes my view on this—the 2007-08 staff numbers, as per this table and as per the footnote, reflect the changes that have been made in the tasks that refer to outcome 1. I accept that some tasks could have been taken out and some others put in. But my assumption—and I still do not see why this assumption is not true because nothing the parliamentary secretary has said has helped to clarify this—is that the 2007-08 staff numbers would have been adjusted so that there was consistency with 2008-09. In other words, when you go to the subsequent pages which spell out the activities under outcome 1, I assume that the 2007-08 activities have been adjusted in staff numbers to reflect some consistency. So, in other words, it is a nonsense. Why have the table if 2007-08 bears no resemblance if half the jobs are being taken out and another half put in? There must be an adjustment, otherwise there is no transparency and there is no accountability; it is a mockery. And I cannot believe the department would put forward two lines of numbers that cannot be compared. If I am right, that the activities in the subsequent pages are a constant for 2007-08 and 2008-09 and staff numbers have been adjusted accordingly, then could I again have an explanation for the difference in the 305?

I would like to raise some other questions while I have the opportunity. I know the difficulty you might have, but there are still a lot of people scratching their heads that the Prime Minister could have announced an initiative of such great consequence potentially for the region as the proposal for a European Union style structure for the Asia-Pacific. This would cover half the world’s population. And this is not something off into the never-never; this is to be achieved within 12 years. I cannot believe that this could have been put out into the public arena and no work had been done on it. So, firstly, I would like to know how much work has been done and what it has cost. Secondly, what work is proposed to be done to carry this initiative of enormous consequence potentially for the region? I would like to know if DFAT was consulted before the proposal was unveiled. I would like to know where the office of the envoy will be. What is his program? What staff numbers will support the envoy? What is his time frame and will he seek to move through different stages of this proposal?

On a similar issue, with regard to the commission for nuclear disarmament, what is the nature of Gareth Evans’s role as chair? Is it a paid position? What is the payment of this? Who else will be on the commission? What is the financial commitment that will sit behind this commission? What are the staff numbers and where will they be based? Is there an international presence expected? Will Australia fund a lot of the activities of other participating countries? Will other countries participate? What are the goals of the nuclear commission? Will it start from the view that the United States and others have to give up nuclear weapons? That is a very important proposition. Is that what is being proposed? Did DFAT provide advice on the establishment of the nuclear commission?

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure I can answer all of those in the time available. I will start, but the member might need to come back and remind me of a couple and I will also try to respond to those. There is a complicated answer to the question about the staffing tables. It is important—and everybody but the member for Goldstein and I will die of boredom with this discussion—and he has raised a point which needs to be pursued in some detail. We have a situation where the 2007-08 and the 2008-09 ASL tables cannot be reconciled because the methodologies are so different. Going forward every year, they will be capable of being reconciled because the new methodology will remain, so you will be able to make that assessment. Until 2008-09 there was an estimate based on what is called the activity based costing model, which was developed back in 1999, that attributed ASL to outcomes apportioned in the same manner as budget allocations. This was developed to enable the department to implement what was then a new financial framework and what operates as the outcome-output reporting model in the budget papers.

The model determined at that time that the department’s resources should be allocated to outcomes 1, 2 and 3 according to a 70:20:10 ratio. In subsequent years, PBS reporting annual adjustments to ASL were made to take account of any additional funding or resources received externally or through internal departmental adjustments. The effect has been that over time the picture that is painted is somewhat distorted and ASL, as reported in the PBS, progressively represented a less accurate picture. As a result, the department instituted a new allocation methodology for ASL for the 2008-09 PBS and, as we have discussed, this is noted in the footnote to each of the four outcomes and resourcing tables. The bottom line is that comparisons between 2007-08 ASL and 2008-09 ASL are not valid because the methodologies are so different. The intention is that this will be an accurate attribution and a solid basis for comparison in the years going forward, but this is an initiative that has not just been taken in the last short while. In 2007 there was an internal survey of the output of all Canberra work units which assessed the proportion of ASL allocated to each outcome in each division, and the proportion per division was total to that service as the basis for ASL by outcome. So it is an initiative that goes back to 2007.

We do think it is a more up-to-date estimate. It uses the current data and for Canberra staff is calculated per division rather than over the entire department. Similar things were done with regard to posts; locally engaged staff were surveyed separately. There was an arduous and expensive exercise to set up the 1999-2000 model. It has been consistent, but, after 10 years, it just was not painting an accurate picture. I understand the frustration of the member for Goldstein; I would similarly have found it frustrating in his position in the past. He will understand that I have not actually been inside the department examining this methodology, but I am reliably advised that we cannot make that comparison this year. There is not a way that we can reconcile the two tables; the methodology is too different. I did ask if there was some way I could provide a reconciliation, but it is not possible, so I have to make that point to the member for Goldstein.

The arrangements with regard to the special envoy and with regard to Mr Evans have not been finalised. They will be, and we will make them public at that time. They are matters under discussion between PM&C and DFAT. When they are finalised, we will make them public.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps the appropriate response to that explanation is, ‘Yes, Minister.’ In all seriousness, I think it is totally unacceptable to publish a table which purports to provide a comparison of staff positions for this year and next year which you have now informed the House is meaningless. It is; it is meaningless. You cannot draw any comparison. I cannot believe that this could be presented in a budget document. What confidence do we have in any of the rest of it? The whole thing is useless, meaningless. I am wasting my time here tonight.

I have come along to find out some facts only to find that there are some very serious initiatives that have been put on the table in the last three weeks that are of great consequence to Australia and the region—initiatives that have potentially enormous costs if they are to be done properly and if we are to ensure that we are not turned into a laughing stock as a country because of the inadequacy of the preparation, the diplomacy that has to be carried out and all the rest of it—and we do not even know what has happened with staff numbers across the department. I cannot trust any of this document now if I want know the resources that are devoted to the diplomatic effort over the next three or four years. It is just unacceptable—totally unacceptable. I am wasting my time.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very hard to respond to. I am actually sympathetic to the member’s frustration, but it is a change that was initiated before this government came to office. That is not a criticism of the previous government; I think they were probably right in initiating that change, but the transition is difficult. If I were in his position, I would be frustrated as well. But, on the broader question of the Prime Minister’s diplomatic initiatives and the public and international response to them, of course there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge. These are all initiatives that will take some time to come to fruition—that is, other than the partnerships, which are proceeding quickly. They have a shorter timetable. They will not be concluded quickly, but some of them are underway now and we will be a long way towards concluding the first two by August.

So far, in my experience in representing Australia by meeting people both here and overseas, the initiatives have been well received. They have been seen as positive. It is up to us, of course, to be good enough to process them, whether they are the initiatives with regard to Mr Woolcott’s special envoy proposal, Mr Evans’s role with respect to nuclear disarmament or our Security Council bid. All of those so far have been well received and are proceeding—at this very, very early stage of all of them—well. But there will be judgements to be made over the years as they unfold and as resources are applied. At the very least, I can assure the member that the basis for judgement with regard to methodology, ASL and various things will be capable of being assessed in future years because the transition has been made. Of course, as I said, there are other tables in the budget papers that do compare like with like with regard to agency ASL. They do show the numbers that I indicated before with regard to the department proper and the various agencies of the department.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.

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