John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Key measures that will receive funding under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 include the Solar Homes and Communities Plan through the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; the Home Insulation Program; the government response to the N1H1 influenza virus pandemic under the guidance of the Department of Health and Ageing; the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme under the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; and funding to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to meet the cost of increased in irregular maritime arrivals. Under Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 funding will also be provided for the establishment of the Local Government Reform Fund.

Under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan, an additional $510 million will provide financial assistance to Australian community groups, small businesses and households. The program assists with the cost of installing eligible renewable energy systems. This particular program encourages Australians to think renewable energy and to invest in renewable energy. The funding provides an incentive to actively choose green energy. I am pleased to note, but not surprised, that my electorate of Lowe has been very receptive to the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. In fact, a constituent of mine phoned only last week to raise his support for the phasing out of electric hot water systems, emphasising his interest in renewable energy and noting it is a step in the right direction. Further, my constituent congratulated the government for initiatives that provide green alternative and incentives.

Unfortunately, figures indicate that the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative was not as popular and adjustments will result in savings of $13 million in the current financial year. Forecasts for the Water Smart Australia Program will also be adjusted, contributing a further $10 million in savings in 2009-10. However, the government will bring forward $290 million from 2011-12 for the Home Insulation Program. The government will also provide the funding to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts for what is undoubtedly a popular program to provide the necessary funding to meet the unexpectedly high demand. It should be noted that the $290 million is in addition to the $695.8 million proposed in the Appropriation (Water Entitlements and Home Insulation) Bill 2009-2010.

Figures show that more than 190,000 households have already installed insulation with Australian government funding assistance. The demand reflects the desire of Australians to invest in measures that provide long-term benefits both financial and environmental. The Home Insulation Program has stimulated thousands of jobs and generated a much-needed boost to our economy during a time of economic uncertainty. This is illustrated in the appropriation of $40 million for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to meet the increased demand for assistance from the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme. The increase in applications is the result of an increase in the number of bankruptcies and insolvencies.

The payment scheme assists employees who have lost their jobs as a direct result of the insolvency of their employer and are owed particular employee entitlements. It is another example of the government assisting Australian workers during a time of uncertainty, and I am pleased this support will continue. There will be $20.3 million provided for the establishment of a 26-week environment and heritage training and work experience placement program, targeting job seekers between 17 and 24 years of age.

The National Green Jobs Corps is part of a $94 million green skills package to create 50,000 new green jobs and training places over three years. The package also includes 30,000 apprenticeships to equip young people with practical, job ready green skills. Six thousand new local jobs will be established that focus on environmental sustainability in communities struggling as a result of the financial crisis, and 4,000 training places will be created for long-term unemployed people in ceiling insulation installation. This program demonstrates that the Rudd government is committed to tackling the dual challenges posed by the global economic crisis and climate change. As Australia emerges from the global recession, our attention needs to turn to the shape that our economy will take in the future. It is imperative that we build a green economy, with green jobs and green infrastructure that will bring long-term and sustainable economic growth.

Under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010, Centrelink will receive $12.4 million for the implementation of a more efficient reporting and administrative system. From 1 July 2010 paper forms received by Centrelink will be scanned and transferred electronically. The new process will reduce the costs of transferring documents between Centrelink sites and improve storage places. Estimates indicate that these changes alone will save a staggering $131.3 million. This is an incredible saving. Further, the government will update the reporting requirements for job seekers. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 will also provide $14.5 million to introduce electronic lodgement facilities over the internet as well as voice recognition over the telephone. This will save time and money for both Centrelink and its customers. In fact, it is estimated that the modernisation of the reporting requirements for job seekers will deliver $95.2 million in savings over four years.

On a matter of health, Australia will recall the worldwide scare caused by the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic. Thankfully, the number of casualties did not reach predicted levels. However, the scare highlighted the need for and importance of preparedness in the event of future pandemics. In light of this, the Rudd government will contribute $45.2 million to support the storage, compounding and distribution of antivirals and personal protective equipment; the production, processing and distribution of immunisation consent forms; and an immunisation awareness campaign. Further, under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 the Department of Health and Ageing will receive $12.4 million for the Zero Real Interest Loans program. This program was established with the aim of providing capital funding to build and improve residential aged-care and respite facilities in areas of high need. The funding that was not utilised last financial year due to project delays will be carried over to the same program this year.

In my electorate of Lowe, the ageing population could well be served by this scheme and I would encourage aged-care facilities in the area to put to use the available program opportunities. I have no doubt that the expansion of such services would be of enormous benefit to my community now and in the future. I had the great pleasure of hearing about the wonderful work of caring and dedicated aged-care and respite workers in my electorate. I recently received a letter from a reassured daughter of a man in need of high care who could not thank the dedicated staff enough for the respect and care shown to her father. I have also heard about difficulties others have experienced in finding a suitable aged-care facility with an available position. This funding specifically targets areas of high need to reduce such difficulties. The Zero Real Interest Loans program is a responsible initiative, recognising the needs of Australia’s future population, providing opportunities for businesses and the government to work together to fulfil those needs.

The government also proposes an additional appropriation of $19.95 million for the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The request for additional funding is a result of greater than expected demand from participating charities. However, the increase in funding will be balanced by a reduction in the estimated administrative refundable tax offset payments between the department and the Australian Taxation Office. Again, the greater than expected take-up of government initiatives such as the National Rental Affordability Scheme is indicative of the confidence public-private partnerships enjoy—a model that continues to strengthen under the Rudd government. I am pleased to report that so far more than 20 units under NRAS have been provided in my electorate of Lowe, and I look forward to more being released for my constituents. My electorate suffers one of the highest mortgage and rental stress rates in Australia. Affordable accommodation is a serious problem in Lowe and I look forward to the continuation of the program, strengthened by the additional funding.

The government is also investing in small businesses. In fact, last year during the global financial crisis the federal government offered a small business and general business tax break, which provided a 50 per cent tax offset on particular business expenses. Small businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million a year could claim a 50 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets that cost more than $1,000.

The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 will provide $11.3 million to be carried forward from the last financial year to fund a public awareness campaign. Small businesses are imperative to the Australian economy and the small business and general tax break is just one measure among many that supports small businesses. The Rudd government appreciates the important role small businesses play in our economy. Measures delivered by the government include the increase in the rate of the small business and general business tax break, the new research and development tax credit, the Small Business Support Line, Small Business Online, the new Commonwealth Commercialisation Institute, a $50 million boost to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, the 12-month extension of exceptional circumstances assistance under the rural small business program and PAYG cash flow relief initiative.

