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

In 1987 I was elected to Cessnock City Council, a great honour I should say. In Easter of 1988 what was then the latest section of the F3 freeway was open to Freemans Waterhole, which was in my electorate. From that day the residents in the Cessnock local government area were subject to national highway traffic spilling onto their local streets as motorists and heavy-transport drivers sought to make their way from the F3 freeway to the New England Highway, and then further north largely, in the case of heavy transport, going on to Brisbane. I joined with a number of local people to fight for a major highway link between the F3 freeway and the New England Highway, just north of Branxton, as a means of taking that pressure off local Cessnock roads, so alleviating the safety concerns of motorists and residents, alleviating the massive inconvenience that motorists were experiencing locally, addressing safety concerns and of course providing a much-needed bypass of Cessnock and Maitland—and a number of communities in between—which were suddenly suffering the consequences of this national highway traffic. Thankfully, the then Labor government agreed to build this road transport link. In fact, it put forward initially three or four options. I was very proud to be a person who put forward a submission advocating the adoption of the so-called option C, which later became known as the Kurri Corridor. In 1995 I was pleased to investigate the route of option C with the then transport minister, Laurie Brereton, who reaffirmed on that occasion the Labor government’s commitment to this very important transport link.

Alas, in 1996 the Howard government was elected and, sadly, the project came to a halt—a great disappointment for me and all those who live in the Hunter region. Surprisingly, the so-called Belford Bends Deviation, which will now form the northern extremity of the so-called Hunter Expressway, was also cancelled by the Howard government notwithstanding the fact that contracts for the project had actually been let. A big campaign by the local community forced the Howard government into reinstating the funding for the Belford Bends Deviation but we did not have such success with what was then called the Kurri Corridor but is now called the Hunter Expressway.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can appreciate my delight when, after a 10-year delay, the Rudd government announced this year that it would contribute some $1.65 billion towards the Hunter Expressway—great news for the Hunter community. We should have been driving on this road by now and we would have been driving on this road now if the Howard government had maintained the former Keating government’s commitment to the Hunter Expressway.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Truss interjecting

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

I cannot believe the Leader of the National Party has intervened, because he of course was transport minister for most of that period. In fact I recall that one day he went to Singleton to announce the Muswellbrook bypass, such is his knowledge of the local transport needs of the residents of the Hunter region. I am obviously delighted that it took a Labor government to plan the Hunter Expressway, and we had to wait for another Labor government to build the Hunter Expressway.

I have talked about local benefits. I would like to ask the minister if he could expand on the benefits of the Hunter Expressway to the efficient movement of people and freight along the eastern seaboard from Melbourne to Cairns.

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

I have got the reverse story to the member for Hunter’s story. I can proudly stand here and say that about a decade ago I began a furious fight to get the new bypass for Townsville underway, and the first section of that was the building of the Douglas arterial road. There was a furious fight with the state government in trying to get matching funding. Ultimately our community won that. It was a road of national importance, so it attracted fifty-fifty support from the state. We won that fight and we got that road opened and the community really appreciated the difference it made, because it had a BCR of something like 13, and it cut travel time by up to 20 minutes between the two points.

In 2004 I saw the need to extend that road to connect to the Bruce Highway in the northern beaches, and that was going to be the Townsville ring-road. We fought for that money and we got that money and construction commenced on the Townsville ring-road; that has now been completed. That created a bypass for heavy vehicles around the city of Townsville. It also created a very quick link from the northern beaches to the hospital, to the university and to Lavarack Barracks for the Army. That will see very significant development occurring in the northern beaches area of the city. We could see then, with the connection of the ring-road to the Douglas arterial, that the Douglas arterial would not cope and that it had to be extended to four lanes. We proceeded to fight to get the money for the four-laning. That was another $55 million. In the budget before last, the government announced that $55 million would be provided and that we could get on with the four-laning of the Douglas arterial. That has not really proceeded. It was reannounced in this year’s budget and a small amount of that $55 million was provided, probably for design work. But I am puzzled: we have known about this and Queensland Main Roads have known about this for some years and I am really surprised that the design work has not yet been done.

Of course, all of us want these shovel-ready projects, particularly the stimulus projects. We all want them to be stimulating the economy. But, unfortunately, this is a case where we are unable to get on with the job. The minister and I will work together on this one because we both want the same outcome. We want to see this project started. I would like to ask the minister whether he would have a look at the status of this particular project. When does he expect the project to commence? How can we speed it up? How can we get it going? It is very important for Townsville that we get on with the four-laning of the Douglas arterial. I thank the minister.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for some great initiatives in this year’s budget. I want to talk about a number of infrastructure projects in my electorate and then ask the minister a question. In particular, I would like to commend the minister on the budgeting for the rail extension to Seaford. I have talked about this a number of times, because this project is absolutely critical for the residents of Seaford and the southern suburbs of Adelaide.

This project will be a 5.5-kilometre rail extension from Noarlunga with a bridge over the Onkaparinga River to Seaford. This bridge has been a sticking point for many years. This rail corridor has been in the pipeline for about 30 years, believe it or not, and there have been promises, promises and promises about this, from many governments. The sticking point has been the bridge over the Onkaparinga River, because it is a very long bridge. I am very pleased that this government has not only committed to building this bridge, which is 1.2 kilometres long—0.1 kilometres longer than the Sydney Harbour Bridge—but it is also going to commit to build a dual track-way to Seaford. This is really important.

We are talking about stimulus. I have been informed that this project alone will create over 400 jobs in the next four years, which is incredibly important to local people. What is more important to local residents in my electorate is that there is a time frame for this, because previous governments said, ‘We know there’s a need, but we’ll do it later.’ There is a very clear time line here and it is ready to go. Construction will start in 2010 and be completed in 2013. This is really important.

I would also like to thank the minister for coming down to my electorate to meet with the Seaford District Residents Association. Ron and Harold—Harold could not be there; he was very disappointed, Minister, that he could not meet with you—have been advocates for this project for many, many years. They were very pleased to have the chance to spend time with the minister to talk with him about the project, but they were more impressed to see action on this project, which is really important.

The previous member for Kingston wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper the other day, saying that he had asked for the rail and that he should get the credit for this. But unfortunately he asked and nothing was delivered to him. I was very concerned to hear that the Leader of the Opposition has said that all these projects are up for review. I tell you, the residents in my electorate do not want the Seaford rail extension reviewed again; they want action on it. This is an incredibly important part of the budget. This is something that is going to leave a legacy for tomorrow and really create jobs today.

In addition, I was very pleased to see in the budget the improvements to the Victor Harbor Road-Main South Road intersection, something that will be funded under the new nation-building plan. I had a briefing the other day about this project. This project will reduce waiting times at that intersection from eight minutes to 40 seconds. That is a huge improvement in terms of urban congestion and certainly has been welcomed by people. This is good not just for people in my electorate of Kingston but also for the many tourists who use the Victor Harbor Road-Main South Road intersection, who love the Fleurieu Peninsula, who love to go on holiday there, but are frustrated with the waiting times. I am very pleased that the expected completion date of this is 2010. Once again, this is local jobs.

In the brief time I have, I also commend the minister for working with local councils in my area. The extra funding that has been provided for them has been welcomed. It is going to mean solar panels on community centres, footpath improvements that are desperately needed by local residents in my electorate and a whole range of different garden and reserve improvements, including play equipment for the local kids in the community.

My question to the minister is: could you tell us a little bit more about the infrastructure that is happening in South Australia?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government have been very strong in coming out and saying that they are investing record amounts of money on road and rail. This is of course just record spin. In reality, the Labor government will actually spend less on rail and road than the previous coalition government had committed prior to the last election and, what’s more, they are spreading the funding over six years instead of the five that had been committed to by the previous government. The minister is also very strong at criticising the former government about rorts and so I want to turn my initial attention to the choice of projects and how projects were chosen to be funded through this government’s program.

Some of the major items were in fact funded, we are told, as a result of investigations by Infrastructure Australia. However, the government will not make available any of the documentation, case studies or arguments that were put up which led to the choice of these particular projects. In fact, they have not even told us which projects were specifically chosen as the highest priorities by Infrastructure Australia. All we have are two lists: one called ‘Priority projects/actions ready to proceed’ and a second one called ‘Priority infrastructure pipeline projects with real potential’. However, the government have not indicated why particular projects were chosen and have refused to make available any of the working documents. How could anyone call this a fair and transparent process when in fact the government will not open up their documentation to any kind of scrutiny? One of the projects chosen was not on either list. I ask the minister: why was the O-Bahn track extension approved when it was not considered by Infrastructure Australia and was not recommended either as being close to ready or as one that should be given further consideration, especially since the South Australian minister said it was news to him when the announcement was actually made?

I refer also to the biggest single commitment, the $3.2 billion for the Regional Rail Express project in Melbourne—over three-quarters of the entire allocation. It is interesting to note that Sir Rod Eddington completed a study on improving east-west transport connections across Melbourne and he recommended that this project proceed. Lo and behold, Sir Rod Eddington is also the chairman of Infrastructure Australia. So he has actually recommended a project he recommended the first time be given priority over all others. I ask the minister to answer whether Sir Rod Eddington stepped aside from the consideration of this project where he clearly had a keen interest so that there can be absolute public confidence that it was assessed fairly and did not have an unfair advantage because the chairman of Infrastructure Australia had an association with that project.

While we are on the subject of choosing projects, I would like to turn to the new Nation Building Program off-network projects. This was the old regional strategic roads program that the government has worked hard to strike the word ‘regional’ from. In fact, when the Senate looked like messing it up today and re-including the word ‘regional’ in the program, the minister had to run to get the Greens to change their vote so that it could be recommitted. This is supposed to be the minister for regional development but he is trying to wipe the word ‘regional’ out of every government program. So we now have the Nation Building Program off-network projects. I would ask the minister what transparent processes were undertaken to choose the projects to be funded under this network because, of the $655.2 million in the proposed road and rail funding, $532.9 million is being shovelled into Labor held electorates. Most of the other projects—perhaps with the exception of only one—are in electorates that Labor was targeting at the last election. Indeed, most of these projects were announced by Labor candidates during the last election. I ask the minister: when were other projects given an opportunity to be considered for this funding network? Will there be a call for nominations for funding for these projects from people other than Labor Party candidates, or is this in fact just a giant rort to fund Labor Party election commitments? When you have 82 per cent of all the funding for what was a regional roads program now being spent in Labor seats, and most of it in city areas, it is quite clear that this government did not adopt proper transparent processes and that this has been a gigantic rort and abuse of taxpayer money.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say from the very outset that I certainly welcome the $646 million investment in the three major public transport projects that were part of the Rudd government’s $22 billion investment in road, rail and ports around this country. Those three projects that went to South Australia cover the three major corridors into the suburban parts of metropolitan Adelaide. Two of them in fact will have direct benefits for the people of Makin, whom I represent—those are, firstly, the $294 million Gawler rail line re-sleepering and electrification and, secondly, the $61 million towards the O-Bahn bus service that was just talked about by the member for Wide Bay. I will come to that in just a moment.

The Gawler railway line is a project that will assist not only the people in Makin but also those people who are moving into the fastest-growing part of the metropolitan area of Adelaide. Already we have a railway line that is very heavily used. In respect to the people of Makin, it is used because, whilst it does not pass through the electorate of Makin, it passes very close to it. People from Makin in fact use the interchange both at Mawson Lakes and at Salisbury, where they can assess the rail service and within about 15 minutes get into the CBD of Adelaide. In fact that service is being used so much that there is now a need to expand the car park at Mawson Lakes because of all the people who go down and use it before getting on the train. So I know that is one service that is very much appreciated by the people whom I represent.

The second matter is the one dealing with the O-Bahn bus service. The O-Bahn bus service reminds me very much of the Southern Expressway in Adelaide, which goes through to the electorate of Kingston. Some years ago the Southern Expressway was built and initiated by the previous state Liberal government. It is a typical example of a road that was only ever half built. It goes in one direction for half of the time and then you reverse the order and you get the reverse direction for the other half of the day. The O-Bahn was the same. It was a bus carriageway that was built in about 1980 and initiated by the state Liberal government. Regrettably, the job was never finished. It stopped short of the Adelaide CBD by about two kilometres. It is that last two kilometres where you get the real traffic congestion and where people are delayed for 10 minutes at least, and usually longer, in getting to their workplace. So the commitment of $61 million towards the completion of that last two kilometres is going to be of huge benefit to those people. Something like 20,000 people or more a day use the O-Bahn bus service—in fact about 27,000 people a day use the O-Bahn bus service. We are talking about saving 10 minutes on the inward bound trip and 10 minutes on the outward bound trip at the very least. When you are a working mum or dad that extra 20 minutes or perhaps half an hour with your children makes a lot of difference.

In respect to the criticism by the member for Wide Bay, I can say this: this was a project that I raised with my state government colleagues on several occasions, including with the minister’s office. It was not an election promise; it was one of those projects that I had taken up since being elected as the member for Makin on behalf of the people I represent. I certainly have no regrets about doing that whatsoever. It is interesting however that this project also services the people of the electorate of Sturt. I wonder whether the member for Sturt is also opposed to and concerned about the fact that we have committed funds to making this service even better. It will be interesting to hear his comments because I have heard other South Australian federal members criticise this commitment. I really wonder whether the people they represent would be pleased. They would want to know exactly what their position on this issue is.

I can tell members of this chamber that on only Saturday I again discussed this particular project with the state member for Newland, Mr Tom Kenyon. We were talking about the benefits it will bring to those residents of the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide. It is a project that is well and truly overdue. This should have been done almost 30 years ago when the project was first conceived. This project is one that I certainly welcome and one that will be welcomed by the people whom I represent.

The last point I want to make very quickly is this: I notice that $1 million was committed to the widening of Montague Road at Clovercrest. Again, this is a project that is well and truly overdue. This should have been done 20 years ago. It is a project that will hopefully open up a bottleneck that exists at the junction of Montague Road and Kelly Road which during peak hour becomes a nightmare for all those people who use it. To the minister I say: thank you.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The infrastructure spending in the budget should have been the government’s first stimulus package not the third, and for obvious reasons. When there is a financial crisis claimed to be the worst in 80 years, the way in which we spend every dollar is critical. We must get the most out of every dollar spent. We on this side of the House listened for 12 months or more before the last election to those opposite telling us they had a plan for infrastructure. We heard it ad nauseam. We heard that they had a deeply considered plan for infrastructure. Yet it took 18 months in government and seven months of the financial crisis before there was one decision. That decision took 2½ years and we were seven months into the financial crisis before we heard that they had a detailed, considered plan ready to put to the Australian people. They had already spent tens of billions of dollars on handouts before we saw one decision, and that was in this budget. Then, when we finally saw a decision, most of those projects had been under active consideration by the former government.

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

Is that right?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, absolutely; that is right. Some were underway. These are decisions you have just taken.

What we needed in those critical times was to see spending on major infrastructure taking clear priority over reckless debt funded handouts, which preceded so much of the decision making and the spending. Even now there will only be $1.7 billion spent over the next 12 months on major infrastructure. And, in the following year, only $3.5 billion will be spent on major infrastructure. What a joke this is for a party that came to office, spruiked a plan for 12 months and then sat on their hands for another 18 months before they made any announcement whatsoever. Now they will only spend a bit over $5 billion in two years, having racked up a debt of $315 billion. I would like to know from the minister what sort of analysis has been undertaken of the job impact of the $1.7 billion that will be spent this year and the $3.5 billion that will be spent next year in regard to these major infrastructure projects.

The second issue I would like to raise is one previously raised by my honourable colleague. Last year we heard, again ad nauseam, that with these projects the government would, quite properly, place a huge priority on transparency. We heard criticisms of the former government, again ad nauseam, about a lack of transparency. This minister and the government opposite told us endlessly last year about transparency. They set up a process—Infrastructure Australia—which we supported, and I think it was a solid process. This minister told us about transparency ad nauseam. Then we have $8½ billion of taxpayers’ money being spent. We get another $600 million of state taxpayers’ money. We have a black hole of another $60 billion to fund the projects that were announced in the budget. We had all of that money yet we have not seen one iota of detail of the cost-benefit analyses, or any of the assumptions that underlie that analysis, that were undertaken by Infrastructure Australia.

It makes a mockery of what we heard for 12 months. This minister opposite lectured and lectured, ridiculed and lectured—we heard it ad nauseam—and he has not delivered one iota of detail on a cost-benefit analysis. The essence of assessing the work of any major project has to be what you will get back for the dollar. It is a question of how much return you will get. No-one has the ability to see whether politics has been played in all of this process. Why were some projects put ahead of other projects? Why were projects taken off the second list, where a lot of detail is still to be finished? Why was a project taken when it was not even included in Infrastructure Australia? We would like a sensible reason from the minister opposite as to why this government refuses to provide the fundamental details which will help the opposition, and more importantly the sector and the state governments and others, to make a proper assessment of whether this minister has played politics with major government funds.

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

There have been a number of questions raised. Firstly, the member for Hunter gave a historical analysis of the development of the Hunter Expressway—that it took a previous Labor government to have planning for the Hunter Expressway and it has taken another Labor government to get on with the business of building it.