These measures are in addition to the two stimulus packages delivered by the Rudd government, and I know that they have been well received by the small businesses in my electorate of Lowe. As previously mentioned, the total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 is $522 million. In the limited time available, I would like to highlight a few of the more prominent appropriation amounts. Firstly, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will receive no less than $12 million to establish a local government reform fund. The fund will provide assistance to local councils to manage their existing infrastructure and help plan for future needs. Under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program community facilities such as community centres, libraries, sports grounds and environmental infrastructure will be built.

Last year my electorate of Lowe received over $5 million for the development of the Drummoyne Sports and Cultural Precinct under the $800 million Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The project includes a multipurpose facility with an undercover training area and practice nets, spectator seating and a large flexible meeting space. In addition, the funding will provide upgrades to Drummoyne and Taplin parks, installing floodlighting, a playground, relocating basketball practice courts, widening the foreshore pathway and improving water access through a new pontoon and boat ramp. The Rudd government funding for these projects has also been very well received by my constituents. The construction work is well underway and will provide a state-of-the-art facility that will provide strong economic stimulus and will continue to provide a wonderful community benefit well into the future.

Under Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 a reallocation of the appropriation is proposed for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts for the National Solar Schools Program: $19.8 million will be provided as a state, ACT, NT and local government item offset by the reductions in Appropriation Act (No. 1) under administered expense funding. The funding will assist in the component of the program that is delivered through the states to non-government schools. In addition, $15.8 million will be brought forward from 2012-13 for the program to meet the demand in the current financial year for non-government schools. Only recently a non-government school in Lowe, the Presbyterian Ladies College in Croydon proudly displayed the 65 new solar panels they have installed. The school received federal funding to assist with the purchase and installation of the panels, which is estimated to save the school $70,000 over 10 years and $360,000 over 25 years. Not only will the school save thousands of dollars but also the solar panels will reduce carbon emissions and produce pollution-free electricity.

Urgent action is required to address the challenges we face caused by climate change, and I am delighted that this funding will be brought forward to assist the installation of solar systems in our schools across Australia. I am particularly pleased that schools like PLC in my electorate are taking up the opportunity provided by the federal government to do their bit to fight climate change. Well done, PLC! I take this opportunity to note that at the end of the year the principal, Dr Bill McKeith, will farewell PLC after 25 years. Dr McKeith has introduced and developed many initiatives at the school. I have had the great pleasure of knowing Dr McKeith over the years that I have been the federal member and he has been an outstanding principal. I wish him every success in his future endeavours.

The vision of the government has provided my electorate of Lowe and electorates around Australia with new infrastructure and programs to improve the environment, health, employment opportunities and education at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. In reflecting on the many areas of funding provided by the government, I would like to use what time is left to raise an issue that I believe is important for all Australians and one that has the support of many of my constituents. Tragically too many Australians have been exposed to asbestos products in their homes and work. Too many simply do not know of the dangers that confront them.

In my electorate of Lowe there many old Victorian, Federation and Californian bungalow homes that are riddled with hidden asbestos products. I dare say that many people are unaware of the silent killer that rests within their homes—not just in their fibro walls and ceilings but from the dust under the carpets and driveways. As I have previously said in this place, next year 750 Australians will be diagnosed with asbestos related diseases and by 2020 it is estimated that Australia will have 13,000 cases of asbestos related cancers. Asbestos is very much a silent killer. All of us were moved by the inspirational work of Bernie Banton to raise awareness of asbestos. Bernie was able to achieve so much in his time, and we need to ensure his legacy lives on. That is why I am calling for a national awareness campaign to ensure that all Australians understand the risks asbestos poses to them and their families. It is essential that any family thinking of renovating their home assesses with their builders where asbestos is hidden and plans how to handle it safely.

I am also of the view that the government should consider establishing a national body to coordinate the removal of all asbestos products and asbestos-containing materials from Australia. This body would have the power to coordinate and manage the removal of asbestos from public places such as schools. I understand that there would be significant costs involved in such a program. However, it is a cost that would be overwhelmingly dwarfed by the costs of exposing Australians to asbestos. Such a program would build on the good work already done by the Rudd government in relation to asbestos. Last January the Prime Minister officially opened the Bernie Banton Centre, the world’s first asbestos diseases research centre, at Concord Hospital in my electorate. The government has contributed $5 million for research initiatives to be undertaken at that centre. Moreover, in November last year the Rudd government and the New South Wales government announced that they would save the compensation fund set up by James Hardie to support asbestos victims through a $320 million loan.

I am proud to be a member of a government that is so committed to supporting victims of asbestos. I believe we can build on this good work by raising awareness about the lethal and devastating threat that asbestos continues to pose and by taking measures to remove this substance from public places. There are many other initiatives and programs that are worthy of government funding, and they may be presented for future consideration.

The economic forecasts look positive, but we must not be complacent. The Rudd government will continue to make decisions in the best interests of Australia and the proposed measures contained in these bills are no exception. It is no fluke that we have done best of all the OECD countries in handling the global financial crisis and that has been appreciated, particularly by small business in my electorate. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take this opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 and related economic issues. I have taken the opportunity over the last few weeks, and obviously well before then as well, to doorknock my way through various parts of my electorate of Cowan. I enjoy those opportunities to go up to the front doors of houses, to introduce myself and to genuinely surprise people that I actually do my own doorknocking. It is very interesting to speak to these people. When you surprise them at their front door and they are not prepared, they generally talk about the things that really matter to them right up front. Mostly, they talk about local government stuff and state issues. A consistent theme I have heard both at the front doors of houses in Cowan and in the shopping centres of Cowan, when people have just come up and started talking to me, has been the arrival of the boats into Australian waters and what has changed in the last couple of years.

It is a matter of great concern. They want the government to change the laws back to the way they were, to deter these illegal arrivals—that is, those who jump the queue. They do not like the special deals that were given to those involved in the Oceanic Viking fiasco. A lot of people speak to me about fair treatment for all and not special treatment for some. The government should know what is happening with those who jump the queue. What they should know is that all those who have waited and done the right thing feel that they have been slapped across the face. Those who have languished in refugee camps, waiting their turn, and those who know of their relatives still waiting in refugee camps in places like the Thai-Burma border are greatly irritated and unhappy about the government’s attitude, which allows those who have money to come straight here—albeit via the gym and modern recreation facilities on Christmas Island.

Then what about the South Africans, the Zimbabweans and the British? We see a lot of these people in Western Australia and it is excellent. They are the ones who follow the established rules and procedures to get their visas. There are also all those who remember all too well how long it took them to actually make Australia their home. These are the points made to me by my constituents at their front doors and by those who have approached me in shopping centres across Cowan, and I have to completely agree with them. Maybe that is not what people think here in Canberra, 3,000 kilometres away, or maybe down in Melbourne, but it is a big issue in Perth. That is why I am keen to see a return to temporary visas and restrictions on access to benefits—as our leader, Tony Abbott, has outlined. What this country needs is to be back in control of our borders. What this country needs to do is restore the integrity of the immigration system. What this country does not need is a Rudd Labor government that gives special deals and that is soft on those who seek to sidestep the queue. This is the problem that so many of my constituents tell me concerns them.