We are very pleased that, as one of the infrastructure priority-list projects, we are providing some $1.45 billion. There is $200 million being provided by the New South Wales government. This is an absolutely critical project. We actually have to get on with the business of this. There are still some properties to be purchased before construction can commence there. In spite of the rhetoric of the previous government, there had not been an appropriate allocation to allow this expressway to be built. It is a common theme that we hear from those opposite: they were always going to get around to it in their 13th year; they were always going to get around to it in their sixth or seventh or eight term. They actually did not do anything about it.

I was asked by the member for Herbert about the Douglas Arterial duplication. I can inform him, through the House, that $55 million has been committed by the Rudd government for this project, which has been matched by the state government of Queensland. That construction will commence this year, in the third quarter. I thank him for his question.

We had the member for Kingston raise the Seaford to Noarlunga line. That was a very important project that we were very pleased to announce in the budget, and I was pleased to travel to her electorate the following week, with the Treasurer, for that announcement. That was the very day that the Leader of the Opposition drew into question the ongoing support for those projects, when he stated that all projects would have to be under review. He made that statement in Adelaide, and it was certainly one of great concern to the people of South Australia and, indeed, the people of the nation who want this nation-building agenda to go ahead.

The member for Wide Bay raised a number of issues. He alleged that the Rudd government’s commitment—some $36 billion in transport infrastructure—was less than what the former government had committed to. The budget papers from the previous government—released on 8 May 2007 by Mark Vaile, the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister at the time, and Jim Lloyd, the then Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads—state very clearly:

… government will invest $22.3 billion in Australia’s land transport system from 2009–10 to 2013–14 …

That is the truth of what they budgeted: $22.3 billion. They run around and they say that there was all this money committed, but it was never in a budget. It was not in their first budget; it was not in their second, third, or fourth; it was not in any of the number of budgets that they committed—not one. They cannot produce a budget paper to show the funding that is there, because the budget papers show the reality, which is some $22 billion—certainly not $31 billion.

The member for Wide Bay also raised the Infrastructure Australia process. This is the most rigorous process that we have ever had for infrastructure development in this nation. It is also a process that is transparent. The methodology for going through each of these projects is on the Infrastructure Australia website. The fact is that, as part of the budget, we produced detailed analysis of each and every project, each and every process. (Extension of time granted) The fact is that this has been transparent. It has been well received by the business community and well received by the general public.

The member for Wide Bay raised the issue of the O-Bahn. The member for Makin quite rightly pointed out how important this project is to him. Let me explain it very clearly to the member for Wide Bay so he finally gets it. There are two projects that were funded in the budget that are not funded out of the Building Australia Fund. The Building Australia Fund is used to fund Infrastructure Australia projects, but the government have a range of other infrastructure initiatives, one of which we have said is the establishment of a major cities unit, a major cities program, with support for sustainability, productivity and liveability in our cities. That is what we said we would do with major cities.

There are two projects. One of them is the O-Bahn. The second is the Northbridge project in Perth, Western Australia—one that those opposite do not mention. Neither of those projects is funded by the Building Australia Fund.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Northbridge project is on the list. It’s here!

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

They are very slow, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz. Those projects are not funded by the Building Australia Fund. Both of those projects are funded because they are good public transport projects in our cities that will improve the productivity, liveability and sustainability of those cities—Perth and Adelaide. The Perth project is a substantial commitment of funds from the Commonwealth government, in partnership with the Liberal Premier of Western Australia. The O-Bahn project is in partnership with the South Australian Premier. These are both good projects. They are not funded by the BAF. It is unbelievable that those opposite cannot read a budget paper to get that information, but that is the fact of the process.

The member for Wide Bay also raised the issue of off-network projects. I note that they pursued the amendment in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate. They did not pursue it there. They say we are funding off-network projects in city areas, but they did it in regional areas. They used off-network projects to fund Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach and roads in the electorate of Bennelong. They used to fund whatever was politically—in an opportunistic way—suitable for their politics. It had nothing to do with regional funding. Their opportunism is simply extraordinary.

The member for Goldstein said that should have been the first element of our stimulus package. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say on Radio National in January this year:

The problem with infrastructure spending is that it is long term. There aren’t that many projects that are literally shovel ready and so while infrastructure spending is a very important and legitimate part of a response to a downturn, you’ve got to make sure the infrastructure is infrastructure you would be spending money on anyway.

What is more, on Fran Kelly’s program, the shadow minister himself said, ‘That’s why I raised earlier the significance of looking at maintenance programs across the country.’ That is what he raised, because it was in the context of shovel-ready projects that were important.

What the government has done with its range of stimulus packages is, first, stimulated consumer demand and, second, brought forward infrastructure projects—14 roads projects, $711 million; the injection of $1.2 billion into the ARTC that was a part of the December stimulus package; the funding for local capital works through the regional and local community infrastructure program—(Time expired)

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions. I will start with local government. Minister, local government was told on 28 November that there was immediate cash available. I quote the Prime Minister:

By immediate, I mean immediate. Immediate means now. It’s ready to go now.

Yet the funding did not flow through until late February. Are you in a position to help with any cash-flow problems that may emerge in some councils because of that delay?

I have a question in relation to the decision to pull forward a quarter of the quarterly financial assistance grants payments for 2009-10, which was an initiative that no-one asked for. In Senate estimates, not one of your officials could point to anyone in local government who asked for this quarterly pull forward of the 2009-10 financial assistance grants payments. Minister, can you point to someone who thought that that was a good idea? Again, will you be in a position to help with any cash-flow problems that councils approach you with? Was this instead really about getting $480 million out of the deficit for 2009-10 and pulling it into this year?

On the topic of treating people thoughtfully, what are you going to do, Minister—and I know that you like a little bit of rough and tumble in politics—about the way in which area consultative committees have been treated, which is an abomination? They deserved some respect and the courtesy of the thanks of a grateful nation for more than a dozen years of work, and all they get is being told through some bureaucratic letter that they are likely to have their funding cease. They are being asked whether they are going to die on their sword and whether they have any cash left that can be clawed back. They deserve better than that.

These were not political appointments. They were local people with insights into their regional economy and into their training infrastructure. If you are not prepared to send a thankyou letter, have the member for Brand send one; have somebody send a thankyou letter. I spoke about this issue in the parliament. I have had emails from right across the continent of Australia saying, ‘Thank goodness somebody in Canberra is saying thank you for that contribution.’ You should lift your game and do the right thing by the area consultative committees, Minister. You know that that is not the way to treat people who have given service to this country. It is downright disrespectful. It is an abomination. They deserved better. If you want to fit them up with some other arrangement, that is a decision of government, but there is no excuse for treating people so appallingly and with the disrespect that you have displayed.

On the topic of building the nation, is that just rhetoric that provides no explanation, Minister? That seems to be what it is. The Frankston Bypass was a project that was not only shovel ready but which had people of your political persuasion out there with shovels begging you, Minister, to make some of the money available. Infrastructure Australia thought it was worth putting some money into; the former Howard government were committed to a substantial amount of funding to make sure that we in the south-east and southern areas of Melbourne were not fitted up again in another betrayal by a Labor state government saying: ‘We’d love to give you a toll free road, but we’ve got no money. If you want it, it’s going have to be tolled.’ We are the only community in greater Melbourne that pays to use the arterial ring road. Minister, what is the explanation for you ignoring the needs of our community and ignoring the advice from Infrastructure Australia and instead having projects like the O-Bahn fall out of the sky and so concuss the transport minister in South Australia that he could not even explain why it was in the budget?

You have belled the cat today. We have learnt that all of this hoopla about Infrastructure Australia is nonsense when it does not suit the Labor government. We have heard from the member for Brand that the Premier, in a little sweetheart deal, was behind the Northbridge project. The member for Makin has made it clear that it was a purely political process that led to us getting the O-Bahn. This is not openness about infrastructure expenditure. Where do you get off, with this pea-and-thimble trip, in saying that depending on where the money comes from the rigour that is needed to judge the projects changes? What kind of funny money talk is that? The same level of scrutiny should be applied to everything. The fact that the same level of scrutiny is not applied to everything should be condemned and it shows what a fraud this is and how you are misusing the good people of Infrastructure Australia in terms of the evaluation of projects.

Talking about Infrastructure Australia, whatever happened to broadband? The broadband project—

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

Deputy Speaker Schultz, I rise on a point of order. I support a robust debate, but I am not going to be accused of fraud. He should withdraw.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. I meant that the process is a fraud, Minister. My apologies if it came out as though I meant that you were a fraud. I know that you are very genuine—except when it comes to the ACCs, but that is a discussion for another day. The process is a fraud, and it has been shown to be a fraud by this pea-and-thimble explanation that, depending on what pot of money it comes from, a whole different set of evaluation criteria is applied. This is taxpayers’ money. They deserve scrutiny and accountability wherever that money comes from and however you want to brand it. Talking about branding things, what about broadband and the $43 billion? I offered your party a way forward to a proper analysis of this project in the Senate.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to urban policy, because it is all over the shop. What about the interconnectedness? Can you explain why there are bits of work going on when it needs to be joined up? (Time expired)

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

I will respond on local government and the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia will respond on regional development. The member for Dunkley asked who supported our decision to bring forward the first instalment of the financial assistance grants to local government. The Australian Local Government Association in a media release said:

Councils will also welcome early payment of the first instalment of $479.7 million of $1.9 billion in Financial Assistance Grants to local government.

I say to the member for Dunkley: ask the mayors in the bushfire affected areas in Victoria, for example, whether they supported this measure. Ask them who supported this initiative. The member for Dunkley also raised the issue of the timing of local government funding. We held the Australian Council of Local Government here in Parliament House at the end of last year. It was not attended by the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the National Party, but we went ahead anyway and it was an extremely successful event. Mayors from all around the country attended and next week more than 400 mayors will gather here once again for the Australian Council of Local Government held in conjunction with ALGA as requested by local government.

We had a process whereby we dealt with the allocation of the $800 million, both the $250 million to each local government area and the $550 million for strategic projects, in a way that ensured that the funding was provided as soon as was possible, contingent on good processes including, after consultation with the Audit Office, ensuring that there was good value for taxpayer money. We had a process for the $250 million whereby each council had to have its application in and it had to meet the criteria. Every council in the country benefited from it, unlike the scam under the Regional Partnerships program, condemned by the National Audit Office, whereby 10 coalition seats—every one of them coalition seats—got most of the money under that program.

Under strategic partnerships we also had an appropriate process that ensured that we had outside bodies look at each application to make an assessment of whether it met the guidelines and to do a risk assessment. Under that you will note that 53 per cent of the funding for the $800 million went to Labor seats, 41 per cent, I think the figure was, went to coalition seats and six or thereabouts went to Independent seats. In fact the Labor Party got less than the proportion of seats that we hold in the parliament.

Can you imagine that happening under the former government? Under the former government the number of Regional Partnerships program funding, the number of community infrastructure funding for local government in my electorate, for example, was zero—not a cent in 12 years. Every single electorate in this country has benefited, and every single local government area has benefited as well. On the speed of projects we have delivered $800 million over 18 months. The previous government allocated about $70 million a year for RP and there were some projects that were announced in 2004, such as the Dalby Wambo events centre, where the contract was signed by this government in July 2008. It sat there for four years, nothing happened under RP, something that was criticised by the National Audit Office in their analysis of RP. The parliamentary secretary can talk about RDA.

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

I rise to raise some issues that have been brought to us by the member for Dunkley, specifically those relating to Regional Development Australia, RDA. In his question he referred to correspondence from our department to former area consultative committee members. I am not aware of the detail of that correspondence, but I appreciate that you will have given an accurate reflection of its content. To the extent that the content of that letter does not reflect the government’s view that people who are part of area consultative committee networks performed to a very high standard, there are people there who worked very hard indeed in the interests of their communities. There are people there who saw the interests of their community and sought to serve. There are people on the area consultative committees who genuinely view the interests of their communities as being both worth while and the sort of thing on which they sought to represent their communities on area consultative committees as best they could. It is unfortunate that in so many ways people feel, as we transform to the new entity, Regional Development Australia, that their efforts have not been recognised and understood. We do understand that.

What I would like to say, too, is that in the process of transitioning to RDA it is our intention—advised by people from regional Australia, advised by state governments, advised by local governments and advised by members of communities—that what they really would like is a one-stop shop, a single entity that they can deal with on regional development issues. It would mean that good, serious members of communities did not have to attend an area consultative committee meeting, their local council or shire meeting and then their additional meeting as part of a state development commission. So what we are doing here is bringing together two serious instruments, including the instrument which states have—in the case of Victoria, Regional Development Victoria, significantly supported by the Victorian government—with the intention of creating a good public policy framework around the delivery of regional development policies but, most importantly, to bring budget strength from the state government to match the insights of communities as part of RDA.

Doing that does mean that difficult choices are to be made. We understand that. We recognise that. We are up for the difficult decisions—we always have been. But we are not up for accepting that the process of making this transformation is at all wrong, unfair or a misuse of government funding. The people in the area consultative committees have in fact over the course of the last two years been insulted by two things.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Billson interjecting

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

Order! The parliamentary secretary will be heard in silence.

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

They have been insulted, first, by the abuse that was present in the way in which decisions were made about Regional Partnerships by the former government—and you know that. The member for Dunkley knows that. He has seen the three-volume report. He knows it runs to over 1,200 pages of critique of the way in which members of the community were taken for granted.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. In the spirit of the minister recognising where offence has been given, this is profoundly offensive to the ACC members—to fit up their lack of acknowledgement with Regional Partnerships. That is just adding insult to injury, and I think a thankyou letter would be good.

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

There is no point of order.

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

That was in fact your government, of which you were a part and you were a minister who fitted these people up, with responsibility for the rorted political decisions which that government chose to make. You know that.

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

The parliamentary secretary and the members across the chamber will get back to the core issue.

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

The core issue is, of course, how communities are dealt with by a government in Canberra seeking insight, seeking the best members of a community to serve on boards and to help the government make insightful decisions. We understand the importance of doing that. We understand the importance of the service made by members of area consultative committees. We understand the value that they brought to the table and we understand, too, the disgraceful way in which that trust was taken by a government hell-bent on shovelling as much pork as it could into 10 seats—the devil take the hindmost. All you wished to do was to win votes, to create a political footprint for yourself and to use the good name of people on ACCs to cover your bad work, your bad public administration and, what is more, your bad intentions of dressing up a pork-barrelling exercise as being allegedly on behalf of the community. Do we thank them? Yes, we do.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to maritime matters, I would like to ask some questions of the minister. I refer to his report Rebuilding Australia’s coastal shipping industry: inquiry into coastal shipping policy and regulation tabled in October 2008—I will not go through where it took hearings et cetera—to Infrastructure Australia’s National infrastructure priorities report, released in May 2009, which discussed the development of a national port strategy; and to the minister’s speech on 5 June 2009, where he indicated the government would rewrite the Navigation Act.

I ask the minister the following questions. With regard to your flagged amendments to the Navigation Act, when will the government announce what particular changes it will be implementing? Specifically, what consultation will be undertaken with industry in the formulation of amendments to the Navigation Act, when will the government’s response to the 14 recommendations made by the coastal shipping inquiry be finalised and when will it be made public? The coastal shipping inquiry has recommended the creation of a national port strategy. When will this be finalised and when will it be made public?

In terms of maritime security, Minister, I refer to the fact that the maritime security identification cards, or MSICs, overseen by the Office of Transport Security are causing a lot of concern in our water protection regime. There are many concerns, including about people with suspect criminal histories being allowed in sensitive maritime security zones. Some of these people have links with organised crime, especially bikie syndicates, and there is a lack of monitoring of personnel in maritime security zones. Questions in estimates revealed that the OTS is reluctant to advise how many MSIC holders have criminal records, but media reports estimate it to be 10 per cent. The OTS has confirmed that 42 people have received an MSIC on appeal. This means that 42 people allowed in maritime security zones have a maritime related offence on their criminal record. Twenty-four others were granted approval with conditions. Currently, the department is undertaking a review of the MSIC.

Minister, the questions are: can you advise what maritime security related offences the 42 MSIC applicants that failed their AusCheck security clearance but were granted an MSIC on appeal by your department committed, why did your department think it fit to give access to sensitive maritime security zones to applicants deemed to be unfit by AusCheck, what is the current status of the review of the maritime security identification cards, and when will it be finalised and made public?

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Dunkley raised regional development and ACCs. I would like to give him a history lesson. When the coalition were elected to government, early in the piece, they sacked some of the then regional economic development organisations by email or by fax. In 1997, John Anderson was the minister responsible for regional development, and he axed the whole department. That is how important regional development was to the National Party and the coalition. So, when you make accusations, get your facts right—absolutely right. I have lived for a long time in a seat that the National Party held for nearly 100 years and did nothing for, delivered nothing to, but instead said one thing here and another thing back in the electorate.

The honourable member for Wide Bay then talked about rorts and frauds. The only rorts and frauds that were committed were political rorts and frauds by the National Party, in a declining party, in the regional seats.

Opposition members interjecting

He raised it. I am telling the truth. You go around there appointing your senators to run around and tell lies all around the electorate. You have no commitment to regional development, none whatsoever. It is all a rort.