Already the government has released the third Intergenerational report, where they now bleat about the struggles of keeping the budget under control. I can tell the House that this government long ago gave up trying to keep the budget under control. Record debt levels place our ability to pay for our future needs in the greatest danger. The point needs to be made that while the government might whinge about our fight to preserve the private health rebate and how we are stopping them from cashing in on their 2007 broken promise to not change the rebate, that promise was made with full knowledge of the circumstances of the ageing population. It is therefore not our move to hold the Rudd government to their 2007 promise on the private health rebate that is undermining the economic future of the economy; rather it is the outrageous spending that has been the hallmark of this Rudd Labor government that has undermined our future.

When considering these bills, they are clearly evidence that this is a government addicted to spending and pork-barrelling. Spend now and build a lot of vertical structures upon which to put some very big signs. I recall being at the Carramar Primary School graduation in December, Carramar being in the north of the electorate of Cowan, and I saw a small plaque commemorating the former government’s Investing in Our Schools Program placed on the wall next to the stage. In recent months, and in direct contrast, we have seen huge signs placed outside schools around Australia. They are great big signs costing hundreds of dollars each and they are all paid for by the taxpayer in the huge interest bills that this government has inflicted upon this generation and the next.

These bills comprise an additional $2 billion of borrowings inflicted upon the Australian people, all to justify a huge sign in front of a building and a photo opportunity, with or without hard hats, for Labor Party MPs or candidates. I would reiterate that there is a huge difference between the acknowledgement required by the Howard government, normally an A5-sized plaque, versus the around two-metre-wide signs required by the Rudd government, signs that have been placed outside polling booths, also known as schools.

In other places in Cowan where things are happening I note that there is a lot of construction going on. I have personal involvement in a number of infrastructure projects around Cowan. My petition regarding Wanneroo Road in the vicinity of Ashby and Tapping has seen the long-awaited state government work commence with the construction of a dual carriageway well underway and expected to be completed by mid-2010. I was also involved, again with a petition in 2007, in the construction of Hepburn Avenue at Ballajura between Alexander Drive and Beechboro Road. Later that year the Howard government’s funding commitment identified the need for and led to the building of the road in Ballajura and the duplication of Hepburn Avenue at Alexander Heights. That was $10 million that put critical infrastructure on the public agenda, and it led to an obvious attempt to catch up by Labor, who later matched the commitments made. In addition to where we led the way in that part of Cowan we also added $10 million for the Reid Highway and Alexander Drive overpass. All these involved us leading the way for the benefit of the local people. Although Labor later followed in matching our commitments, the progress has been slow. My question is: what has actually been achieved? The only road that is in use and funded federally is the first stage of Ocean Reef Road, and who funded that road? We, the coalition, did. Who put their sign up claiming it? The Rudd government did.

It is worth noting why this road was so important. It was designed to alleviate congestion on Gnangara Road. The key element was that transiting traffic would be put on a better road, easing the difficulties for families getting in and out of Landsdale and Gnangara during the peak times of day. My position on this issue is well subscribed, with hundreds of people supporting it and with this support being a key factor in the Howard government granting and delivering $7 million to the City of Wanneroo to get the job done. This job was to make travel safer for families and other users, linking up to near Alexander Drive, making this main route a dual carriageway with two lanes each way as opposed to a single lane each way at Gnangara Road, thick with trucks and other industrial traffic.

The funding agreement was for the City of Wanneroo to complete the building of that road by June 2010. This was the plan as to when the lives of local residents would be made safer and easier, with this new road completed. I can unfortunately inform the House that the road will not be completed by that date. It currently ends well short of Alexander Drive and it does not help local families, with the congestion issues remaining not only unresolved but worse. It would seem that the government has authorised the delay in the form of a varied funding agreement with the City of Wanneroo.

The stark reality is that every road promised by Labor, or now controlled by Labor, has not been delivered, and I cannot see those roads being completed by the time of the next election. Add that failure to that of the comprehensive failure of the government to deliver the Wanneroo GP superclinic. Bids closed some 10 months ago and since then there has been no operator announced, no building established and therefore no patients seen or assisted. The question then becomes: when will this clinic open and when will the patients be seen? Will it be before the federal election or is this another promise ready for re-announcing?

In considering the track record of delivery, this is not good. Delay and failure to deliver outcomes is the hallmark of this government, unless you judge success by the erection of signs. In that category there has been great success—the big signs claiming spending are all up. The priority of this Labor government is clear: never mind the construction, focus on the signage. As a case in point, when I was at a school in third term last year I saw on the reception counter a framed certificate celebrating the government’s spending at the school—however, not even a sod had been turned; but the branding was already there, positioned prominently. Again, it is clear that the priority is the signage, the self-promotion; it is not about delivering.

I noted before that, when combined, these bills allow another $2 billion to be borrowed—that is, $2 billion to be put on the national credit card, racking up interest, only to be paid back down the track when the coalition has to address the debt and deficit and pay it off. The question is: does this represent responsible spending? Speaking of spending, what then are the consequences of reckless spending? What we face now is pressure on interest rates due to the spending that has taken place. Much of the money that has been pumped into the economy has contributed towards inflation by driving up prices.

Already what is being faced is that the government provided up to $21,000 for first home buyers when interest rates were at the lowest levels as the RBA cut rates to stop the economy going into recession. Three rises in rapid succession have increased the pressure on these first home buyers, and if the predictions of three more rises before the end of the year take place then I really fear for these people. Fortunately, the RBA did not raise interest rates on Tuesday; but this is a big warning, not for the RBA but for the government. They need to reduce their spending and try to help stop the pressure on new home buyers. Mortgage defaults were okay in 2009; however, that was not everywhere, as the member for Lowe said recently in his contribution. Extreme care needs to be taken in 2010 to reduce the increase in mortgage defaults that may be expected with the projected three interest rate rises.

Further out in our considerations, we should also look at the outcomes of excessive government spending, being that if you borrow money, you do actually have to pay interest. It is also the case that when you pay your interest bill that reduces the amount of money you can spend on other items, or programs in this case. Unless government spending again accelerates, we can expect that in 2013-14, some $9 billion in interest payments would be required. That is $9 billion spent on servicing debt and not on the delivery of essential programs. I wonder what more could have been achieved if the Rudd government had adopted our more modest stimulus package. Is it any wonder that Appropriation Bill (No. 3) sees the clawing back of money that has been set aside for replacement of assets and returns that money to consolidated revenue? Done under the guise of Operation Sunlight and billed as enhanced budget transparency, this looks more like a desperate pursuit of money to make up for the reckless and record spending undertaken by the Rudd government.

As the government risks the ability to replace assets in the future through this measure the search for cash reminds me of those beachcombers with their metal detectors heading out to the beach in the evening or the early morning searching for coins or other valuables that may have dropped out of beach bags or pockets of the last beachgoers. Perhaps the government could contract these beachcombers to help find some cash!

What we know for sure is that the books, the financial sheets of this nation, will not be in the black for years. The government is still taking us further into the red, true to the great Labor tradition of debt and deficit. What we should be concerned about is the tenacity the government shows in uncovering opportunities to spend more. I wonder how long it will be before new ways are found to spend money from our future or to find ways to fleece the people of more money to help pay for that part of the government’s spending that is not borrowed. It is worth reminding this chamber that when Labor was last in government, just after we were assured the budget was balanced and no debt existed, we won the election and found that there was an immediate $10 billion deficit, and $96 billion of debt. I recall that it took some 10 years to repay the money for that debt. This is a point worth noting: it was 10 years of interest payments sucking opportunity out of the Howard government’s policy options.

When we are returned to government in the future it will take time to pay back the debt and return the federal budget to surplus. It will take time but it will happen. That, of course, is the other great tradition of Australian politics: the coalition is the side of surpluses and the side that pays off Labor debt. I only hope that it will not be too much longer before we can begin.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the aspects of these appropriation bills that relate to my portfolio responsibilities. Indeed, the majority of the funds allocated in these bills are for the government’s nation-building activities. In particular, our East Kimberley development package makes up the biggest tranche of funding—almost $115 million. My colleague the member for Brand, the Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, will no doubt speak on that a little bit later in the debate.

The bill also allocates funding for some smaller but especially important features of the government’s Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. In particular this bill sets aside $12½ million towards our $25 million local government reform fund. There are also funds set aside for the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program.

Over the past two years the Rudd government and local governments have embarked on a substantially new partnership. Indeed, our support for local government is unprecedented. Overall, more than $1 billion is going directly to councils under the RLCIP. We know the effects of this funding, combined with the Rudd government’s broader stimulus measures: we have kept local economies right across the country ticking over during the global economic recession. We have kept Australians working, supporting jobs today while building the infrastructure of tomorrow. Councils, their residents and ratepayers have been the overwhelming beneficiaries here. It is why we have national unemployment at 5½ per cent. It is an extraordinary achievement and speaks to the resilience and spectacular success of the government’s stimulus package.

I have to say that one of the great privileges of my role as parliamentary secretary over the last seven months or so has been the many visits I have made to communities to see the community infrastructure projects across the country in various stages of work or completion. As members know, there is a lot to see among the more than 3,300 community infrastructure projects spread across the country’s 565 local government entities. There are a lot of stories but I will share just one of those stories with this chamber—one story in 3,000 or so.

On a very nice Saturday in October last year I had the pleasure of going up to the Berowra Community Centre on Sydney’s northern outskirts. The centre is in a lovely bushland setting just off the Pacific Highway: a national road, I might add, where we are spending more than $2 billion over the next six years—an extraordinary investment. But there I was in Berowra, that particular Saturday morning in October last year to open a much smaller project, but a very important one. This was the new extension to the centre’s library and various other improvements.

The patrons of the community centre were just thrilled with the new foyer, the new layout, the carpet and the new system to display all the lovely community artworks. It was a very enjoyable morning. The member for Berowra was there to take part in the celebrations but, strangely enough, when it came time for the official photos he became unusually shy. Those of us in northern Sydney know that it is very unlike the member for Berowra to miss out on a photo opportunity. When I urged him to join us he begged off and said, ‘I know how these things can be misused.’ But, interestingly, my good friend Nick Berman, the Mayor of Hornsby, was not so bashful. He was happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with me under the Nation Building Program stimulus sign. He was holding his gorgeous young baby daughter, Kate. It was a lovely morning for everyone.

I want to make a point. I know that the member for Berowra may have been a little camera-shy that day but he knows there is much to praise in this project, most importantly the fact that 23 local tradesmen and suppliers were employed during the construction phase and that a further 15 were employed in the Berowra Community Centre renovations. Again, to come to the impact on employment, it means that unemployment in this particular part of Sydney is around 4.2 to 4.3 per cent, an extraordinary achievement. The member for Berowra with other members of the coalition may decry our stimulus projects in this place but, when it comes to actions in his own electorate and in the electorates of others, I think perhaps the member for Berowra is a secret admirer of the Rudd government’s stimulus.

Valentine’s Day is coming up; it is just around the corner. It is a time of year when secret admirers are known to put pen to paper, so I am going to make a plea to all the secret admirers of our stimulus package on the other side to put pen to paper. I think this is the big chance. Get your pens out, because I know that Minister Albanese, my esteemed colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, Gary Gray, and I are going to check our in-trays over the next couple of weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day to see just how many are true to themselves. No letterhead will be necessary. I say to the members opposite: if you want to send me or Albo or Gary a stimulus Valentine, then go right ahead.

We know that the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program projects have been extremely important. It is a pity that not all members in this place can bring themselves to appreciate their critical importance. Last week I travelled to Western Australia and renewed my acquaintance with one conservative politician who has no qualms about praising our Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. I was in Perth to meet with the chairs and deputies of the Regional Development Australia network that we put together, with the Parliamentary Leader of the Nationals WA, Brendon Grylls. In contrast to his shy counterparts in this chamber, Mr Grylls appreciates the federal government’s enormous contribution to infrastructure and in particular to regional development—one fair dinkum conservative politician who will say publicly just how vital our stimulus has been, and I had to go to Western Australia to find him.

In fairness, I suppose there is not a very conducive climate in the opposition at the moment for free expression on these issues. After all, the opposition leader has been saying that he wants to slash our stimulus plan. This is the same stimulus plan that has kept the country working and has supported Australian jobs, small businesses and working families right across the country. It includes more than 28,000 nation-building infrastructure projects that are now under way, setting us up for future growth with major investments in rail, roads, ports, broadband, clean energy and, let us not forget, the largest school modernisation project in Australian history. But who knows what and where the opposition leader will cut if he gets his chance? Will it be new classrooms in Eastwood and Gladesville? Will it be the $3.25 million Hilton Community Precinct development in the City of Fremantle? That is going to transform a number of outdated buildings, provide a brand-new, first-class community hub and help otherwise disengaged young people in that area, many of them young Indigenous children.