I commend the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for the investment in national infrastructure, in nation building, in jobs and in my seat of Page, which did not have anything put into it for ages. I will start with the Alstonville bypass. The local community lobbied for the Alstonville bypass for 17 years. They were promised all sorts of things. Nobody ever delivered. This government and this minister are delivering $90 million. But the Leader of the National Party in New South Wales did not get this right either. On radio the other day he was talking about how it might be at risk under the state budget. Not a cent of it is from the state; it is all federal dollars—$90 million. That just shows how out of touch and ill informed they are. Ninety million dollars put into the Alstonville bypass will make a huge difference to our local community, where about 20,000 cars daily go through Alstonville. They will be able to deviate around Alstonville and make a difference.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! If members want to confer, they should do so outside the chamber. The member for Page has the call.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I turn to the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. This is a historic program. It is working with local government. We are looking at local priorities and responding to regional priorities, which local government and local representatives have their finger on. It is responding to those and it is funding those.

In my seat, I have five local governments: Ballina Shire Council, Clarence Valley Council, Kyogle Council, Lismore City Council and Richmond Valley Council. Under Community Infrastructure Program funding, we have a total of $4 million available for strategic projects. I have three of them, and one of them is in Evans Head. It is an aquatic centre. That is another project that the community worked for decades to get. No-one ever responded to it. They are now getting it. They raised money themselves. They are shovel-ready—ready to go. There is over $6 million.

Another project is Wherrett Park in Maclean. Maclean is actually in Cowper, the seat beside mine, but there is a border near Maclean and most of the people in Page access and use Maclean. There is over $2 million for the local sportsground there.

I will talk about some other projects in the seat of Page. The Grafton regional saleyards upgrade is a small investment, $125,000, but it makes a massive difference to an industry, our beef industry, that brings in lots of dollars to our local regional economy. This was an election commitment delivered in the first budget, the budget of 2008-09. When it was put to the National Party during the election that they should fund it, they said no. Can you imagine the National Party saying no to funding an upgrade to the saleyards for the beef industry? (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond just briefly to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I agree with some comments that the minister made earlier about priority. The Hunter to Moree railway line is one of the key priorities in New South Wales and, as the minister would be aware, 50 per cent of freight going anywhere in Victoria, New South Wales and southern Queensland is actually in that Hunter-Moree corridor.

One of the great things that the budget did deliver—and you mentioned it a moment ago, Minister—was part of the $1.2 billion in the December announcement. Part of that process was a $580 million upgrade of what is called the Murrurundi tunnel, or Ardglen tunnel, between the electorate of New England and the Hunter. That is probably the most significant piece of infrastructure in terms of speeding up freight—and, as I said, 50 per cent of the freight on the eastern seaboard, in a sense, is on that particular route. The question, Minister—and you may not be able to answer it here and now, but could you take it on board—is: when will that upgrade of the Murrurundi tunnel commence? When will that be starting? Could you give the answer to me on notice, Minister, because I think it is very significant, particularly given the rhetoric that the government has been using. There are two other brief issues. In conjunction with the member for Page, I would ask you to look at the Legume to Woodenbong road, a road of regional significance linking southern Queensland with the North Coast.

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

The opposition whip on a point of order?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, the scheduled time for the discussion of this particular portfolio is 5.30 pm. I would ask you to move on to the next portfolio.

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

Unfortunately, the chair has no control over the wishes of the whip in this particular debate.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

84 Health and Ageing PortfolioHealth and Ageing Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $6,429,649,000

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

I thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for her support in relation to a PET scanner for Townsville. Minister, you would also be aware that, on behalf of a particular proponent, I delivered a commercial-in-confidence proposal to your office offering a terrific deal for the Commonwealth in relation to attracting a PET scanner to Townsville. Minister, are you progressing that and is there money in the budget that might fund that particular proposal if it gets up?

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

I thank the member for Herbert for that question. He, his electorate and his community have been one of the big winners from the health budget, with a massive investment in Townsville Hospital and the future development there. When I was in Herbert to make that announcement, I had a look at the hospital and the member for Herbert and I jointly signed the new contract for the GP superclinic, the building of which will commence very soon. I think the member for Herbert was the witness for the signing of that contract, and it was good to have the support. It is going to be a benefit in the community.

The member for Herbert raised with me an additional issue about a PET scanner for Townsville, and I am happy for my department to continue to have discussions and look at that. But we are talking about investments that were made in this budget, and this is not an announcement that was made in this budget. Of course, there will be an opportunity in the future to look at a way that it can be provided. I know that the member for Herbert is pleased about the very significant investments that have been made in his electorate, and we are certainly happy to continue to talk with him. I think he might have slightly verballed me when he thanked me for my support for the PET scanner, because a decision has not been made by the government. But we are happy to work with the member for Herbert, as we are with all members, if there are needs in particular communities. But they will get assessed according to the normal procedures and it is not a commitment from this budget, although there are some very significant budget commitments in the member for Herbert’s electorate.

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

I also have a question for the Minister for Health and Ageing. I thank the minister for her recent visit to Cairns in my electorate of Leichhardt. Health is a significant and important issue up there and it was particularly pleasing to hear the announcement of the successful organisation that will build a $5 million GP superclinic. These infrastructure investments are important all across the country but particularly in an electorate like mine. My electorate has rapidly growing areas, such as the southern suburbs of Cairns, that need new health services to tackle many of the chronic illnesses we experience in this country.

You can build infrastructure but you also have to provide the workforce to work in the new clinics. I would like the minister to outline and expand upon the Rudd government’s $134.4 million rural and remote workforce package. You spoke about that when you came to my electorate. I know there are benefits in terms of attracting and providing incentives for doctors to come to places like Cairns, Cape York and other remote areas of Australia. I understand that the previous government was working on 20-year-old figures. I would appreciate it if you could update me and other members on the real benefits of our workforce package to electorates like mine and electorates all across the country.

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

I thank the member of Leichhardt for his question. He has been one of the most tireless advocates for health needs within his community, which is a very diverse electorate. The member for Leichhardt’s seat is a good case study in where the government is prioritising its effort with the health budget. We are changing a system that the previous government had in place—the RAMA classification system—which used 20-year-old data even though the demographics have changed significantly and which did not pay doctors on any suitable scale. We believe that, the more remote you are, the more incentives and support you should get as a GP. This has fundamentally changed the sorts of incentives that we provide for doctors who go and work up in the cape. It has changed the incentives that are provided for doctors working in Cairns.

There is a whole range of other initiatives, which I know the member for Leichhardt will be pleased about, that show our investments across the whole health system. The $130,000 that is going into Leichhardt for various programs spans Indigenous health and provides more money for the division of GPs, because the formula for what GPs had been paid previously was based on very old data. We have more money going into the Mums and Bubs program run by the Indigenous health service. I think that it will be really useful over the coming years to see how those investments play out in communities like the member for Leichhardt’s seat, because we are doing something the previous government were never prepared to do. They were either too lazy or it was too hard. They did not want to look at paying more for those communities that were truly remote. They were not prepared to update the demographic data. It has been a really hard job. We have consolidated more than 60 programs into five streams. That takes a lot of administrative work, but it means that we are now using a classification system that is consistent across a whole lot of other government programs. It means that doctors can easily find out what incentives are payable to them, and I think it will be of huge benefit not only to the Indigenous community but also to the whole community in Cairns.

This funding comes on top of the money that has gone into the community for the dental school that is being built at James Cook University. There really is a lot of good news. There was a very high number of needs that were not being adequately dealt with by the previous government. This is a sign of what new investments, and reorientation, across the health system can deliver to local communities. I particularly want to thank the member for Leichhardt, who has been a tireless advocate in making sure I was aware of the range of issues facing his community and making sure that we are addressing those various needs.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to put on the record some of my concerns about the aged care industry. I am delighted to see that the Minister for Ageing is in the House this afternoon. There have been a number of reports—a Senate report, an Australian Productivity Commission report and a National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report—and industry leaders talking about the crisis in aged care. In that Senate report, we even heard from government senators describing the crisis in aged care. Yet we had two stimulus packages and a budget brought down with nothing for aged care in either of the stimulus packages and very little in the budget.

Minister, I would like to know is why the government cut the indexation of the conditional adjustment subsidy in this year’s budget. You would know and understand that most of the industry was relying on that 1.75 per cent indexation on the 8.75 per cent they are currently getting as a way to plan for the future and put some money back into the industry. Minister, you would be aware that the Grant Thornton report identified that around 40 per cent of aged care providers in this country are in the red. They are operating in the red and doing it really tough. We all recognise and acknowledge that we have an ageing population and that ageing population needs to be looked after.

In contrast to the aged-care industry, the Commonwealth committed to a new national healthcare agreement with a more generous indexation of around 7.3 per cent per annum for hospitals, and yet aged care got nothing; it missed out on the indexation. We do know that part of the aged-care pension increase was quarantined for those residents living in aged care, but, over a four-year projection, those aged-care providers are still going to be missing out. And I would like to know from the minister tonight how, in this country, aged-care providers are going to deliver the optimum care for senior Australians—around seven to eight per cent of them living in aged care?

In another area of concern, you would have been aware of the recent ABC program about the Aged Care Complaints Investigation Scheme. Clearly, according to the Four Corners report that night, the Complaints Investigation Scheme has not been doing what it has set out to do. If families or residents make complaints to the CIS they should know that those complaints are going to be undertaken, that they are going to be investigated, and that a report will come back to the complainants.

I would like to know, Minister, who makes the decision on which complaints are investigated? Because, certainly, that ABC report that night indicated that someone in an office decides whether or not a complaint is taken forward and is investigated. I think families in this country and, indeed, residents need to be assured that the Complaints Investigation Scheme that is in place does in fact undertake the duty that it is required to. I would like to know, Minister, that the funding for that body is in place, the steps you are going to take to ensure that the investigation teams do undertake investigation of complaints made by senior Australians in this country, and, indeed, their families so that they can be assured of the care that they are getting.

I would also like to ask the minister a question regarding the beds that have been handed back. These beds are worth dollars. We do know, over the past 12 months, there have been beds that have been handed back to the department. I would like some assurance tonight that those beds that are handed back to the department will again be up for subscription in the next ACAR round; that we are not actually losing those beds to the industry. We do know there is a shortage of aged-care beds and, if those beds that are being handed back are not actually coming back into the system, how are we going to make up for those shortfalls around the country?

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

I thank the shadow minister for the array of questions that she asked, and I will certainly address each of those in detail. Let me start off by saying that the Rudd government is absolutely committed to providing aged and community care for our elderly Australians. Certainly we saw record funding when it comes to the sector in the budget—we are looking at $44 billion over the next four years, which is an increase of $2.5 billion over the four-year period.

In 2009-2010, the government will provide a total of $9.9 billion to support the aged-care needs of our older Australians—9.9 per cent more than in 2008-2009. That is, indeed, a huge increase. Also, the budget will deliver an additional $728 million over the next four years, which includes an additional $14.8 million to increase viability supplements that the government pays to eligible residential aged-care providers in regional, rural and remote areas. This is very important—it is part of our ongoing commitment to support our older Australians, especially through our record funding.

The shadow minister asked specifically, in relation to the conditional adjustment payment. The Rudd government is committed to retaining the conditional adjustment payment at the current level of 8.75 per cent on top of the basic residential care subsidy. Additionally, over the next four years, aged-care providers will receive $2.3 billion through this payment. As I said, a total of $14.8 million is being allocated to increase viability supplements, particularly for those in rural and regional areas. This brings total government funding for the viability supplement to $72.3 million over the next four years. As a result of the pension increase, which we see in the budget, our aged-care homes will receive $713 million over the next four years.

I will now speak about the impact of the pension rise on aged care. Firstly, pensioners in aged care will benefit from the increased pension and will have more money for their incidental expenses—a total of $76.76 per week, which is an increase of almost 15 per cent on what they currently receive. As I said, our 2,830 nursing homes will receive an additional $713 million over the next four years to contribute to their running costs. This is extremely important when it comes to not only making sure that we are addressing the needs of the ongoing costs that are incurred by the aged-care providers but also ensuring that some of that pension increase flows on to those pensioners in our aged-care homes.

Aged-care residents who are in care on 19 September 2009 and who are self-funded retirees or part-pensioners who have not benefited significantly from the pension rise will have their existing fee rates grandfathered until they leave care. For those entering care after that date and who do not get the benefit of the pension increase, arrangements are being put in place to give them time to adjust their financial affairs; however, it is fair that eventually everyone on the same income level will pay the same fees. Over four years their fees will gradually increase until they are paying 84 per cent of the pension.

To ensure that aged-care homes receive the same level of income for all new residents entering care from 20 September 2009, a new, compensating government-funded aged-care supplement will be introduced. So the new standard resident contribution and the government supplement will start from 20 September 2009 and, as I said, deliver $713 million over four years in additional payments to aged-care providers, including the supplement, at a total cost to the government of $25.3 million.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is not answering the questions I asked. I ask that she please address the questions I asked.

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

The shadow minister asked a whole variety of questions. I am outlining the major amounts of record spending in this budget and I am more than happy to go into extensive detail. We have covered some of the areas: firstly, there is the conditional adjustment payments; and, secondly, when it comes to the pensions, I certainly want to be able to provide that detail.

The next point that the shadow minister raised was the stimulus package. Aged-care providers can access some measures in the package, in particular some of the climate change initiatives. May I remind the member that these were initiatives that the opposition voted against, so I find it quite remarkable that they have brought them up.

The shadow minister brought up the issue of various surveys within the industry. There are a variety of surveys out there and we could—

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs May interjecting

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

I am more than happy to address each of those concerns. When we look at some surveys—(Time expired)

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, what criteria will be used to determine whether Australia’s public hospitals have been fixed by 30 June?

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

I thank the member for that question. It is interesting that the Minister for Ageing can provide a very detailed answer and that the member opposite, who thinks the minister should not refer to her notes, had to read a question that I think lasted less than 10 seconds. The truth is that the shadow minister knows that we made a very clear commitment at the election that we would do a range of things, and we are absolutely doing that range of things. Firstly, we said that we were going to reverse the previous government’s approach of pulling money out of public hospitals. This budget sees a 50 per cent increase in funding going into our public hospitals. We are starting to see results on that already, and we do not—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dutton interjecting

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

I am coming to your question. You have asked your question and I get the opportunity to answer it.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are 40 seconds into the answer and there is still nothing about the criteria that the government will apply to whether or not public hospitals will be fixed by June 30—not a word.

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

I think it is entirely relevant for me to give the context to the shadow minister. He cannot get a question up about this in question time. He has not asked me a question on health for months and months. We are happy to use this opportunity but it does mean I can explain—

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

The minister is reminded that we are not in question time. We are in the Main Committee and she will answer the question.

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

Exactly. I can explain the context, which I am going to, in the question that has been asked. We are making that extra investment and we have not heard anything from those opposite about a 50 per cent increase in public hospitals. We have said that by 30 June we will have a report from our Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. I am looking forward to having that report, and we expect there are going to be a range of recommendations. We have seen the interim report. We know that there will be a range of issues that we will need to consider. That report will be made public and there will be a debate about processes from here. These are some of the biggest reform options since the introduction of Medicare by a previous Labor government, so in the last decades these are—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just name one!

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

I am not going to have this process be abused through the shadow minister opposite not being prepared to listen to the answers. If he wants us to answer his questions, that is fine; we will. Otherwise we will let all the statements go, I will answer them all at the end and we will not be any further down the track.

The criteria that we made clear at the election and have made clear since are that we want to look at a range of things: have the states and territories signed on to significant reform to deliver better and more services through our public hospitals? I am on the record as saying that the COAG agreement that was reached last year was a significant step to that. On 1 July, all of the new requirements—reporting, new accountabilities and moves to activity based funding—come into place under our new National Healthcare Agreement. The shadow minister opposite does not want to acknowledge that we have been able to achieve more in terms of increased accountability and more transparent reporting than those opposite were ever able to introduce in their 11 years in government.

These are big changes, but I am not pretending—I would not pretend to the shadow minister opposite or to the public—that we have all of the answers right here today. We actually set up the health reform commission to provide us with advice, ideas and recommendations about what we will do into the future. We will look at it as well as at the performance in our public hospitals. We know that the State of our hospitals report, for example, will also be released at about that time; it provides a lot of data, albeit some of it is not as current as would be useful. The new investments that are coming online do not immediately show in some of the data, which has lag time, and I am sure that the shadow minister understands that. We will be making some further statements in the coming weeks on the process that will be followed for us to make that decision, and no amount of yelling and screaming by the shadow minister opposite takes away from the fact that we have invested a record amount in public hospitals—something that they never did—and are delivering benefits by working with our state and territory colleagues.

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

My questions relate to the Minister for Health and Ageing, but first I want to thank the Minister for Ageing for coming to my electorate and visiting the Cabanda aged-care facility, where the government gave $1.5 million. It is one of the biggest private employers in its area just west of Ipswich. Based in Rosewood, it is a community aged-care facility. I just want to congratulate it for achieving the funding. Also, I think that when the Minister for Ageing visited she saw the Milford Grange project. We gave an interest-free loan to RSL Queensland to undertake that near Bremer State High School in Ipswich. I think we met one of the project managers, who was actually living in the next suburb from that particular project.

My question relates to GP training places and also the GP superclinic in Ipswich. Just before the last election, Minister, you came to Ipswich and you and I stood outside the Ipswich General Hospital and announced that there would be a GP superclinic in Ipswich—I think one of 31 rolled out across the country. This is really important in my electorate. In 2005-06 the Ipswich and West Moreton Division of General Practice commissioned—I think with the University of Adelaide—a study concerning medical services in the Ipswich and West Moreton area. At that stage Ipswich’s population was about 150,000 people, and of course it services not just Ipswich but the Lockyer Valley, the Somerset region and the Boonah part of the Scenic Rim. At that stage, the study showed that one in three GPs would retire within 10 years and that there were many GPs over 70 years of age. It also showed that there was one GP for every 1,609 people in the Ipswich and West Moreton area, and that is going to be worse because Ipswich’s population is the fastest-growing in Queensland; it grew by 4.1 per cent last year according to the ABS figures. So the problem is becoming more acute and people are asking me questions about training places for doctors. Also, when can we expect the Ipswich GP superclinic to be rolled out?

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

I thank the member for Blair for that question. He is right that his very fast-growing part of the country is one of the areas where you feel the shortage of doctors most acutely, as well as rural and remote communities. Those suburban corridors where infrastructure and services do not necessarily keep up with growth in population are very important. We made a commitment in the last election to a GP superclinic in the area to help relieve pressure from a very busy emergency department and also to provide more services to the community. The consultation and tender process has been completed. I understand that very shortly an announcement will be made for the preferred tenderer, so I think a contract is only days away from being signed and we look forward to being able to make that announcement with you. I know there was extraordinary interest in this in the community in Ipswich, with a large number of bids. I think that is an indication that there is a very active GP community but one that is ready to expand and which sees this as an opportunity to be able to perhaps provide some better training facilities for new, young graduates. Something that is obviously part of our key strategy behind the GP superclinics is how we use them to attract new graduates to areas of need.

That goes to the other question that was particularly raised. We have removed the cap that was in place, instituted by the previous government, that did not allow more than 600 graduates to train as GPs each year. When we have this incredible shortage across the country we know that we need to change that. We have a new and increased number of graduates coming on line in the coming years, and we need to make sure that it is attractive for them to go into primary care plus into regions where there are shortages. We have made the investments, which means there will be a 35 per cent increase in those GP training places in the coming years. I think that is going to be something that the community will welcome. We know that people become anxious if they cannot access doctors’ services, and one of the key ways for us to ensure that they can is to make sure that we train more of them. I think increasingly being able to train more people in primary care settings is going to be a valuable part of what we do.

I thought also that because the member is from Queensland he might particularly be interested that one of the components of the COAG agreement which is funded in this budget is investment in our emergency departments across the country. One hundred and forty-six million dollars is going to Queensland to invest in emergency departments across the state. This is something which is helping our communities by making sure that we have both the primary care services funded through our GP superclinics and other strategies as well as our hospital services well resourced. I am sure that will be something that the member will watch closely, having been an active advocate in arguing for the superclinics. I look forward to shortly being able to make those announcements in his electorate.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two brief questions. One is to the Minister for Health and Ageing and one is to the Minister for Ageing. I will address the minister for health first. Minister, you may or may not be aware that in November this year there will be visiting scientists and oncologists from Europe, the United States of America and Asia holding a conference in relation to the use of high-dose radiation and radio wave therapy. You are aware of a lady called Jenny Barlow who has been very active in this area and have met previously with one of her staff. Since that meeting, Mrs Barlow has spent much time overseas talking in various countries where research is being done and has been done, some of it government backed, such as the United States and countries in Europe and Asia. My question is: given that these scientists will be in the country at that particular period of time, would you meet with these people to discuss the latest innovations in these particular technologies for the treatment of cancer?

My other question is to the Minister for Ageing. It is very brief and probably only needs a brief answer. Could you elaborate on the government’s current policy in relation to young people with disabilities who are currently housed in nursing homes? I think there are something like 5,000 or 6,000 young people who are inappropriately housed in the sense that they are in aged-care facilities but are not aged, just disabled. Does the government have any plans to expedite some of those arrangements, particularly in relation to the coordinated work between the Commonwealth and the states?

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

I thank the member for New England. He has been a very persistent advocate on behalf of Jenny Barlow, who—I think largely in memory of her husband’s treatment—has been a persistent advocate for this particular type of treatment in Australia. The member is right that my staff have met with her and I think the department also has met with her. In Australia there is not currently any evidence or recommendation that this is an effective treatment for cancer. However, we are open-minded about any new sort of research or evidence. I was not aware that some international experts were coming to deal with this particular issue. I am certainly happy to undertake to the member to get advice about who is coming and make sure that you and your constituent have the opportunity to talk to the right people. It may be that if this is under the auspices in any way of Cancer Australia it would actually be preferable to meet with some of those people, but my office is certainly happy to be kept up to date.

This budget makes some huge investments in cancer treatment—in new regional services that will be able to be provided. It includes $600 million for cancer drugs. It is something that we are very focused on as a government and of course we have to keep abreast of new developments. If research shows us that we can do things differently we need to be able to respond to that. I do need to just sound a word of warning because we have been down this track before with your constituent: currently in Australia there does not appear to be any evidence that this is an effective intervention. But we certainly are open-minded to any new research or international evidence that would change our position on that.

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

I thank the member for raising the very important issue of the large number of young and disabled people in our nursing homes right throughout the country. This has been an issue that this government has acted upon since we came into government 18 months ago. It is an issue of concern particularly for the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and also for the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services. They have certainly been working very hard at finding other means of moving a lot of our young and disabled people out of nursing homes and into other community settings. It is an issue that I know both of them have raised at many federal and state forums that have been held. It is one that we will continue to work on because you are absolutely right. In terms of young and disabled people we are looking at initiatives to have them in community based settings, and in particular not being in our residential care facilities which predominantly cater for frail older Australians. That is something that we have got a very strong commitment to work towards and I commend the parliamentary secretary for disabilities and the minister for families and community services for their very strong commitment in this particular area.

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

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. The issue of ophthalmology surgery is a very real one, particularly in my electorate. I know that it extends from the cities to the outback. In my own electorate the towns of Cunnamulla, Quilpie and Charleville—and I know, in the seat of Flynn, the towns of Longreach, Blackall, Barcaldine and Winton—are towns that I am aware of where ophthalmologists come out from the city and conduct this surgery on a Medicare fee-only basis. Given that most of these people out there are not privately insured if this is cut—as you propose—from $600 to $300 in November this year, I really feel that these doctors will no longer come out into those rural communities. It is a very real issue and I ask you reconsider that decision. I would see this not only as being able to give people sight again but also as a preventative health care measure because if people lose their sight or progressively become more impaired with their vision it does lead to the possibility of falls and a more extensive cost to the overall health budget.

I am sure the member for Solomon would certainly be aware of how in the Northern Territory this is a very big issue. Minister, I really would urge you to reconsider this decision. It is something that is not going to go away and I think this should be seen more in the light of preventative health care as much as it is giving people back their sight. There is almost nothing more valuable than your sight.

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

I thank the member for Maranoa for that question because I know there is a lot of genuine concern, particularly in our rural and regional areas, about the impact of this savings measure. I do think it is worth my taking you through some of the data. We are certainly happy to talk, as we are continuing to, with Dr Bill Glasson and other ophthalmologists who are putting forward different proposals about how we might still be able to make a significant saving, which we think is appropriate when the technology has changed so significantly, but also make sure that we protect regional communities.

I need to highlight that we have only 23 per cent of cataract services performed outside large metropolitan areas, and only 0.4 per cent of these services are performed in remote areas. Most of those services, even in remote communities—probably the member for Solomon would be aware, although it is outside his electorate, of the arrangements at Alice Springs Hospital, for example—are actually for privately funded services to be conducted, although on the site of the public hospital.

People need to remember that this is a procedure which currently is being remunerated with hundreds of dollars. You used the figures of $600 and $300. The figures that we use are the cost when the measure would be introduced, which is $830, being reduced to $409—but proportionally, obviously, the point is the same. For the vast majority of these services, another $1,700 is paid by private health insurance funds for the hospital costs on top of the MBS rebate. What we are trying to ensure is that, when we are being constantly asked, as we should be, by the community to invest in new technology, new medicines, new breakthroughs—and that costs money—we are able to reap some return when medical technologies give us the ability to do some of these procedures in a cheaper or quicker way.

No-one likes it if they are providing services that they can get a certain amount of money for and that amount is cut. I understand why the ophthalmologists do not like that; it is their income. But, ultimately, as the health minister, I have to make decisions on the best use of taxpayers’ money, and that needs to be targeted towards to delivering the best health services to people. I am not going to be in a position where the government and the taxpayer keep being asked to put new drugs, new technologies and new procedures into the healthcare budget and are never able to reap any benefit for savings that should be able to be recouped by the taxpayer.

Let me also tell you that we do understand, as I say, the rural and regional impact of this. It is why we have provided more than $800,000 for additional ophthalmology services through the medical specialist outreach program. You would be aware, I am sure, in your electorate of Maranoa that there are ophthalmologists who visit your electorate as a result of that. We have just made a commitment to add another $58.3 million to improve access to eye and ear health for Indigenous Australians, so in some of the communities, where there is fear that they might be affected by this, they will actually get extra services through a more direct funding process.

One of the challenges for us is that the Medicare schedule is a blunt instrument for differentiating between those ophthalmologists who might make quite a lot of money in their metropolitan practices and then cross-subsidise, effectively, by going to regional areas where they simply bulk-bill, as the member for Maranoa suggested in his question, and the vast majority of ophthalmologists who are not doing that. The taxpayer is still paying the extra amount for a procedure which is no longer as time consuming, although, in many cases, it can still be complex.

What I can undertake to do, and I have said this publicly, is continue discussions with the ophthalmologists and with members as to whether there is a different way to ensure that those services being provided in rural and remote communities are maintained and properly supported. I am also happy to work with the ophthalmologists who have suggested that looking at a complex item for those procedures that are more difficult than the standard cataract procedure might also be a better way to balance things. I am not ashamed of trying to protect the taxpayers’ interest because it will allow us to invest in new technologies and new medicines as they become available, and that is something we need to be able to get our medical community to understand we have to keep doing over time.

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

Health in this country, for all Australians, no matter where they live, should be a given, whether it is preventative or curative health. Obviously, in my seat of Solomon we live in a more remote part of Australia. I thought in the budget for 2009-10 we were the big winners. We did quite well in my electorate. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Health and Ageing and her continuing support of my electorate. My question is: can the minister provide some details on how my electorate of Solomon will benefit from the Health and Hospital Fund investment and how my community will benefit from changes the government has made to rural and remote workforce packages?

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

I thank the member for Solomon for that question because he is right that those in his community, particularly Darwin, have been very significant winners through this health budget. In particular, one of the significant-sized communities that benefits from using modern classification and demographic data for the rural programs is Darwin—that was previously excluded from the last government’s classification structure. So now, for the first time, there is recognition that recruiting doctors to the capital of the Northern Territory, Darwin, is different from recruiting people to Melbourne or Sydney. That is obvious to anybody sitting here, but unfortunately that was not recognised in the system before. So there is a great new incentive—in particular, maybe, for young doctors, who might see it as an exciting challenge—to go off and work in the Northern Territory, where there is a shortage of doctors. Not only will there be even more generous incentives paid to those in the remoter communities of the Northern Territory, there will, for the first time, be significant incentives paid to those who are relocating to Darwin as well.

The Health and Hospitals Fund made some very significant investments for the Northern Territory, and particularly in the seat of Solomon. One of the most exciting commitments is $27.8 million to build a Northern Territory medical school. This is the first time there has ever been a commitment to a medical school in the Northern Territory—and it will be the first. Of course, when we talk about the difficulty of getting doctors to communities, we know that one of the best ways is to actually provide training on site, in a community—to get people to settle their lives there, meet their partners, know that they can live there and enjoy the life and provide services to this fast-growing community of Darwin. That is going to be a very exciting opportunity. Instead of medical students—young people from the Northern Territory who want to be doctors—having to go off and complete their degrees in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney or Perth, they will be able to do a whole degree in the Northern Territory, and that will deliver very significant benefits long into the future.

On top of that, $18.6 million from the Health and Hospitals Fund is going to build an accommodation complex of 50 units in the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital for patients and carers. Again, I do not think it is hard for people to understand how important this will be in the member for Solomon’s electorate, where so many people need to travel to Darwin—to travel quite long distances, often quite a significant distance away from their families and communities—to have services that can only be provided at the hospital. And building 50 extra units where families can stay to be near their loved ones who need hospital treatment is going to have a very significant impact on the difficulty or ease with which people can access hospital services. We know this is a big issue for our Indigenous communities. But in a vast territory like the Northern Territory I think it is going to be particularly significant.

On top of that again—and although it is outside the member for Solomon’s electorate, it is in the Northern Territory—$13.6 million will go to building a new emergency department on the grounds of the Alice Springs Hospital and relocating the medical imaging department. Again, Alice Springs is really the hub for all of Central Australia’s services. It is a very good hospital. It has very high demands. For the Commonwealth to be able to put some of its infrastructure money into enhancing services there is, I think, going to be very much welcomed by Northern Territorians, and I thank the member for Solomon for raising these issues with me. It has made us very aware of the particular issues in his communities, and we have been able to deliver, through the budget, for him.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question again is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I ask again: please, Minister, could you state one criterion by which you will assess whether or not the government has successfully fixed public hospitals by June 2009? Could you, in your answer, please include even just one benchmark and the figure of that benchmark by which you will assess the success or otherwise of your election commitment to fix hospitals by mid-2009?

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

I have already answered the question and I do not intend to go through it again. But I do think it is disappointing that we have a multibillion dollar budget before the chamber at the moment and the shadow minister cannot ask a single question about that budget—not one question. I presume that that is because he is going to support everything that we are doing—that he supports our investments and our strategic saving. Of course he is not going to argue against the sorts of investments that we have made in the electorates of the member for Solomon—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dutton interjecting

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

or the member for Page or the member for Leichhardt. But, for all the bellowing that comes from the member opposite, this is a debate about the budget, and he does not have any questions on it.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two questions: one specific and one more general but, before I go to them, I commend the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Minister for Ageing for delivering a health budget that heralded some of the reforms that were needed in the health system. Those national reforms have a significant impact on rural and regional seats. I thank both ministers for visiting my electorate at various times over the last year, in particular for the formal consultation on the GP super clinic. While that is an independent process, I understand that it is pretty well down the track. I also thank the Minister for Ageing for visiting some of the aged care facilities in my seat of Page. I welcome the continued and additional funding so that those people can get additional respite. They are both very welcome initiatives.

There is a whole lot in the budget I would like to talk about, but I will start by saying it was wonderful to see the $560 million for 10 regional cancer centres. The minister is nodding her head. She knows we have an integrated cancer centre at the Lismore Base Hospital, which will now receive money from an election commitment that I and the minister gave. All up, that commitment totalled $15 million, so the medical and the general communities are getting ready to put in a bid for an enhancement to that, looking at a PET/CT scanner and accommodation services. We are awaiting the criteria. The digital imaging for mammography is a great initiative. Also, I know I speak on behalf of the member for New England when I welcome the $295,000 for Urbanville so that the GPs can have the upgrade. We share that facility and that area.

Minister, many women in my community are celebrating the changes made by the Rudd government in the area of maternity services—something quite dear to my heart and I know is dear to yours. On many occasions, I have heard you say that nurses are the backbone of our health system. These changes our government brings reinforce the vital role both practice nurses and midwives can play in the health system. Can you please outline how the government will recognise the valuable role and skills that these professions bring to the health system and to the broader community?

My other more general question is to the minister: what is the extent of the budget measures vis-a-vis ageing?

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

I thank the member for Page for her questions. The Minister for Ageing might want to address the more general question in terms of ageing. I thank her for her support for the infrastructure investments that are being made in the community. When you look at the whole health budget, we know that some of these relatively small grants can have a huge impact in smaller communities. I think that the reworking of the rural infrastructure grants—a change from the previous budget, but being delivered and enhanced now through this budget—has been a success story that we have seen results from quite quickly. I am pleased to hear that that is welcome and I am always interested in how our election commitments are being implemented and rolled out. I think Lismore will have a great integrated cancer service. The commitment in this budget to provide funding for 10 regional cancer services allows flexibility for existing services to apply to be enhanced and to be best practice regional services or for brand new services to be provided and set up, particularly in areas where there is a lot of unmet need.

I, personally, am determined to address those quite depressing results of rural and regional Australians having far worse outcomes in cancer survival rates than our urban counterparts, and this is just part of us trying to turn around that trend. Some confidential consultations are going on at the moment with some specialists and stakeholders about the criteria in order to make sure that the process for the health and hospitals fund is clear. We need to make sure that areas of need are properly identified but that we can also back good services that are already up and running and want to be enhanced and developed further. I know, for example, that the member for Riverina has already put her hand up to say that Wagga would be a great place to enhance their services. Similarly, I hear what the member for Page is saying, but it will be a process whereby we ask the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission to assess the merits of each of the claims.

I thank her for the question about maternity services and nurse practitioners because this is a very big change announced in the health budget; a very significant change about the way we can best utilise our workforce into the future. It is important to recognise that very highly skilled midwives and nurse practitioners, who have masters degrees and, often, years and years of experience, have been prohibited from the full scope of their practice because of some of the funding arrangements provided by previous governments. We think this is an important step into providing women, in particular, with the choices that they deserve around birthing. We also know that we have a very strong birthing system in Australia and, by and large, a very safe system, and we need to make these changes carefully.

The period of time between now and November next year, when these items will go onto the Medicare schedule, allows us to ensure that we get all the provider numbers right—because nurse practitioners and midwives, for the first time, will have Medicare provider numbers. It also ensures that we get the collaborative arrangements right so that midwives and nurses will have clear protocols for working with GPs or GP/obstetricians or obstetricians, and will have referral processes when situations are outside their scope of practice.