I had the pleasure of visiting the future site of this much needed community infrastructure in Hilton last year. I was there with my colleague Melissa Parke. Is this project in jeopardy? Will the opposition leader cut the more than $16 million set for the Townsville CBD redevelopment project in the electorate of Herbert? That is going to recapture Flinders Street’s historic role as the high street of Townsville. Will the opposition leader take away the $4 million public library redevelopment project from the community of Campbelltown in Adelaide? Large projects or small projects? I think it is reasonable to say that there is climate of fear in the opposition. I am going to look with interest to see how many Liberal and National Party members are going to nominate particular infrastructure projects to be curtailed.

Local government, too, has much to fear from the opposition leader. Many of these projects that we are now funding have lain dormant on council books for some time, waiting for the partnership money from the Commonwealth that will allow them to be brought to fruition. The opposition leader needs to come clean on his plans on where he will cut back on stimulus and tell the Australian public what he will cut. Interestingly, we have had the shadow finance minister out there already musing aloud: perhaps cuts to schools, perhaps cuts to the Public Service. We await further pronouncements from the shadow finance minister.

With the investment that we have made—the money we have put into local government—comes the accompanying responsibility for councils to be accountable for the funding they receive from the federal government. Here there is need for reform, and we see the money for that in this appropriation legislation. The Local Government Reform Fund aims to improve the capability of local government to manage assets and financial planning processes as well as increase collaboration between councils to deliver services for their ratepayers. The fund will support proposals which build local government capacity. The sorts of projects we will be supporting are collaborative projects between groups of local governments—for example, to provide shared service delivery, workforce planning or joint purchasing.

Some councils have been doing this for many years, and they are the champions in this area. In Perth, again, the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council comprises councils from the cities of Melville, Rockingham and Cockburn and the towns of Kwinana and East Fremantle. These councils banded together some time ago to work on waste management. They voluntarily coordinated their waste recycling and resource recovery and are as a result delivering better services at a better price to their communities. The Local Government Reform Fund is designed to help these kinds of initiatives. It is complemented by the $8 million for the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government. This newly established centre, based at the University of Technology in Sydney, is working with local governments to promote best practice and to encourage innovation and professionalism within the sector. This federal support is an opportunity for local governments to ensure that they can keep acting in the best interests of their ratepayers, and it is an opportunity that I urge councils not to pass up.

As part of these bills we are also appropriating $18.3 million in direct payments to local government under the Roads to Recovery program. Councils can use the funding they receive from the program to make urgent repairs and to upgrade their local road networks. The funding is untied and can go towards the local priorities identified by local communities. Overall, the Rudd government has committed $1.7 billion to Australia’s councils and shires over the next five years under Roads to Recovery. It is record funding, and it will deliver more than 20,000 small-scale road projects in every part of the country across the next five years. There is also another $10 million in these bills, as I said, for our Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. As has been noted in previous debates, these additional appropriations are fully offset by savings against the original appropriations.

We are a fiscally responsible government, in both word and deed. The Rudd Labor government has been a good friend to local government. In my many engagements with mayors, deputies and council members across the country, this new partnership—this new level of collaboration—is indeed appreciated. I commend these bills to the House.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Deregulation, Competition Policy and Sustainable Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and related bills have been characterised by a number of speakers before me, so I will not go over the details. I am always curious when I hear about Operation Sunlight being an effort by the Rudd Labor government to suck up cash out of departments which are squirreling it away. That seems to be what we are doing now to try and fund the extravagant expenditure of the Rudd Labor government that is part of these bills. Then there is a further allocation for a number of programs that others have spoken about. I want to touch on a couple of those programs.

There is a department that features prominently in these two bills, and that is Minister Garrett’s department. The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is mentioned in these bills. I wonder why there seems to be so little interest from Minister Garrett in making sure that the programs that his department is operating are not bungled and are properly managed and I wonder how much effort has gone into that aspect of the administration of the department. I particularly refer to one that I have spoken about previously, the very troubled Green Loans Program. I recounted late last year that, despite a lot of flamboyance, prominence and big promises about what the Green Loans Program would do, our inquiries through the estimates process and through parliamentary questions on notice revealed that, despite big talk dating back to October 2007 about just what this program would do, as of 18 August last year not a single green loan had been granted. This came as a shock to me.

What I must say is that those seeking green loans had already been shocked long before I was. They had gone through in good faith the process that had been outlined for obtaining green loans, after many false starts about its kick-off date and the fumbles and the fake promises that have been characteristic of this program, to find that all is not as it had been made sound to be. In the lead-up to the last election, there was talk of 200,000 homes being able to get concessional loans subsidised up to the value of $10,000—the value of the loan—with interest payments subsidised by Rudd Labor. It then drifted and started to look a little bit different.

By May 2008, Minister Garrett was talking about green loans for Aussies and how all this was about energy efficiency and was all provided for in the budget and that it was all good to go. A press release entitled ‘Green loans for Aussie homes’ of 13 May said that green loans were expected to be available by early 2009. This is the start of the date slippage that has surrounded this program. A few weeks later, the Prime Minister said in a statement:

That is why we are: helping Australian families take practical action to improve energy efficiency and save money in their homes and rebates, low-interest loans, energy-savings standards and better information.

That claim was made on 5 June by the Prime Minister. Anyone who heard would have believed that that was available there and then. It was not. There was still plenty to be done before that particular program would get off the ground.

As I said, even though statements were made on 5 June 2008 by Prime Minister Rudd that his government had these facilities available, questions on notice to the House revealed that statements by the Prime Minister about what was being done and what was available contrasted with the facts secured through the parliamentary process on 18 August 2009, over a year later, that not a single green loan had been made available. So we thought that we would dig a bit deeper.

We have had regular contact with home assessors. Home assessors are the very committed individuals and small businesspeople who go around visiting homes to identify sustainability improvement opportunities. That is the front end of this process. They get accredited, liaise with Minister Garrett’s department to identify homes to assess, they carry out the assessment and then some time later a report goes to the home from Minister Garrett’s department to advise about things that can be done to improve the sustainability of that home and as the key input to accessing a green loan.

I have had former members of the ACT legislature, who are not necessarily fellow travellers of mine in a political sense, outraged that they have been waiting month after month after month for that report to come back. They have been waiting month after month for the key piece of evidence that a person needs to have to access what until 18 August 2009 was not green loans but the idea of a green loan. They need this home sustainability report to go to their bank to seek an opportunity to get this very elusive green loan.

I was advised that, despite repeated contacts with the department, a former elected representative, very committed to sustainability, could not even get that input document. He could not even get what was promised and is supposed to be routinely available just a few short weeks after the assessment. Months and months later, phone call after phone call later, Minister Garrett’s department continued to fail to make the material available. I contacted that person and said: ‘Look, I understand your frustration; we’re getting this story everywhere we go. But there is one upside: at least you got an assessment.’ He said, ‘What’s the problem?’ and I went through the problem with actually getting an assessment.

Right across Australia there are people who are qualified to do these assessments. In good faith they undertake the training. They invest money, they pay the fees to get registered and they undertake the courses that are required to secure the accreditation to be someone who can carry out that work. There are community organisations right across Australia helping with that process. I am grateful to my parliamentary colleague the member for Gippsland, Mr Darren Chester—and I will not mention the particular community organisation because they have asked me not to, but they are involved in training people for this green loans program. They point out that it is not cheap, but a qualified, properly trained, home assessment person is a condition, a fundamental starting point, to get a green loan. They are an organisation committed to sustainability and they thought they would get involved. They have taken on students to secure a certificate of achievement and then to be registered with an organisation that verifies the credentials of the assessor. They need a police check, a registration fee of 650 bucks, public liability indemnity insurance—another 750 bucks—the course itself, which costs $750-odd, and all that is involved with getting their accreditation. That is quite an outlay.

The organisation has now been told that there is a moratorium on having these appropriately trained and prepared people who have invested their money in becoming assessors. There is now a moratorium that says, ‘No, we’re not accepting any more assessors.’ This dictum from the minister’s department fell out of the sky, with all those involved in trying to implement this bungled program left holding the baby, incurring the expense and not being given the opportunity to do what they entered into in good faith on the strength of what the government asked them to do.

I feel very sorry for ABSA, the Association of Building Sustainability Assessors. They are the organisation charged with verification and certification of these home assessors. ABSA do that work on behalf of the Rudd Labor government and Minister Garrett. They are now in the firing line because, even though it is not their call to end registration of home assessors—that has been decreed from the department—they are at the pointy end having to face the music of people who have invested thousands of dollars to participate in this program, based on the false promises that that opportunity was available, even though they know, as everyone does, how bungled and troubled this whole program has been from day one.

To their credit, ABSA are allowing people to withdraw their applications if caught in this bind, a bind not of ABSA’s making. Alison Carmichael has been at pains to explain that they are caught in that squeeze but they are at least happy to work with people, where they can, to mitigate some of the expense, inconvenience and hardship of the bungled handling of this program. They are a not-for-profit organisation and they should not be stuck in the line of fire by Minister Garrett.

Minister Garrett needs to recognise that that is a problem in the program: the accreditation and the way in which people are appropriately qualified to carry out home sustainability assessments. There are people following in good faith his encouragement and his department’s encouragement to go down that pathway who are being completely done over by Minister Garrett and his department in the way they are mishandling and bungling this program. So I feel sorry for Ms Carmichael. I recognise that she has had a difficult job dealing with the surge of interest in the program and the need for proper accreditation of appropriately qualified people, but now she is at the pointy end, when Minister Garrett and his department decide to turn the tap off and say ‘no more assessors’.

That is just the assessors. But, if you do happen to get certified and you happen to be in a position to carry out those assessments, what you need to do then is contact Prime Minister Rudd’s environment minister’s department—Minister Garrett’s department—and get on to their call centre to be allocated a job number. So, if you want to be paid, you need to get a job number first. Today 30 people are being laid off in an eastern Melbourne business set up to administer and implement this scheme. Thirty people are losing their jobs and that small business is facing going under because of the bungling of this scheme. Why? Because of this requirement to get a job allocation.

Let us do some very basic maths. Thirty assessors may be able to do four or five assessments a day. Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, you are quickly doing the maths there, but it is somewhere between 120 and 150 assessments a day. What if I said to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that to get a job number—remember, that one number that lets a single assessment take place, bearing in mind that this small business is geared up to do 120 to 150 a day—you would have to have someone sit on the phone for nearly two hours to get through to the call centre and talk to someone to get this elusive job number? You might think a two-hour wait to get job numbers for 120 to 150 jobs is just an inconvenience and is not so bad. Maybe, but what if I told you that you were rationed to five numbers per call? How many people do you need camped on phones all day, waiting up to two hours to get someone to talk to you, to get a maximum of five job numbers if you have a business that is looking to do 120 to 150 assessments a day? There is no business case model in the world that could make that work. But that is the bureaucratic bungling, misadventure and mismanagement that Minister Garrett is sitting over.

So what has happened? Thirty people are losing their jobs today in eastern Melbourne at ALPHAgreen. My thoughts are very much with all of them and their families as, in this difficult economic climate, they contemplate how they may find employment opportunities. Do you know what the real answer is? Fix the system. Fix the system, Minister Garrett. Why should he fix the system? Because he already has. Do you know what Fieldforce, the organisation based on a similar model, get to do? They get allocated a batch of job numbers: ‘Here is a batch, guys. Knock yourselves out. Fill in the details. Send them in by spreadsheets. We’ll do it that way so that you don’t have to spend all your time and employ an army of people camped on the phone, waiting to get a maximum of five job numbers after a two-hour wait, so you can go and do your home assessments.’ Do you know what ALPHAgreen and Mike and his team wanted to do? Just the same thing: to contact the department and outline the details. Do you think they got any help? No. ‘I told you: you can’t have the system that Fieldforce has.’ Why? There is no explanation: ‘You can’t have it.’ Thirty people today are out of work and a small business is going down because of ongoing mismanagement of this system.

I call on the Rudd Labor government and I call on Minister Garrett to get his funky moves happening and to get his butt-cheeks over to his department and get this fixed. This has been a bungled program from day one. There has been issue after issue emerging. It is costing jobs. It is costing people their small businesses. He needs to get on with tackling these things. It is not because he does not know about them. People have gone out of their way to try and make him aware of these problems, because we are all committed to improving the sustainability of our nation. We would all like to see these opportunities embraced for homes. Everyone is keen to get involved, but the only obstacle is Minister Garrett and the mismanagement and bungling of this program. He should talk to Mike Stratell at ALPHAgreen. He should get on the phone today and say: ‘Mike, I am sorry I have caused you so much distress and I am sorry those 30 people have been laid off today. We will fix this.’ He could honestly say there are a lot of things to fix with this program: ‘We will fix this one because it’s costing jobs, it’s costing us small business and it’s further damaging the credibility of this program.’