This is a way for us to provide safe care and more choice for women in our community, and I think it is long overdue. I am very pleased to hear that it is being well-received in your electorate, and I look forward to working with those in the community to see this change brought about. I also look forward to continuing to work with the states and territories on a national maternity services plan, where we will be asking the states to make sure that options—for example, more extensive birthing centres rather than the traditional hospital settings—are expanded in a range of hospitals across the country. This is the start of a change which could be quite significant, but will take time—maybe decades. If we do not start now, though, we will not see that change—which will be a significant benefit to women, not just in Page but around the country.

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

This government is very proud—as is the member for Page—with our record funding when it comes to aged care. $44 billion over the next four years shows our very strong commitment to making sure that we are providing services for our older Australians. Indeed, if we look at that $44 billion over the next four years we can see some of the increases. There is $713 million over four years, in terms of pension reform. There is also the increase in the viability supplement of $14.8 million, which will particularly assist those aged-care providers in regional, rural and remote areas. We are also committed to retaining the conditional adjustment payment at its current level of 8.75 per cent. This measure will see the aged-care providers receiving $2.3 billion. What we saw in this budget is this government’s continuous commitment to provide funding to the aged-care sector.

It also builds on the government’s many other commitments to aged care, particularly issues such as one of our election commitments: $300 million and zero-interest real loans to expand or build homes in areas of high need. We saw the first stage of that rolled out, which $150 million in zero-interest loans. It great to see around the country the number of homes that are underway. In fact, in the electorate of Longman the other day, I opened up the first home to be the beneficiary of the zero-interest loans, which was absolutely fantastic.

It also builds upon the government’s major election commitment, which was a commitment to transition-care places of $293 million over four years. Transition care is so vitally important in making sure that we can move people out of hospital settings and into more appropriate settings whilst they are recovering from their hospital stay. It has been great to see the number of people that have accessed this particular program around the country, and the success that that has had. I know from talking first hand to many people who have been through the transition-care program how it has really impacted on and affected their lives. It is great to see that there are thousands of people right across the nation that have used this program, which is also part of our ongoing commitment to making sure that older Australians are able to access all the care and services they need.

I would like to touch on a couple of other budget measures briefly because they are very important. In particular, the change to our continence aids payment scheme, which is really important to those people that receive and are part of this scheme. It gives them greater flexibility and access when it comes to accessing their continence aids.

I would like to briefly touch on a couple of other budget measures because they are very important. The change to our continence aids payment scheme is really important to those people that are part of this scheme. It gives them greater flexibility when it comes to accessing their continence aids. This is really important. I had many people approach me with the concerns that they had over the previous system. We are giving people a lot more flexibility and choice when it comes to accessing all of the aids that they need.

We also saw in the budget our ongoing commitment to palliative care, with $14.4 million over four years. What we have seen right throughout this budget—particularly when it comes to aged care—is this government’s ongoing commitment to providing services for our frail and our vulnerable older Australians right across the nation. We have 2,830 nursing homes with nearly 200,000 older Australians in them. I take this opportunity to commend the staff in those nursing homes right across the nation and the outstanding work that they do.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will waiting lists be an indicator of whether public hospitals have been fixed by June 2009? If not, what criteria will be used to assess whether or not the government has met their election promise to fix hospitals by 30 June 2009—a date only 14 days away?

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

I thank the shadow minister for his now somewhat tediously repetitious question.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And three times you have refused to answer it.

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

Yes, and three times you have asked a question which is not about the budget. We are in consideration in detail. I cannot help it that, through tactics, you cannot make this a question to ask during question time. This is an opportunity to ask questions about the budget. The relevant issue relating to elective surgery, which was in fact in last year’s budget, is the $600 million investment. This is the first time a Commonwealth government ever put money into elective surgery, which delivered more than 40,000 extra procedures. The shadow minister is embarrassed by this because he never did anything. As the Assistant Treasurer, he never lifted a finger to put more money into health, and now he is here with a multibillion dollar health budget and he cannot ask a question about it.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,966,185,000

I indicate to those present that the committee will first consider the foreign affairs area and then the trade area of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition bequeathed a strong economic legacy to the incoming Rudd government in November 2007. It also bequeathed a strong, stable, balanced and mature foreign policy. In the consideration in detail stage of the appropriations for the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio, I want to focus on what appears to be one of the most significant policy decisions of the Rudd government and that has been to pursue a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council for its 2013-2014 term, which will be a two-year stint.

To date, the Prime Minister has not made any case whatsoever for the bid or how it would be in Australia’s national interest for Australia to win a seat. Nor has he provided any justification for the significant taxpayer expenditure that will inevitably be incurred, and has already been incurred, in order to pursue this ego-driven ambition of the Prime Minister, no doubt as part of his job application for the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The Prime Minister, when asked about this, pointed out that by 2013-14 it will be more than 30 years since Australia last held a seat, and he said, ‘It was a long time between drinks’—obviously in his best Barry McKenzie impersonation! He then argued that Australia could be more fully engaged with the United Nations, but he did not make clear how that would specifically assist Australia. At a press conference on 30 March the Prime Minister gave what is apparently his only attempt to justify this pursuit of a seat on the Security Council in these terms:

Australia is a strong supporter of the United Nations and while there are people who criticise the UN … I believe it’s important to see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty.

I do not know what that means in Ruddspeak, but it certainly does not give any justification or confidence to the Australian taxpayer. Then he said:

My view is pretty simple—you’ve got to be in it to win it, and have a go. We’re about to have a go. I think 30 years is a fair enough old wait between drinks and I think it’s time we actually got cracking.

That is the sum total of the Prime Minister’s justification for the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds on a temporary seat on the Security Council for 2013-14. Turning to this year’s budget papers, the government said, in language little more understandable:

Membership of the Security Council would enhance Australia’s ability to shape international responses to security issues.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary about the particular international responses to security issues that Australia is going to be able to shape by winning a seat on the Security Council. More specifically: what is the cost of the government’s pursuit of a seat on the Security Council? I do not just mean the direct cost of $11.2 million set out in the budget papers, but all of the costs, direct and indirect, that will be incurred between the budget and the year of the vote prior to 2013-14.

While I have the parliamentary secretary at the table, I will also turn to one concerning area where it seems that money in development aid is being diverted. We on this side of the House believe that the government’s pursuit of the United Nations Security Council seat is having a major impact on the priorities of this government. In other words, it is seeking to change long-held foreign policy positions in order to win this seat on the Security Council—indeed, compromise long-held foreign policy positions. So my question is also in relation to the $1.6 million in development aid to Thailand that has been diverted to ‘other priority areas’. I ask the parliamentary secretary: what are those ‘other priority areas’ to which the $1.6 million in aid to Thailand has been diverted? That is under part 2, expense measures. My first round of questions to the parliamentary secretary relates to the government’s justification; the cost—direct and indirect—in relation to the Security Council bid; and, specifically, the redirection of $1.6 million from Thailand. (Time expired)

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing very surprising about the government’s ambition to get on the Security Council. Fundamentally the reasons are the same as the ones that the Howard government had when they sought to get elected to the Security Council—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We inherited that.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and that the previous government, the Hawke-Keating government, sought; going back to speculation in the time of Fraser, as I recall; and, of course, back before then, when we did previously serve. It is a continuing interest of every developed country in the world, including Australia. I have never done a checklist to say, ‘Every developed country in the world has sought at one time or another to be on the Security Council in the normal cycle of events,’ but as far as I know that is the case—I cannot think of one that has not sought to be elected, and certainly there is plenty of competition for the position. So it is a stunningly timid proposition that somehow Australia alone amongst developed countries is not one that should seek to be elected—that we should shrink away from being part of the international effort about global peace and security and cower away in fear in case somebody asks us a hard question. No previous Australian government has ever had that view. I do not criticise the Howard government for not persisting with their view. They had their reasons at the time. I am not sure whether I would have done it or not at the time because I do not know all the facts that they would have had access to that we in opposition did not have access to. But they did not say that the Security Council was an inappropriate place for Australia to be or that there was no role for us or for our voice to be heard in the world.

The Australian government is committed to reinvigorating Australia’s engagement with the multilateral system. We are committed to making a substantial contribution to global peace and security—a modest one. We are not the biggest country in the world, but we are not the smallest. We are about the 12th largest economy in the world. We are on the G20. We ought to be capable of discharging the reasonable obligations that all developed countries have and of making a useful contribution. But, more particularly, we ought be able, like other countries seek to do—and which is one of the primary purposes of diplomacy—to shape global responses to our interests; to influence international approaches in ways that serve Australia’s interests. That is why we have diplomats. That is why we have a foreign policy. It is about contributing to global peace and security and about trying to shape solutions in ways that serve our national interest and also that bring the interests of our region onto the international stage. Very few countries within WEOG—the Western European and Others Group, of which Australia is a member—have the capacity to bring Asia-Pacific issues to the Security Council. It is a legitimate and ongoing role. That is why we do it. It is not a unique reason and it is entirely consistent with the articulated priorities of the government in its foreign policy.

On the cost question, the government has, up to now, committed $13.1 million to the campaign. We intend it to be targeted and cost effective. The budget does not make any provision for the final two years. The funding for the final two years will be considered in the 2011-12 budget context. But we do not expect this to be a massive expenditure. We have committed $13.1 million from 2008-09 and we will outline what the final two years will cost in the 2011-12 budget context.

On the other matter, I will just get some information for you. We do not actually have a bilateral program with Thailand, so I am not quite sure what the $1.6 million is. I am just checking. I am aware there is something in the budget paper. I will get back to the shadow minister in just a moment on that.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

International agricultural research—redirecting funds.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I am aware there is something there. I am just getting some information for you on that.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions for the parliamentary secretary. I would like to table a document in relation to Zimbabwe, in particular in relation to Australian government policy relating to Zimbabwe. I have a report written by Andrew Macpherson, who the parliamentary secretary has met before. He has done extensive aid, agriculture and food production work in various parts of the world, but particularly in Africa. I will seek leave in a moment to table the report that he has made to me.

He has recently been in Zimbabwe. He has been a resident of Harare for something like 18 to 20 years. He is currently living in Armidale, frequently travelling back to parts of Africa. He still has a home in Zimbabwe with his wife, who has been involved in a lot of international education programs as well with African students coming to Australia. The issue that he raised, which I would like the minister and the parliamentary secretary to take on board, is the foreign policy initiatives in relation to Zimbabwe’s government of national unity. He met with some of the ministers of the current government and also with the Australian ambassador. There seems to be a view—and it is a view that I hold in a sense—to do with Australia, because of Mugabe and the games that have been played over the years and the way in which the Mugabe government has really thumbed its nose at the international community much to the detriment of the people who actually live in Zimbabwe. There is a feeling coming through particularly from the Morgan Tsvangirai supporters that, with the formation of the government of national unity and because of the deteriorating economic circumstances and the virtual nonexistence of money in the country at the moment, rather than penalise the people of Zimbabwe to in effect penalise the president we should look at initiatives to help the government of national unity. It would not be putting money in the pockets of President Mugabe and his followers but would be embarking on processes, maybe through the United Nations or other organisations, whereby money could be used to assist in some areas particularly where reformers have a role to play in the new government. There is a feeling coming through in this document that I have here that would suggest that if we leave Zimbabwe out in the cold that will in fact play into the hands of the Mugabe thugs into the future. So I will table this document for the minister and the parliamentary secretary to look at. I think it is a good account of someone who has lived in that country, knows the agricultural scene in that country and the way in which people relate and knows of the efforts that are going on in terms of the government of national unity to improve that country. I now seek leave to table the document.

Leave granted.

I thank the House. The other issue that I raise briefly is Australia’s foreign policy role in assisting agricultural production particularly in Africa. I know that, for example, Sudan, in these times when we are talking about food security, has the potential, because of its very extensive and magnificent dryland soils—and they are dry but Australia has dry soils as well—to produce six times the food that Australia produces. With the climate change debate, in particular the carbon footprint debate that is going to be going on, I think Australia will have to play a much greater role in assisting countries like Sudan—and I know there are political issues as to a place like Sudan—to come to grips with food production in their own countries rather than our having the transportation of food all over the world under some sort of artificial market in which many of the players cannot afford to pay for the food anyway—and with a carbon tax on top of that we do not know what that will all actually mean. So I would invite the parliamentary secretary to address those two issues. (Time expired)

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I will respond as best I can, as I do not have all the information for the shadow minister, that the $1.6 billion is funding as to the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. As far as I can tell at the moment—and if there is any further information on this I will get it and send it to the shadow minister—this was an internal reprioritisation by ACIAR. There has certainly been no decision by me that required them to do it and I am not aware of any government directive or policy priority from us to ACIAR saying this is to be a reprioritisation. As far as I can tell, it was an internal reprioritisation by ACIAR. But if there is anything further I will check and I will let the shadow minister know.

With regard to the member for New England, there were two very important points. I do not have enough time to respond in, probably, all the length they warrant. I agree with him on both points. The Australian government has cautiously started to move on this. The international community is generally looking at this question of how to move from the exclusively humanitarian assistance that we provided in the Mugabe period so that we could be confident no money was, or was in any way seen to be, supporting that regime to being more open with the new government, even though there is some risk because, as Tsvangirai himself has said, the new government is not actually working in every way that we would wish and the risk of ZANU-PF’s role continues. We are looking to find ways in which we can move beyond humanitarian assistance to support efforts by the inclusive government to restore basic services, particularly in an area that is one in which the Tsvangirai party ministers, the MDC ministers, are responsible, which is water and sanitation. We have started to move in that direction. It is a finely balanced argument to move forward sufficiently strongly to give encouragement and to show to the people of Zimbabwe that things are better and that there are benefits that flow—and some of that is evident on the ground in Zimbabwe, as I am advised—without running the risk that the money is supporting things that no Australian would want to see their taxpayer dollars go to. So you are right: the balance is shifting towards moving beyond the pure humanitarian, towards service delivery. We will proceed very carefully and cautiously, but we are moving in that direction. You are right. If you are reflecting your friend’s contribution, he is correct.

With regard to agricultural production, there is a very big initiative in the budget about that. It is one of the major initiatives globally. Australia and most other donors have reduced their support for agriculture too far, and we are starting to reverse that progress. It is a very complex question, and there is a lot of detail in the budget papers, and if the member wants any more I will get it for him. To summarise it, if you look at the wonderful, generous Australian warm-hearted response when starving kids appear on television, what we are doing about agricultural production is trying to stop the kids starving in the first place. It is a program to say, ‘Let’s get the food grown and delivered in the region, in the countries concerned, so that people can be more successful.’ Australia has a particular role to play, firstly in research and, going back to the shadow minister’s question, in ACIAR. ACIAR has this specialist role not just in Africa, but around the world. It is of dual benefit, to developing countries’ farmers and to Australian farmers. That research is a doubly beneficial event. It also helps people because of the compatibility of our soils and climates. We have a unique capacity amongst donors to make a contribution, and we certainly intend to do so.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note what the parliamentary secretary had to say in relation to the attitude of past governments in relation to a United Nations Security Council seat. There may well be valid reasons for it. The point is that this government has not provided any rationale, any justification, for it. Excuse the cynicism, but no other government has otherwise gone against longstanding support for Israel in the way that this government did last year. The Rudd government voted in favour of two anti-Israel motions in the United Nations in 2008. It was very slow to withdraw its support for the Durban II conference, despite repeated calls from the coalition for it to announce an early withdrawal and for it to show moral leadership on this issue. The fact that it left its decision to the day before the conference started so that no message could be sent to other nations—and indeed it did not even bother to tell the Australian Human Rights Commissioner that the government had decided to withdraw—leaves one very cynical about this government’s motives.

I also draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the United Nations Security Council candidacy figures. I asked about the direct and indirect costs. He will note that, in the budget papers, the government is providing $11.2 million over two years for the bid. Is further funding required beyond 2010-11? What funding will be required for 2011-12 and 2012-13? If further funding is required, why is it not included in the forward estimates?

With regard to indirect costs, I also ask that the parliamentary secretary include the costs of the embassy at the Vatican, as the ambassador has said that one of his specific tasks is to lobby for a seat on the Security Council. Can that be taken into indirect costs, as well as the specific costs of the Governor-General’s trip to Africa, where she confirmed that it was part of her brief to specifically lobby African countries? Could we have those details as well?

The really big ticket items come under the umbrella of overseas development assistance. There will of course always be many good reasons for directing aid to developing countries, but it would appear on the face of it that the Rudd government has been very cynical about the timing of its assistance. For example, under the banner of economic infrastructure, aid is $11.9 million in 2009-10, $22.3 million in 2010-11 and then there is a massive increase to $166.2 million in 2011-12 and up to $253.2 million in 2012-13. This huge increase occurs in the years of the United Nations Security Council vote and clearly the increase is timed to coincide with the Prime Minister’s bid for the Security Council seat. Quite frankly, if the countries need aid now, why is it not being provided now? Why is it being provided in four years time? Can the parliamentary secretary provide any other rational explanation for this back-end loading of this funding to coincide with the Security Council vote?

Also, under the banner of food security through regional development, aid increases astronomically in the years of the United Nations Security Council vote, going from $38 million in 2009-10 to $53 million in 2010-11 to $143.3 million in 2011-12 and $228.8 million in 2012-13. There is a global financial crisis, as we are reminded on a daily basis by the Prime Minister. If overseas aid is required, surely it is required now. Why is the government back-ending this funding to these countries in 2011-12 in particular? I ask that the parliamentary secretary direct his answers to this back-end loading of development assistance and food security through regional development.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is probably verging on the most ridiculous set of contributions about international policy I have ever heard from a shadow minister.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you seen the media on it recently?

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me deal with the relevant parts of it. I will ignore the ridiculous implications and the silly furphy about the Prime Minister wanting to be Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everybody knows that.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that you always copy other people’s material, but this is not a good thing to be copying.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I always do that, parliamentary secretary? It is a question of the public record.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the extent that I contributed to that, I apologise. The first point is that international representatives of Australia see as part of their obligations pursuing the Australian government’s diplomatic objectives. That is a stunning revelation, that the Australian Ambassador to the Vatican regards as one of his tasks pursuing an Australian government diplomatic objective. What a surprise that must be to everybody! There would be people looking aghast and amazed. That is part of the responsibility of every international representative of every country and it is similarly the responsibility of our excellent ambassador to the Vatican. When the Governor-General travels, she delivers messages that are consistent with the policy of the Australian government. That has been the case ever since we have had governors-general. It is their appropriate role and will continue to be. Nothing will change, whomever is in government. That is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

There is a more complicated, and I would have thought quite obvious, explanation for what is happening with regard to ODA. Our overseas development budget overall is determined by two factors: one is the proportion of gross national income that we are committed to, which is increasing year by year; the other is our gross national income—that is, the budget is the multiplication of those two numbers. What percentage of GNI are we contributing and how big is the GNI? Because of the global financial crisis, the gross national income is not expected to increase very much for the next two years and so the aid budget will not increase very much. It is only because our percentage commitment is going up that it will increase at all.

The budget assumptions drive an increase in GNI in the out years and that multiplied by the increased aid percentage creates a substantial increase in the aid budget in the third and fourth years of the forward estimates. It would suit the government and me better if the increases were more steady. That is what we envisaged when we were elected and what we envisaged in last year’s budget, but the global economic crisis has meant that our gross national income has not increased as much as we anticipated. Therefore, the dollar value of our aid budget will not increase as much as we anticipated, so we will not be able to introduce the programs as quickly as we intended but, as the GNI percentage and GNI income goes up, our capacity to fund increases will be enhanced and that will be reflected in every part of the aid budget. You will see that same four-year profile everywhere. It is driven by arithmetic.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take it that the parliamentary secretary will be providing the details of the direct and indirect costs of the Security Council bid?

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did say previously—and I am not meaning this to be critical, but I think you were distracted by one of your colleagues—that the funding for the final two years will be considered in the 2011-12 budget. I do not accept the thesis about this indirect cost. The ODA is not being driven by that; it is being driven by the arithmetic I described, so I do not accept that thesis. We will certainly have to be, will be, and are happy to be transparent about the direct costs. The next two years are reflected in this budget and the others will be in the 2011-12 budget.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just picking up on that, both the Australian Ambassador to the Vatican and the Governor-General have confirmed that part of their brief from the Rudd government was to lobby for the Prime Minister’s campaign to win votes on the Security Council. It was part of the reason for the ambassador taking up the position and for the Governor-General’s recent trip to Africa, where she visited a number of states—and we know there are about 53 votes in Africa. I would appreciate details of the costs and I am sure the government can attribute, particularly in the case of the Governor-General, how much of the trip was spent lobbying other countries. We have read in the media today that Rwanda has promised its support for the Security Council bid in exchange for the government providing support for Rwanda’s bid to enter the Commonwealth and that the Rwandan delegation was paid for by PM&C. There is a whole raft of indirect costs. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could provide that information.

I also wanted to ask about the Prime Minister’s attempt to form a European Union style of community in the Asia-Pacific. There have been reports that about $500,000 has been spent on this further ego trip on the part of the Prime Minister. Would the parliamentary secretary provide me with how much money has been spent to date in relation to that—which would include Mr Richard Woolcott’s expenditure and whatever payment he has received. I specifically ask the parliamentary secretary: how many nations have given their unequivocal support to this venture? We do know that in the world of diplomacy people talk in the most polite language so as not to insult or offend but a number of officials have described this initiative as dead in the water. There has been considerable publicity about the very lukewarm, bordering on neutral, approach of virtually every country that has been contacted. So I would appreciate the government’s view on the number of nations and the names of those nations that have unequivocally supported this venture of the Prime Minister’s.

In the time available I would also ask the parliamentary secretary about an item on enhancing regional counterterrorism effectiveness. There is no increase in the funding and I was wondering whether this program was meeting its objectives. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could make some comment about the item of enhancing regional counterterrorism effectiveness, where there has been no increase at all in the funding.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did refer previously to the question about the Ambassador to the Vatican and the Governor-General. I made my views clear about that. I think the shadow minister was distracted and she might check the Hansard about that, but I do not accept her indirect cost thesis, at all. With regard to the Prime Minister’s proposition concerning the Asia-Pacific community, there are no extra funds in this budget. Anything that is done will be met out of the existing resources of the department. There is not a specific allocation in this budget for that. I have not had a chance personally to discuss this with the special envoy, Mr Woolcott, but as I understand it the general view is that the proposal is proceeding about as well as we could expect and we remain positive about the prospects for that proposition. That is the situation as I understand it to date.

I do not immediately have anything on that last matter that the shadow minister raised but I will check for her and get something to the shadow minister because it is a legitimate point. I do not have anything immediately before me; I will get that for her.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a couple of other items. There is an item in the budget papers on enhancing Australia’s regional engagement. The government is providing $106 million over four years, including $13.8 million in capital funding for fit-outs. I understand that, but it is to enhance Australia’s diplomatic engagement with India, Pakistan, Africa and Latin America. Is the parliamentary secretary able to give details of how that funding will be allocated amongst the nations and continents so described in that item in the budget papers?

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a matter the details of which will be outlined during the course of the year. It is not a matter that has been finally decided as to its subparts. During the course of the year, as the decisions are made they will be announced. So I cannot do that now; it has not been decided. The money has been set aside in the budget. We have a general level of understanding and commitment about it but the details as to which country, and which particular purpose in which place, are matters that will be decided during the course of the year.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Surely, Parliamentary Secretary, there must be some idea within the department, when asking for $106 million over four years, of how the money would be spent, on what matters, in which countries or in which continents. When you are talking about Africa and Latin America there are about 50 countries in Africa and perhaps some 20 or 30 in Latin America, so I would be interested to know if there has been any attempt to identify the break-up between India and Pakistan and between Africa and Latin America. What is the balance? Surely that was in the minds of the government when they allocated this funding or in the minds of the department when they sought $106 million over four years.

There was just one question I had that might fall under trade, but it was within the budget papers. My question is in relation to the Australian Trade Commission and the reduction in promotional activities. The government is reducing expenditure on promotional activities that raise community awareness of Australia’s Getting into Export program. Would the parliamentary secretary to provide an explanation as to why that funding has been reduced?

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with the last one first, as I am sincerely hoping that the Minister for Trade is going to come along and deal with the trade issues. Otherwise you are going to get very rusty old information from a long time ago, because I do not deal with that area, and I am expecting the Minister for Trade.

Of course, in my answer I did not mean to say that the $106 million was plucked out of thin air or based on no planning; it is simply that the final decision about the allocation has not been made. We have looked at the parameters of what is needed against the resources available and there is an envelope and a series of particular decisions that have been made about applications of it. There is of course some work underway but nothing that is at a level of finality that I, or the minister, am in a position to announce at this stage. But the money has been set aside to strengthen our engagement with some of those key countries. I look forward with some anticipation to the detail being made available. And I am looking forward with even more anticipation to the Minister for Trade arriving to deal with his particular issues!

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Saffin interjecting

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much as you are very welcome, Member for Page, I was hoping that you looked more like the trade minister—but thank you!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to turn to the issue of Kabul and the new chancellery construction project feasibility and planning. The government is providing $3 million in 2009-10 to undertake a feasibility and planning study. Is the parliamentary secretary able to advise of the likely time frame of this feasibility study. What will be the basis for proceeding? What are the criteria for confirming that a new chancellery will proceed? And could you perhaps give us an indication as to the likely cost of such a construction, taking into account the particular circumstances, but also precedents where we have constructed new chancelleries from the outset.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The situation with Kabul is that we have commissioned a report—this is a difficult place to work—and the plan is that the report will guide a decision for next year’s budget about exactly what we proceed with and the character and cost et cetera. That is the time frame but I cannot absolutely guarantee that it will be done in time for that because of the difficulties of working in Kabul. But that is the plan.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And my other questions about anticipated costs based on precedents from other chancelleries?

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be a very specialised situation because of the security situation. Beyond that I cannot help yet, but I expect that to be in next year’s budget papers, unless something goes awry in the next 12 months.

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

It being almost 7.15 pm, the Main Committee will now consider the trade segment of the portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration.

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

I have some questions for the Minister for Trade. It is interesting that I have been joined here by the member for Page, because the first job that I had in life was as a cleaner in a meatworks at Dinmore. I still have my AMIEU union membership ticket. I understand that the member for Page also worked in the beef industry at the same meatworks. I am not quite sure if it was at the same time. My question relates to the beef industry and exports, because that is a very big issue in my electorate. In my electorate we have a number of meatworks, including the biggest kangaroo meatworks at Wulkuraka. But there is beef production as well. There is a meatworks in the Lockyer Valley that produces meat for domestic consumption and also one at Church Hill in Ipswich that does the same. At Dinmore, they kill about 18,500 beasts a week for export overseas, and thousands of workers work at that plant. There have been some issues there over the last year in relation to 457 visas.

The workforce down there is very important. It is part of the 121,000 workers who work in the beef industry in Australia. The continued production and distribution of beef exports is very important for my electorate of Blair. Thousands of families in my electorate rely upon contracts overseas, on our free trade agreements and on the multilateral agreements that we engage in with respect to South-East Asia. We export beef all across the world: to Muslim countries, to Europe, to Asia and to the Americas. It is always very important, Minister, that we ensure the free flow of trade. It is particularly important at this time of global financial crisis. Particularly with the global recession, the workers in my electorate of Blair very much want to know about the viability of the beef export industry.

In particular, Minister, I would like you to outline if you could the efforts of the Cairns Group with respect to securing outcomes that enhance the export of beef and the opportunities for beef producers, such as the farmers in my electorate. Geographically, 95 per cent of my electorate is rural. They are very interested in this. Beef production is very important. The farms are mainly in south-east Queensland, but beef comes from all over Australia to Dinmore, where the workers slaughter the beasts and from there export them. Can you outline for me and for the benefit of my constituents the efforts that you are making and the efforts that the Cairns Group is making to secure outcomes so that we have a ready supply of export markets available? That is very important at this time for the employment prospects of my constituents but also for the economic future of our country.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. Clearly, a key part of the WTO negotiations is to improve market access across all sectors but in particular agriculture. One of the key factors on the table that has been negotiated to date is a significant reduction in the trade distorting subsidies that both the US and the EU engage in. In fact, there are significant reductions committed to if we can conclude the round. That is not to say that what that does is to give totally open opportunities in the European markets, for example. But we are keen to ensure that the flexibilities that remain for those countries in these negotiations do not result in further restrictions. To put it the other way, we are looking for flexibilities within the final settlement to increase quota access, for example.

You would be aware that the negotiations stalled last July, even though 80 per cent of the Doha Round is effectively concluded. The difficulty last year was in bridging the gap with the 20 per cent, and, quite frankly, the last six months have seen a stalling in progress at that level because of the US elections, the transition to the new government, the new US trade representative settling in, and the elections in India. The big breakthrough that we made last week—and the shadow minister, who I see is with us today, was also up at the Cairns Group meeting in Bali—was to not only get a resolution by the Cairns Group to re-engage at a senior-officials level and drive it at the political level to conclude the Doha Round, but also to get engagement with and support for that proposition by both the US trade representative Ron Kirk and the new minister for commerce from India, Anand Sharma. That has given important new impetus to the round but, clearly, it is not going to be enough unless we can continue to drive it.

So there are meetings scheduled in the next couple of months that, at a political level, will enable continuing engagement to assess the opportunities. And I am talking here in the general sense—I know the question was specifically about beef, but I think the message that I am conveying here is that the Doha Round is going to be a good outcome for trade and for market access generally. We have got the OECD meeting next week in Paris. Officials are meeting in Geneva this week. We hope to be able to report progress and to engage. There will be a similar opportunity to try and advance this at the APEC trade ministers meeting in the middle of July. So I am encouraged, but it is going to need some persistence.

In terms of the beef market, one of the important bilaterals that we commenced recently was with Korea—we had the Korean Trade Minister out here—which is a crucial market, from a beef industry perspective, because of the agreement that has been reached now for products from the US to go back into Korea. We have indicated that what we want, from an offensive point of view, is to secure improved market access and, obviously, we will pursue that in the context of the Korean free trade agreement. Korea is a very good example because, even though the US market has opened up, Australian market share is holding up really well. And that reflects the quality of the product.

I shall conclude on this point. There are two crucial aspects to us improving our trading position: (1) is opening up the markets, but (2) is having quality product and an efficiently produced product that can compete in those markets. (Time expired.)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask some questions about the progress on a number of trade agreements, but there is a matter that has arisen in the last couple of days that I think deserves the first priority. That is the decision by the New South Wales government in its budget to give preference to Australian made goods, for purchases at the state level. An article by Rowan Callick in today’s Australian states:

… the NSW government’s plan to prefer Australian-made goods amounted to a suicide attack on the nation’s biggest source of imports, China.

The article also refers to the potential impact of this decision by New South Wales on our trade agreements with the United States, New Zealand and Thailand—and, I would add, with Chile, Singapore, and ASEAN. This is clearly a trade restriction and is one that is going to have potential impacts on countries that would like to supply services to the New South Wales government.

I note that a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Canberra is quoted as saying:

“We are opposed to trade protectionism. History shows it hurts not only the targeted countries, but also those seeking to protect themselves.”

That is a welcome statement of principle from China that I hope will be translated into their own economy. Alan Oxley, a respected former trade negotiator, asked:

“Why is Australia’s least competitive, lowest-growth state doing this?

“Even before the downturn, NSW was our weakest performing economy. It is the state that can least afford to implement even worse policies.

So, clearly, there are a number of concerns about the decision by the New South Wales government, and I ask the minister: what is the government’s position in relation to the New South Wales government’s announcement? Will the federal government follow a similar path in relation to purchases? What plans does the government have to deal with New South Wales on this issue—or, for that matter, any other state that introduces these kinds of preference clauses? And do you have plans to defend any actions that might be taken in the World Trade Organisation or, for that matter, by our partners to these various trade agreements? I think those are some key questions.

While I am on my feet, and rather than use up all the time, can I refer the minister also to a question which was asked during the previous estimates but which the parliamentary secretary naturally was not able to answer because it was within your portfolio. The shadow minister for foreign affairs asked about the decision to reduce promotional activities by the Australian Trade Commission. You will be aware that there is a budget reduction of $1.2 million. She asked why that had been reduced and which programs were likely to be cut.

While I am on those sorts of issues, can I also refer to the Export Market Development Grants scheme and note that in this year’s budget the government has provided an additional $50 million for claims in 2008-09. I understand that the government is of the view that that will be sufficient to pay all the claims in full. The government had previously provided an extra $50 million for claims lodged in 2009-10 and, at additional estimates, the department advised that this was the amount the government estimated was needed to cover the changes which the government had made to the scheme for the grant year 2008-09. I guess this means that there will therefore be another $50 million shortfall for the payments made in 2009-10, assuming that there is the same level of activity in the grants scheme as has occurred in the past. So I ask: does the government propose to provide another backdated payment in the next budget to give the assurance to exporters that they will have their claims paid in full, and what will be the situation in the out years?

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, in relation to the decision about government procurement in New South Wales: we are very concerned about it but are checking the full details and its implications. I have read newspaper reports; I have not seen the details. If, in fact, though, it is going to be an initiative that gives a price differential to Australian product of 20 per cent, we are opposed to that because that amounts to a tariff. We do not believe that government procurement mandated or price impacted is the correct way to go, and we will strongly resist it. Not only does it run the risk of being contrary to our trade obligations; it is clearly contrary to commitments that we, amongst G20 leaders, made at the G20 summit to resist the spread of protectionism in the context of the current global financial crisis.

We should resist the spread of protectionism in any event because if any lesson was learnt from the Great Depression it was that tit-for-tat reaction and the downward spiral of protectionism costs jobs; it does not create them. I would have also thought that the 20 per cent price differential was an odd decision for the New South Wales government to be taking in the context of having to balance its budget, because clearly it is imposing an additional cost in there.

The other reason this is a flawed and misguided approach is that part of what we are trying to negotiate in our trade agreements is access to other countries’ government procurement opportunities. Too often people ignore the importance of trade being an ability to penetrate other markets and not just the export of product. We will wait and see what the full details are. I have written to the New South Wales Premier on the basis of the story yesterday expressing our very strong concerns, saying that the government is opposed to the measures as they were reported and seeking clarification that what is proposed is consistent with not only our trade obligations but also the spirit of our commitment to the G20 exercise.