I will move onto another sustainability program in the time that is available to me. Some years ago I pursued the vision of the southern solar city in the wonderful metropolis in Melbourne called Frankston. My heart skips a beat as I think of my home city. The Howard government had the Solar Cities program, and I had heard a lot of talk about having these solar cities in places where there is stacks of sun. We have stacks of love and many nice days in Melbourne but there is not as much sun as there is in some other cities. My argument was that we should have a southern solar city to prove that the photovoltaic technology and solar opportunities were effective and should be embraced even in the more temperate climates, with the more temperate citizens of Frankston city. We did not quite get the funding there, but we will persist. We will persist in a vision that says Frankston should be the southern solar city. It should embrace home sustainability opportunities like we have described that should be available under the bungled Rudd government program, but because of mismanagement it is harder than it should be. We can look at solar opportunities for electricity generation across a range of community uses. We can educate people about how they can make simple choices that improve their energy efficiency and the sustainability of their lifestyle, all of which combine to create practical emissions reductions.

That vision is alive. But do you know what I am faced with? I am faced with having to pursue this vision under the Rudd government’s so-called smart grid. Anyone who knows anything about smart grids will know they are wonderful technologies that are very important to the electricity sector to try to manage and balance fluctuations in energy supply and availability and to take account of renewable systems that may come in and out; for example, to let home appliances know that if you are a fridge and it is the middle of the night and nobody is likely to open the door for six hours, you probably do not need to fire up if you are one degree Celsius over what the normal fridge temperature would be. It is about using smart technology to link up these elements in the electricity generation, use and supply system.

It is an important vision. It is a funky term, too. It is so funky the Rudd Labor government have decided to pick up the term but not the concept. They have a smart grid program. There is $100 million to buy one community—one—a smart grid, so they say. I think 31 out of 35 energy companies said they had no ambition for smart grids like that just yet. They use it to diagnose faults in their systems and for workarounds when there is a fault. They use it to manage their own network and their supply obligations. The Rudd government, in true form, has the post-it note of smart grids without the contents sitting behind it.

But there is a bag of money there. I am supporting my community to get that bag of money to implement our southern solar city vision, mindful of the fact that it is a completely dishonest distortion of what smart grids are about in the way in which the Rudd government is implementing the program. We are bringing together all of those concepts of home sustainability assessments, weatherisation, smarter use of technologies, replacing old and inefficient appliances and looking at renewable energy and photovoltaic generation. There are all of these good things, none of which are dependent upon or are an essential component of a smart grid. But that is the brand of the program. Isn’t it funny how something as important as the southern solar city and the concept of more sustainable urban environments gets pursued through a complete misuse of a funky term that the Rudd government will now use to say that they are so cool they are into smart grids, whereas they have a program that does not even require a smart grid to access the money.

This is my dilemma: I will support that project because it carries forward a vision I articulated some years ago for the southern solar city based on Frankston city. But it is under a smart grids program where there is nothing smart about the smart grids program, because it does not actually talk about smart grids. That is just what we are faced with, with the Rudd Labor government: we will get the spin of the smart grid without actually having a smart grid. Isn’t that cunning? Isn’t that brilliant? ‘We are all about smart grids!’ ‘Have you got one?’ ‘No, no—we’ve got a program that’s called smart grids, and all the stuff you do on it is completely unrelated to a smart grid but we’re calling it a smart grid.’ Isn’t that the greatest thing? How cunning. Isn’t that sweet? Isn’t that so quintessentially Rudd Labor government? Use the brand and the funky terminology, look so future orientated that they will talk about stuff in 2050 and not worry about the next year. Use a brand that has nothing to do with, and requires nothing that is related to, a smart grid. Isn’t that just cunning? Who could have thought it? What cunning soul would have thought of that?

In the last few seconds that are available to me, I will talk about community infrastructure projects.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

In terms of the local and regional community infrastructure projects, how can the Rudd Labor government go past building a sea wall at the Frankston Safe Boat Harbour, a commitment that I made for the previous Howard government? I urge a close examination of that project.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know this place is usually a very crowded place but I would like to acknowledge that my partner, Zoe, and my daughter have been able to fit in through the madding crowds to listen to my speech today and I am very grateful for that.

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

They are very welcome.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 seek to appropriate funding for government decisions included in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and decisions taken since the release of that outlook. There are three particular areas that I would like to concentrate on. One area is health and the $45.2 million that has gone to the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic response from the government, and I will talk more generally about the Rudd government’s response to many of the issues that are plaguing us in terms of health. I would also like to concentrate on the $40 million of additional funding for the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme and talk a little bit about the Rudd government’s approach to keeping Australians in jobs and the measures that we have taken to that end. I would also like to concentrate on the $165 million that has been set aside for the establishment for the Local Government Reform Fund and important local government issues, particularly in my electorate, and the effects that they have on the community.

The government is proposing to provide the Department of Health and Ageing with $45.2 million in response to the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic. The funding seeks to manage this pandemic and to enhance preparedness for any future pandemics by supporting such activities as the storage, compounding and distribution of antivirals and personal protective equipment; the production, processing and distribution of immunisation consent forms; and the conduct of an immunisation awareness campaign. As 15 January there have been 37,569 confirmed cases of the pandemic and 191 deaths reported in Australia.

While it is currently reassuring to know that the influenza-like illness presentation rates in Australia are generally low at the moment and consistent with levels usually seen at this time of year, we must remember that the pandemic is still affecting other parts of the world. As at 10 January 2010, the World Health Organisation regional offices reported at least 13,554 deaths associated with the pandemic worldwide. Pandemic influenza transmission continues in many parts of the world, though it is declining and it has passed its peak except in some focal areas. The most intense areas of the pandemic influenza transmission are currently in parts of North Africa, South Asia and east and south-eastern Europe. In the Southern Hemisphere sporadic cases of the pandemic influenza continue to be reported without evidence of sustained community transmission.

It is important that we have taken these steps as a government in preparing Australia for this. It is also an important warning for people to go out and avail themselves of the government’s vaccination programs. In a few months we will be coming back into the start of the flu season. We do not know whether this virus, when it comes around a second time, will be more deadly in its effect. The best way we can respond to this is by making sure that our families are vaccinated. This is something that protects the community as a whole from this particular influenza virus. It is something the Rudd government moved quickly to address, and it is a very important initiative.

However, when we look at the achievements the Rudd government has made in health generally, it is worth highlighting the difference between what we are doing as a government and what occurred previously under the Howard government. I think it is particularly important when we look at who is now the opposition leader, what his former role was and what his record was as health minister. When Mr Abbott was the Minister for Health and Ageing of this country he presided over a regime where he was responsible for ripping $1 billion out of our health system.

While we hear frequently from the opposition leader about the state of our hospitals, for four years he was the minister responsible for the national government’s policy and the national government’s response in relation to what would happen with health in this country. His response was, ‘Let’s rip $1 billion out of our health system,’ because philosophically those on the other side do not believe in our public health system. They do not believe in Medicare; they never have. So it is entirely consistent with the approach that they have taken over many, many years to try and run down the Commonwealth’s commitment to health.