The question on the EMDG, with the greatest of respect, is one of the most hypocritical I have ever heard. What we have done in this budget is fund the shortfall that we inherited for this year, because this year is a reimbursement of costs incurred based on promises the previous government had made but never funded. When we came to office—and this goes to the second part of your question about the shortfall next year that was already covered in our last budget because we allocated $50 million for next year to reimburse the costs incurred this year based on the changes we made—we funded our proposals. We should not have to fund your failure. The fact still remains that in the context of this global financial crisis, where we understand the fundamental importance of securing market share because our exports have been holding up really well, we were not going to leave our exporters in the lurch. We secured in this budget an additional $50 million to cover your shortfall. So not only is this a hypocritical question but I think it highlights the fact that you as government paid lip service to the importance of exports but were never prepared to fund them. We will not let our exporters down; we will fund them.

As for ongoing commitments, that is a matter for next year’s budget, but we will be operating in the context of the Mortimer review and the recommendations that come from that. I have already indicated to the industry that services export markets around the country that they are also going to have to come to grips with the thrust of the recommendations contained in the Mortimer review. We are going to put it on a solid footing going forward. We are going to do what you failed so miserably to do. (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for you, Minister, relating to the budget bolstering of Australia’s diplomatic efforts in support of our trade and investment priorities. But, before you answer it, I would like to make some comments on the record about the protectionism issue and what you have commented on. When I looked at the figures—I got them from the then Northern Rivers Regional and Development Board, which has now merged with Regional Development Australia—I saw that about 19 per cent of jobs across my seat of Page were reliant somewhat on exports. Often people are quite surprised when they actually look at the figures and go through them region by region. That was just a basic rule-of-thumb measurement we did, but it showed that.

Last weekend, I visited Brookfarm, which is just a little bit outside my electorate. They are major exporters who, like a lot of people, started off small—one was a dentist, one was from the film industry. A lot of members here travel on Qantas; well, if you get muesli on those flights it comes from Brookfarm. Their product is really successful: macadamia muesli.

There are lots of businesses and producers and small farmers like that right across Page, and they want the government to continue to make sure that we have access to export markets, because that is important. If we go down the protectionist path, we will close up access to the markets that we need. It is a two-way street. It is vital that the global financial crisis does not result in an increase in protectionism. We know that trade is part of the solution, not the problem. That was clearly demonstrated at the G20 leaders meeting.

A DFAT report released at the beginning of June showed clearly that the benefits of trade were worth up to $3,900 a year to an average family, and one in five jobs was dependent on trade. So it is really important to have that access to export markets and not have protectionism. The report highlighted the danger of protectionism to Australian families and workers, and to producers.

At their London meeting the G20 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to free trade and expanded their pledge to combat protectionism. But I am sorry to say that I did see that our friends in the US have reintroduced a dairy subsidy. That is really disappointing. I have spoken about it before in this place. It is something that is unfriendly and it takes them down the path of protectionism. There are some other signs of it but generally there is a commitment to combat it.

There are a few other things. There are moves towards protectionism locally. I know all of us say ‘shop locally’, ‘support our local producers’; we all do that. We have local producers markets. It is what we do to help. While some grow exclusively for the local market, a lot of those local producers grow not only for the local market but for the export market as well. There is a grower of orchids in Woodburn who exports them. You would not expect it—just small amounts of them, but he exports them. I have such producers right across the seat of Page.

I was at Primex in Casino the other day. It is a huge national event based on the beef industry. The Northern Co-operative Meat Company is also in Casino, which I know, Minister Crean, you have visited and I have visited many times with you. They employ over a thousand people and export to other markets. It is crucial that our efforts in support of our trade and investment priorities also attach themselves to this fight not to go down the protectionist path. So, Minister, my question is, simply: can you explain how the budget bolsters Australia’s diplomatic efforts in support of our trade and investment priorities, please?

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget made some important additional appropriations to not only boost our representational roles overseas but also strengthen our efforts in promoting trade opportunities overseas. That is one aspect of it. The second aspect of course is the EMDG, which I have just gone through—a commitment of $50 million to support reimbursement of costs associated with exporting opportunities. The third is the fact that we also funded in the budget an area of activity that I believe is going to be important in terms of export opportunities for the future, and that is clean energy and efficiency. The fourth area is the importance within the automotive industry package of our ability to integrate more effectively in terms of clean cars and clean technology and to position ourselves much better in the global supply chain.

Another area of activity that has increasingly been absorbed into Austrade’s activities is Invest Australia, the question of drawing investment to this country and in many senses understanding the importance of investment as the new form of trade—the two-way dimension of it.

So there is much in the budget that is being done to promote our export efforts. I am reminded by the honourable member’s reference to the importance of trade for jobs that the report that was put out by the Centre for International Economics shows that one in five jobs is trade related. It is important to understand that, of those roughly 2½ million jobs, 1.4 million are in export related activity and 1.1 million are in import related activity, in logistics, transport, retail. This is important to understand. When people talk of trade, we do not just mean exports. Our ability to take a cheaper component, convert it, value-add it and re-export the product is a significant factor in where Australia’s future lies, and all of those clean energy technologies are good cases in point in terms of that opportunity.

We understand the importance of trade not just to Australia’s economic future; we understand the importance of it in terms of job opportunities for Australians. That is why we have been prepared to make considerable commitment, in the last budget and in the previous budget, to lifting not just our export performance but our trade performance.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the Minister for Trade for an update on some of the negotiations on free trade agreements and ascertain just where we are up to with a number of these agreements. Can I first refer to the Gulf Cooperation Council FTA. The minister would be aware that this is of particular importance to us from an Australian perspective, not just because of new trade we might be able to open up but also for defensive reasons, because, if the GCC were to negotiate an FTA with other car-manufacturing countries before Australia, it could have a significant impact on the Australian car industry. Can you give us some advice about the progress of those negotiations? I understand the last round of meetings was held from 24 to 26 February. Are you aware of progress in the GCC’s negotiations with other countries which might give us reason for concern about our car exports to that part of the world?

Turning to Vietnam, I note that in the past the minister was quite vigorous in his criticism—when he was in a different role—about the previous government’s recognition of China’s market economy status. I ask the minister: what is the justification for recognising Vietnam’s market economy status? Were there any studies, reviews or detailed examinations which led you to the conclusion that this was indeed a genuine and open economy worthy of being granted such status? Will there be any antidumping cases lodged in relation to imports from Vietnam that could be affected by this change of status?

Finally, in relation to China, our No. 1 priority trading partner, on 22 September 2008 you said, in a ministerial statement to parliament:

We have unfrozen the China FTA negotiations.

On 20 February 2009 you said:

China needs to come back to the table on a free trade agreement with Australia …

On 14 May, just two weeks ago, you said that the China FTA was:

… stalled at the technical level.

                        …                   …                   …

We’re not going to go in and negotiate with ourselves. We’ve been doing that for all the rounds up until now.

What is the status of the current negotiations? Has a further round of discussions been scheduled? The Prime Minister said last November that he and President Hu Jintao had:

… agreed to adopt a fresh approach to speeding up the conclusion of this agreement even more.

Has the Prime Minister contacted President Hu again? Or was his statement that he was confident that we can get real progress in the period ahead just a bit of government spin?

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Gulf Cooperation Council is an issue for us not just in automotive terms but because, in my view, there is a huge opportunity for a strengthened economic relationship with the Gulf. We sent officials last week for another round of negotiations but were disappointed that they were not prepared to put a goods offer on the table. I have had telephone conversations with ministerial counterparts within the region, in particular with Saudi Arabia, to try and advance the political will in these negotiations. As for the European negotiations, they have not been able to conclude. We have made it quite clear that if any concessions are made on autos then we would expect the same consideration to be given to us. But, quite frankly, what we are looking for is a much wider relationship than just autos.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Truss interjecting

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have made no more progress either as far as I am aware in terms of autos. But, in any event, the commitment that we are seeking is that if they extend any entitlement in terms of preferential treatment then we would expect that to flow to us, and I have been very clear on that.

Let us talk about Vietnam and market economy status. Yes, we did recognise market economy status and we were prepared to do it because Vietnam was prepared to pay for it. They paid for it by signing up to AANZFTA—the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement—whereby they have had to make important concessions for market liberalisation. You have heard me talk about AANZFTA before. It is collectively our second-largest market behind the EEC. It is something in the order of $80 billion in two-way trade before this free trade agreement was struck. It has 600 million people and those countries, Vietnam and Indonesia included, are still growing. So these are opportunities for us to grab that market share, hence the need to invest in the Export Market Development Grants Scheme to help our companies get market share.

You asked me the question as to how we rationalise that compared to our criticism of you on China and the granting of market economy status. It is simple: because you got nothing in return. You negotiated a dud agreement. That is why, after having conceded the point about market economy status, the talks stalled. They got what they wanted and made no commitment to do anything else. Now you come and ask us if we are making progress. You have conceded the most significant point to them without getting a damn thing in return. There is a fundamental difference between our approaches; and not just to negotiations generally but to understanding the importance of getting a give and take concept—the fundamental concept of bargaining—which seemed to escape your previous government.

As for China, the talks have stalled at the technical level but they have not stalled at the political level. What we still have to break through with at the political level is the coordination mechanism within China itself. I believe the political will to conclude this agreement does exist. It is a political will that has been exchanged at the leadership level with our Prime Minister and their president and prime minister, as well as at the level of my engagement with the trade minister. I went to Beijing about six weeks ago and made it quite clear that we were not going to settle, in agriculture, for anything less than New Zealand and that they needed to understand that. Secondly, given the whole issue surrounding investment in this country, they needed to understand that investment was a two-way street and that we should also be developing a framework for facilitating investment flows between our two countries.

The only point I make in terms of the next trade negotiating round is that I am not going to send officials to negotiate the next round unless we get a stronger political signal. If we were to get the political signal, we would be there tomorrow to undertake the 14th round. This is the clear message that we have conveyed, and I am in regular contact with my counterpart in China. I am confident that we can conclude an agreement, but it is only going to happen if the political will is not only given but subsequently acted on.

Proposed expenditure—$4,966,185,000—agreed to.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $565,856,000

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and acknowledge the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I want to speak about the cuts to AQIS, in particular, and about the fact that the government proposes to take out the 60 per cent agreement negotiated with the industry back in 2001 and the effect that will have. It will have a very real effect on some industries that has to be acknowledged. For some industries, such as traders in the meat industry in particular, the effect will be much greater than it will be for others. I can mention one trader in Sydney with a turnover of some $50 million whose AQIS charges, counting the loss of the 40 per cent plus the increase in charges, look as if they will go from something like $60,000-odd to $600,000. I think you would agree that that is an enormous increase. This increase will affect everybody who has to export and use AQIS services, whether it be in horticulture, fisheries or any other commodity.

Can the minister explain, in respect of the reported $40 million deal he has put to exporters over the last week or so, whether the return for their support for this new deal—for the abolition of the 40 per cent rebate—is going to be new money? If so, where is that money coming from? If not, will he need to pass a new appropriation bill to provide that money? Has the minister threatened commodity groups that, unless he gets their agreement by the end of this week, he will take the deal off the table? Why is the minister unwilling, given that he has agreed to look at producing efficiencies within AQIS, to make the AQIS charges cheaper for exporters? Why is he unwilling to commence the efficiencies first and reduce the rebate as the efficiencies take place?

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

I want to thank the shadow minister for his presence here tonight and for the issues that he has raised. For parts of what he has raised, it will come as no surprise that I am not in a position to announce what has not yet been announced. Notwithstanding that, there are some issues in the public arena that he has referred to and I think it is important that I deal with those directly. The shadow minister referred to the government’s or my decision to end the 40 per cent export subsidy. The 40 per cent export subsidy was never established as a permanent system—never. When it was announced by the previous government it was always as an expiring program, and the expiry date ultimately for that program was the end of June this year. The decision that the government took was not whether or not to end the 40 per cent export subsidy; the decision was whether or not to keep to the program dates that had been put in place by the previous government. We made the decision, following the receipt of the Beale report, that we would keep those dates. Since that point there have been discussions with industry.

A great frustration that has existed all the way through on this is that, for $40 million a year each year over the past eight years or thereabouts, when you ask what reforms and what efficiencies we have to show for it, the answer is: not much at all. If I were to be asked, as I did have to be asked, ‘If I had $40 million available, what would I do with it in Quarantine?’ the answer is that I would want to drive long-term efficiencies and I would want to improve biosecurity at the border. It is no surprise that that was my conclusion, given that when I became the minister Australia was in the middle of equine influenza, when the horse industry, which is certainly not the biggest agricultural industry, took a $1 billion hit. So I do understand, right at the coalface, exactly what it means to have inadequate biosecurity protections at the border. That was the basis of the original decision, and from the moment that decision was made we began talks with industry as to what we might be able to do to help drive efficiencies. Those discussions are continuing. I am hopeful that they will close very soon, but they have been continuing.

The issue the shadow minister refers to about what would happen to any reform program valued at, say, $40 million if it were disallowed anyway is really a simple one. If we had disallowance of the new fees and charges and we suddenly had a $40 million hole in the AQIS budget I would have to find $40 million. That would mean that the reform program that hopefully gets negotiated—though we are not there yet—would be in deeply serious jeopardy. The shadow minister also raised an issue of time lines, as to why I have been so determined to get all of this sorted out basically by deadlines that we are approaching in the course of this week. The reason for that is simple. I have no level of faith that the National Party would not move a disallowance as late as August or September next year. If they did so and if it were carried by the Senate we would be in the situation of having a massive hole in the quarantine budget and of not being able to perform the essential tasks of AQIS. For that reason I want to do everything that is possible, and hopefully it will be possible, to make sure that the new fees and charges are put on the table so that they are disallowable in the course of next week. I hope that we reached a landing point with industry that the opposition choose not to get in the way of. I hope that industry ends up happy enough with the reform project and that the opposition is willing to respect the views of industry. But, if they are not, I am not going to put Australia’s biosecurity at risk in a way that the opposition have been threatening.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as we have a cast of colleagues here all anxious to ask you questions I will cut straight to the core and ask my question, even though I would like to talk for five minutes. Firstly, I want to thank you for the support you gave at the time of the floods in my area in Page in order to make sure that our farmers and small businesses got access to the $5,000 cash grants. My question is: how is the government supporting Australian farming families through the budget?

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

I want to thank the member for Page for the question. There have been a couple of times now—one on my own and one with the PM as well—where I have had the opportunity to meet farmers within the electorate of Page, together with the member for Page. There is some extraordinarily modern production and some innovative methods that go on in that part of the country. That is in the face of having received some of the best and some of the worst of what the weather and the climate have to offer.

What I would like to focus on in response to the issues that have just been raised is what the budget is doing within the agriculture appropriations with respect to exceptional circumstances payments. There has been some mischief—I could use the word ‘mischief’, but I will not be so unkind—in the reporting and complaining about what has happened with forward appropriations on drought payments. I would like to take the opportunity that has been given to me by the member for Page to explain how it works. Essentially in this budget, with the exception of one change, it works the way it always has, which is that forward appropriations appear in the budget papers for EC payments to the extent that there are current declarations in place. Anything beyond that does not appear in the forward appropriations. That is the way the previous government handled EC, and that is the way we have continued to handle that in the way it is appropriated in the budget papers.

There is one minor change, where some money now appears in the Treasury budget papers as opposed to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry budget papers. That is a change that was part of a COAG agreement, and so there is a further extent to which the amount which appears in the budget papers before the Main Committee at the moment is a lower dollar figure than you would have seen in the way that that was budgeted for under the previous government. In terms of total dollar amounts for farmers, there is no change. There is no change in how that actually works. But there is a difference in the formalities of how that is recorded in the budget papers.

The only other reason that the amounts which are in these budget papers for drought assistance are lower is a really good reason, and that is that big parts of Australia have come out of drought. I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the member for Riverina, whose farmers are probably doing it tougher than in almost any other part of the country. From the Riverina, through Sunraysia and down into the Riverland area, the irrigation drought has hit people in a way that previous droughts just have not. There have been particular difficulties there. But for much of the country, particularly the north of the country, there have been welcome rains. Some within the electorate of Page came all at once, in ways that were not necessarily so welcome. But areas like New England, and some areas throughout Queensland as well, are having some of the best seasons they have ever had. That means that, after the National Rural Advisory Council conducted their assessment, some areas have come out of EC. That means that those amounts do not appear in the forward appropriations anymore.

There was also a range of further drought support programs that deal with mental health support, financial information and other services that were expiring programs at the end of next year. These are programs that get renewed from time to time. We have extended those for 12 months only. The reason we have extended them for 12 months only is that, in the hope that we can arrive with industry at a new drought policy, those programs are very likely to be replaced by a different suite of programs doing very similar work but possibly organised in a different fashion.

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

Thank you for that explanation. Minister, you have touched on exactly what I was going to raise on the issue of EC support. You are aware, obviously, that on page 60 of the DAFF budget statements there is a statement reading:

The reduction in expenses between 2009-10 and 2010-11 is due to the cessation of drought programs.

On page 27 of the department Treasury budget statements under ‘Exceptional circumstances assistance’ there is no allocation for those years 2009-10 and 2010-11. That is only to the end of June 2009. Will you reassure the agriculture sector, the small business industries and those people in rural and regional Australia who are still EC declared that you will secure funding for those people who, as I said, are EC declared after 30 June 2009, being two weeks away?

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

Minister, can you please give to me and this House one billion reasons why the Nationals cannot add up? As part of that question, Minister, can the Nationals properly read the budget papers, have they embarrassed themselves by misreading the forward estimates and claiming $1 billion has been cut from the portfolio budget and should they go back and read the budget papers again and play a constructive role in discussing how to help cushion rural and regional Australia from the global recession? So I again ask you, Minister, could you please give to me and this House one billion reasons why the Nationals cannot add up?

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

I thank each of the members for their questions on somewhat different themes. Can I deal first of all with the question from the member for Riverina. I do not have the Treasury budget papers in front of me, but I will refer to the question that was asked of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s budget papers. The reason you have an unusual annotation that had not appeared in previous budget papers is that in the ordinary course those programs may well have been extended for a further four years. The reason for doing it for 12 months is purely in the context of a drought review which would, presuming we reach a landing place with industry, have a new suite of programs that would cover similar work.

In terms of the overall effort of making sure that we continue to provide the support in mental health, in EC payments and in financial counselling, there is no change for people in any of those, even though there are some different methods that appear in the budget papers. The level of support that was there last year and that was there the year before is there next year as well for people on EC.

Can I also add the guarantee—to repeat again here what I have said a number of times and has been stated as well by the Prime Minister—that as we look toward any future drought policy, and as we look towards trying to find a way of shifting from crisis management to risk management, the only way you can properly do that is by saying that those would be rules which would apply to the next drought, not to the current one. That is why, even under the proposals we are looking at for a potential new drought policy, we are not looking at and not canvassing any options which would change the rules from under people who are currently receiving EC assistance. Any changes are about trying to help people who are already off the EC prepare for the next drought. They are the sorts of principles that have guided everything within the drought reviews. That has been affirmed by me, affirmed by the Prime Minister and affirmed by all the agriculture ministers around Australia at ministerial council as well.

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

Mrs Hull interjecting

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

The level of money in the budget is as I have described. You have some of it in Treasury papers, some of it here. On the extra expenses that you have, there are a series of a expiring programs that do continue, although you will find that some of them appear in different parts of different budget papers.

I will deal then with the comments that were made by the member for Flynn. I have got used to the fact now that the day after any budget there will be a media release from whoever is the Leader of the Nationals and from whoever is the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, saying, ‘This is a disaster for the bush.’ It will always be there. It will always be using the same set of arguments that could have been levelled at any of their previous budgets, based on accounting systems that are used. This budget is, indeed, no different.

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

But they didn’t say the drought programs would cease before.

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

To say that there had been a cut of $1 billion to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was, I think, an extraordinary and dishonest thing to claim. There is no way in the world that anyone looking at it fairly could claim that there was a $1 billion cut. There were cuts and, at every point, I have been completely upfront about what those cuts were. Land and Water Australia was a real cut. It will be $13 million in the long term, and about half of that is because of the wind-up operations that we are currently involved with. There is a further cut of $3 million to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. That is a real cut. There is also a $3.4 million cut to the work of my own department. Those are real cuts and that does happen at a time when there is a collapse in government revenue across the forward estimates in the way that we have seen. But for those opposite to add that up and to claim that we are talking about a $1 billion cut is completely dishonest.

If, in a moment, the shadow minister wants to stand up and explain why $13 million plus $3 million plus $3.4 million equals $1 billion, he is welcome to do so. He is also welcome to say where the opposition would add $1 billion to the deficit for new spending programs that it would like to put in place. One of the major cuts that he refers to, when you get into the billion dollar figure—(Time expired)

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a quick comment to make on drought: never before has the agriculture section in the budget papers referred to the cessation of drought programs. So I think it is pretty obvious where the minister is going on that one.

I would now like to touch on the minister’s real love, which is climate change. Because he often says that he could probably be referred to as the ‘assistant minister for climate change’, I draw his attention to the RIRDC report on the effects of his government’s proposed CPRS on agriculture. Despite the fact that it is a government report, it goes quite deeply into the effect of the scheme on agriculture, whether or not agriculture is included directly in the scheme. The effect is substantial. Cuts in income terms of up to or even over 22 per cent are severe—and I am sure that the minister would acknowledge that. In question time a couple of weeks ago, in answer to a dorothy dixer from your side to you, Minister—

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

Questions without notice.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon, Minister—you referred to the fact that agriculture was going to be in a terrible plight anyway as a result of climate change and that, if we did not fix it, the losses would be substantial. If it goes that way then of course you will be right. So I guess you belittled us because we felt that you were knocking agriculture—despite the 22 per cent cut, which is pretty significant in itself. But you neglected to mention the fact that, at this point in time, Australia is the only country in the world that is proposing a scheme which would have anything like this effect on agriculture, whether or not it is actually included in the scheme. So, in effect, are you not saying that Australian agriculture is going to be affected by climate change—in other words, less rainfall, less moisture—and that, on top of that, you are going to add 22 per cent in cuts that are man-made when no other country in the world is doing that?

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

If I can first of all refer to the issues raised there by the shadow minister. In the RIRDC report to which he refers are similar issues to some that I have raised with respect to some of the ABARE modelling. Modelling by definition is always going to have to involve particular assumptions. That is the nature of any modelling. It does not make the modelling worthless but it does limit the extent to which you can use the modelling as an accurate predictor of what will happen in the future. For both the RIRDC modelling and some of the ABARE modelling, I thought it was important to make it public as it has come to me, and I have made it public, including the documents that I tabled that I think you were making reference to in what you terribly referred to as a ‘dixer’ in question time that day.

One of the assumptions is one that I think everybody, no matter how closely or remotely they are involved with agriculture, knows is a massively false assumption, but it is used in all the models. It is that there will be no behavioural change by farmers. The ABARE modelling that I have referred to about the impacts of climate change presumes that there will be no behavioural change from farmers. We know that is not true. In fairness, how do you model and take into account what the behavioural change will be? It is extraordinarily difficult to do so. I am not critical of the researchers for using those assumptions, but it is extraordinarily unlikely and would be completely inconsistent with what farmers in Australia have done throughout the generations. There will be adaptation. The RIRDC modelling includes that same assumption that there will be no behavioural change.

There is also a concept in some of that modelling as to whether you are looking at changes in input costs or changes at the processing level, and the most extreme projections—the ones that we have both referred to at different points, because I thought it was important to put it out there, and no doubt once I put it out there you found it helpful for a series of other arguments—presume that 100 per cent of the increase in input costs is borne by farmers and 100 per cent of the downstream costs are also borne by farmers. That presumes not only that there is no behavioural change on farms but also that there is no behavioural change at any point of the value chain. It then also presumes that every one of those charges gets passed back to farmers. That part of it is often true—to a large extent, prices do get passed back to farmers. But, as to the presumption there will be no behavioural change at any point along the value chain, I have to say I just do not believe that. It is completely inconsistent with everything that I have ever seen.

I can refer now to EC payments, because I had a chance once I sat down to have a more detailed look at the table the member for Riverina referred to. The specific EC payments are the ones I was referring to that now go through the COAG process and through Treasury, but I take the question in good faith, and particularly the line towards the end of the member for Riverina’s question. Can I provide a guarantee and certainty for the farmers in her area who are on EC that they will continue to receive that beyond 1 July this year? The answer is yes. The guarantee that was sought for people who are currently on EC remains there as a guarantee, unchanged.

There was another issue that I started to refer to in response to the member for Flynn, where we were talking about how you get to $1 billion. There were a number of expiring programs that made up the billion dollar figure that the shadow minister was complaining about the day after the budget. One of those was the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. I have to say I have had no-one, including from the forestry sector, argue that that was anything other than a terminating program. Another related to the Murray-Darling Basin irrigation management grants, which we actually extended beyond their original termination dates. We kept extending those and I have had no-one argue that this is anything other than reasonable. Finally, a large part of that billion dollar figure was the termination of the Dairy Adjustment Levy. The Dairy Adjustment Levy was not just an expiring program; it was an expiring program for which we put special legislation through to deal with the wind-up earlier this year, and it went unanimously through the parliament. If the National Party want to argue that there are $1 billion of cuts to agriculture, all but $20 million of that are cuts that they supported.

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

I will be quick because I am a caring, sharing type of guy and we are running out of time. I did have a good spiel written here, but I would just like to acknowledge all the members who are in here tonight to ask questions of the agriculture minister, because we all have a passion for people in rural and regional Australia and that is why we are in this debate. What I will say is that in the Northern Territory we have our rec fishing industry, we have our live cattle export trade and we also have our agriculture and mangoes—three very different industries with very different needs. My question to you, Minister, is: can you outline how the Rudd government is investing in a robust biosecurity system for Australia?

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

Minister Burke, I am heartened to hear that you will honour the current EC agreements in my electorate, which will cease in March 2010, all things being obvious. My concern is that, if in March 2010 EC funding is required again, there is nothing that I can see in the forward estimates. I refer you again to the portfolio budget statement, which says:

The reduction in expenses between 2009-10 and 2010-11 is due to the cessation of drought programs.

Minister, I have come here in good faith this evening—not to be flippant; not to make fun—in the very best interests of the people I represent, and I find it just so distressing to hear jokes being made about very serious issues.

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

Mr Adams interjecting

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

The minister has made reference in the past to the way in which forward estimates on drought funding are calculated, saying it was identical to the way in which it was done under the previous government. This was as a result of a question without notice to you on Thursday, 14 May. In your response to that question, you indicated that the method was identical, but then this evening you indicated that there are some differences to the way we did it. On Thursday, 14 May, you made a statement with quite an impact about the Nationals and the people on this side, saying the way of doing forward estimates was identical—identical—but this evening you have made the statement, ‘Well, it does differ.’ What is the truth?

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

If I can deal with the member for Riverina’s issues first and then respond to the member for Solomon. The thing that is absolutely identical about the way the forward estimates are dealt with is that the forward estimates only show current drought declarations—current EC declarations. That is absolutely identical. The thing that is different is that some of those payments appear in a different set of budget papers to where they used to appear. But the way in which those figures are calculated is absolutely identical.

I am very glad the member for Riverina raised an issue at the beginning of her question about what happens when the current EC declarations expire. The comment the Prime Minister and I have consistently made with respect to any new drought policy is that we are talking about continuing the current system for current recipients for the duration of the current drought. Now, we all wish the current drought had expired well in advance of current EC declarations. The likelihood of that happening nationwide is at best remote. In all the discussions we have been having with industry we do so on the basis that there will continue to be a National Rural Advisory Council and that, for existing drought declared areas, it will continue to assess whether those declarations need to be extended or not. That is the basis on which we have been operating.

That is why we have legislation before the House of Representatives right now which deals with allowing me to extend the terms of the current members of the National Rural Advisory Council. If we were ending drought declarations, I would not need to do that. The fact that that legislation is in the parliament at all should be taken as a very strong show of good faith that we are working on the basis that, for the current drought, the current system is in place. But we do not want to wait for the next drought, for areas that have already come out—wait for the crisis—before the government get involved. Now, these are difficult budgetary times to try and work through those issues, but the conversations we have been having with industry are on the basis that we want to try to find a way of working through those issues. But nothing should be read into the current expiry dates for drought declarations. The intention of the government remains that the National Rural Advisory Council would provide recommendations to me on any existing declarations as to whether or not they ought to be extended. So that is the basis of that.

I thank the member for Solomon for his question and acknowledge his strong engagement, particularly with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association. I know he is very strongly engaged with them. I am reminded that, at the time of the last election, when he was campaigning, he had to deal with a scare campaign, not claiming that we would cut billions of dollars from agriculture but claiming that we would shut down the live export industry. That says something about what you can expect from National Party scare campaigns, given that we have now opened more markets than the previous government.

The member for Solomon was one of the first people to say, ‘You’ve got to come to my seat and you’ve got to visit a farm,’ and he took me a farm, just out of Darwin, where they grow crocodiles. That is the only crocodile farm I can say I have visited in my time in the portfolio and I thank the member for Solomon for that.

Biosecurity has been provided with transitional funding of $156 million, once again, through to the end of June next year. My department, DAFF, receives $92.2 million and $63.8 million goes to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to maintain our animal and plant health status.

One of the things we did shortly after coming to government was a comprehensive review of all issues relating to biosecurity, headed by Roger Beale. That Beale report calls for some far-reaching reforms. What we have done in this budget is maintain the current system while we work our way through each of the recommendations contained in the Beale report.

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

I know the government is committed to R&D and providing matching funding for rural research and development. I know we have some new initiatives in that area, for example, the Climate Change Research Program, the Regional Food Producers Innovation and Productivity Program, FarmReady and the Reef Rescue Water Quality Research and Development Program. Minister, you might like to detail the government’s commitment to rural R&D.

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

I also thank the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for making himself available tonight. I follow on from the member for Lyons with some questions on climate change and response. My electorate spans Cairns, Cape York Peninsula, the Great Barrier Reef and the wet tropics rainforest. The agricultural sector and tourism industry in the North are obviously at risk from climate change. I am interested in the responses, particularly the reef rescue program. I notice the strong representation from the agricultural sector on our side of the House. We do have a couple of people from the National Party here this evening, but there is nobody from Queensland, which is very disappointing. It is supposedly the home of the National Party, but there is nobody from the National Party in Queensland here to ask questions of the minister fro agriculture. I think it is very important to get that on the record. Minister, I would appreciate your response on climate change—an issue I know the National Party is very passionate about.

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

In the interests of time, I ask the member for Calare to ask his question before the minister responds.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry might recall that, back on 25 February 2009 in company with the Minister for Climate Change and Water, he stated:

… the Government has always acknowledged that you do need to have some land use change, and that will be an implication and outcome of the White Paper—

The white paper from late last year on an ETS—

But our advice has always been that we’d be looking at marginal land.

The Minister also stated:

The advice that came back to me was that under the White Paper and the proposals that are there, prime agricultural land would not be at threat. It would be marginal land, where the economics stacked up, for people to be looking at doing more tree-planting.

What will be the land use change the government has always acknowledged is needed and that will be an implication and an outcome of an ETS, as it was then, which is now a CPRS? Where will that land use change take place and how? What is the actual definition of marginal land that you were referring to when you stated: ‘Our advice has always been that we’d be looking at marginal land’? Could you tell us which maps you are using to define marginal land? In answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, you indicated that he did not know what he was talking about, yet your own indication seems to be that your definition of marginal land is not the same as ours.

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

I want to thank the shadow minister for his question, and the members for Leichhardt and Lyons for their questions. With respect to the member for Leichhardt and the member for Lyons, can you please be a bit patient because I want to deal with that last question from the shadow minister first. Given that I have never in my life stood in the parliament and been asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition, I can only guess that the question to which he was referring was a question which was about the Leader of the Opposition rather than one being asked by him. But should the tactics committee of the opposition decide that it becomes the role of the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions of me, I will be happy to answer them. I do not seem to get too many from the shadow minister. So, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to have a go, that would be tremendous.

Certainly any of the projections and any of the concepts of land-use change go not only to examples such as those on some grazing land where along the boundaries of pastures there can be limited strategic tree plantings but also to changes in land use in terms of what can be done with the quality of permanent pasture. Some of these issues go to where we end up post Copenhagen as well in terms of the Australian negotiating strategy of being able to separate emissions which are caused by human intervention from emissions which are caused by natural causes. If we are successful in that, it becomes far easier to come up with efficient methods of being allowed to give farmers full credit for the carbon that they sequester in the soil. So there are a few questions that come off the back of that—but which are of themselves examples of land use and land-use change.

I will give a really simple example of a farm that I visited in the electorate of Corangamite about two months ago when the member for Corangamite took me out there. They have done some limited farm forestry on that farm. They have reorganised their paddocks, put farm forestry down the boundaries and provided increased shading for their stock. In doing so they have taken up a reasonable percentage of their land but with no reduction in their stock numbers at all. If done strategically and if done the right way, there is significant potential to get the right match of being able to improve the carbon sequestration in the soil through limited farm forestry while simply making your pastures more productive than ever. It is better for the stock because the stock are then able to access shade in ways that they were not otherwise able to previously, and stock numbers do not necessarily have to decrease at all. That sort of thing on the margins of grazing land is something that can be done—where you marry an improvement in productivity of the land that remains as pasture with farm forestry strategically placed around those boundaries. Those sorts of outcomes are significant land-use changes but land-use changes that result in significant improvements in productivity.

There is an alternative path, of course, and the alternative path is to rip out sugar cane from land and whack some trees onto it. That is not the government’s approach—although from time to time there have been some members of the opposition who appeared to have thought that having a scheme where everyone is a winner but there is just less to eat is a more favourable option than what our perspective would be. That sort of land-use change is not one that we, at any point, have contemplated. There is a great story to tell in response to the issues raised by the member for Leichhardt about Reef Rescue. Reef Rescue is now at a point where we are getting significant involvement—there is a figure in the many hundreds of farmers along the north coast of Queensland in the areas adjacent to and flowing onto the Great Barrier Reef. Farmers and farm organisations, whether they be in cattle or in sugar cane in particular, have become very much involved in the Reef Rescue program under Caring for our Country. Once again they are doing the right thing by the environment and improving their productivity on the way through. It is those sorts of outcomes that we are trying to drive through Caring for our Country.

In the limited time left to answer the question asked by the member for Lyons, I would say in terms of research and development programs in particular that we are now into the next year of the Climate Change Research Program. I am talking about some $46.2 million. We have a situation now where for this year’s budget our R&D total spend remains higher than the total spend in terms of administered expenses of the last budget of the previous government.

Proposed expenditure—$565,856,000—agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Mr Dreyfus) adjourned.