But they did worse than that as well. They put a cap on GP places. They put a cap of 600 on GP places Australia wide. What this meant was that there were fewer doctors being trained, coming out and being available for all of our communities right around Australia. In my electorate of Dobell—and the member for Mayo’s electorate probably suffered the same problem—we had only one doctor for every 2,000 residents. We were having difficulty attracting doctors and keeping doctors because there simply were not enough being trained, because in 2004 the former government decided to put a cap on the number of doctors being trained, the number of GP places. One of the very important things that this government has done is to lift that cap. We have lifted it so that there are many, many more doctors being trained. Already in my electorate we have gone from having one in 2,000 to one in 1,500. While that is still not ideal, it is a far better situation than what we had before.

In terms of health generally, the Rudd government, rather than rip out $1 billion, will invest $64 billion in the hospital and health system across the country over the next five years. That is a 50 per cent increase on the previous agreement made by the Liberal Party. This is not rhetoric. This is not spin. This is real change. This is a 50 per cent increase. It is $64 billion which is affecting people’s lives every day in terms of the way in which we deliver health care across the country.

We have invested $600 million in our elective surgery program. In stage 1 we committed to a target of 25,000 extra elective surgeries. In 2008 there were more than 41,000 additional procedures delivered around the country. These are people who had been waiting on waiting lists for hip replacements and the like. We were able to get 41,000 additional procedures done. These are real changes that are affecting people’s lives, making our health system better than it was before. These are changes that mean that we have a better health system two years into the Rudd government than we had before we were elected in 2007.

We have invested $750 million to take pressure off emergency departments, and this is very important, particularly for electorates like my own. Wyong Hospital has the fifth busiest emergency department in New South Wales, and the money that is being spent on resources for our emergency departments is absolutely critical in making sure that people are seen in a more timely manner when they turn up at our emergency departments.

In terms of health infrastructure, we are investing $3.2 billion in 36 major projects across our hospital and medical research institutes, including $1.2 billion for world-class cancer centres. This is not spin. This is not rhetoric. This is not promising to do something and sitting on our hands. These are real changes and real dollars that are going out there for vitally needed health infrastructure, to make sure that our hospitals continue to provide the world-class services that they do, to make sure that as many people as possible are seen and to take the pressure off our health systems, which of course continue to struggle under an ageing population.

The Rudd government has committed $275 million to help construct 34 GP superclinics across the country. Now, $275 million is a lot of money, but because of the way in which this scheme operates it is actually much more money that is being spent, because we are encouraging the private sector to partner in these particular arrangements.

I will talk about the GP superclinic that is in my electorate on the northern part of the Central Coast. We are providing a little over $2 million for the GP superclinic. The successful tenderer who is building this GP superclinic is putting in $16 million. That is $16 million that they would not have actually put in except for this program, so the good citizens of Dobell are getting the advantage of an over $18 million investment in a GP superclinic through the significant but smaller investment that has been put in by this government. That is a very appropriate way to spend health money, because we are spending public money but encouraging the private sector to partner with us so that much more money is spent and there are much greater outcomes.

A temporary GP superclinic is already up and running in my electorate. There are two doctors, a physiotherapist and a dietician. It has an ear clinic as well. While they are at their temporary location, that is just the start of what they will have. They have already purchased the land for the final location, which is Warnervale, a very fast-growing suburb of my electorate. At Warnervale there will be this $18 million spent on a GP superclinic which will provide a vast array of services for the growing population of the northern part of the Central Coast. The successful tenderer have been so impressed with the model of a GP superclinic that, on their own initiative outside of this, they have decided that they will build a second GP superclinic without federal money. They are going to spend a further $14 million. So for our investment of a little over $2 million we are now getting $30 million being spent. The successful tenderer, who already own a doctors surgery on the Central Coast, will go from employing just over 20 doctors to employing just over 60 doctors, so just in terms of GPs there will be a gain of over 40 doctors on the Central Coast, let alone the fact that GP superclinics are about providing all the other health professionals to meet the need for physiotherapy, hearing and psychology services and all those sorts of important allied health services that are a part of this particular model. So we are going from a situation where under the Howard years we had one doctor for every 2,000 residents to a situation of one for every 1,500 residents because we have started to increase the number of places for GPs being trained. We have been directly intervening, in terms of the investment that this government has been making, to make sure that more doctors and more allied health professionals are providing services on the Central Coast.

This government is investing $1.1 billion in training more doctors, nurses and other health professionals. This is the single biggest investment in the health workforce ever made by the Australian government. This is not spin. This is not talking about something that we might do in the future. This is actually acting now, spending $1.1 billion to try to get more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals trained and out there so that they can provide the sorts of services that we need to have provided.

Turning to dental health, the Rudd government has committed a total of $650 million for two dental programs. The Teen Dental Plan, which was committed to last year, provides a $150 annual payment to eligible families. To the end of December 258,203 teenagers had received a dental check-up under this program, with 7,598 dentists, or 70 per cent of dentists, providing this service. Unfortunately, due to the opposition’s position, the reintroduction of the Commonwealth dental program, which they axed straight after coming into government in 1996, has been blocked in the Senate. At the last election we promised its reintroduction and we have a mandate to bring it back in so that those people who have difficulty in affording dental care will get access to dental care under that program. That is a disgrace and the opposition need to look at the people who are being affected by this and make sure that they get out of the way, letting our government get on with caring for people’s health generally and their dental health in particular.

These appropriation bills also go to GEERS. One of the great differences between this side of the House and the other side of the House is our approach to jobs in Australia. On this side of the House we have been responsible for putting in place stimulus packages that are about creating jobs out in every community, and we have seen the effect of the stimulus package on our unemployment rates compared to those overseas. What these stimulus packages have done is ensure that there are jobs out there in local communities. The best of these schemes is clearly the investment in our schools through the education revolution and the building of much-needed capital works programs in all of our primary schools throughout the nation.

In my electorate, where extensive building is going on in all of the primary schools, the number of locals who have been employed because of the way this scheme has been set up is absolutely outstanding. I congratulate Bovis Lend Lease, the overarching consultants, for the approach that they have taken, particularly in a high-unemployment area like the Central Coast, where jobs have always been at a premium. We are seeing apprentices who have been laid off for two or three years and who are midway through their apprenticeships being taken back on and completing their apprenticeships on these job sites. Not only does that provide the employment and the stimulus for the economy that has seen us as one of the few economies to grow and to create rather than lose jobs during the global financial crisis, but importantly it has also built this vital social infrastructure at all of these primary schools. That has been a great thing.

In the short time that I have remaining I would like to highlight the appropriations in relation to the government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. I have two councils in my electorate, Gosford council and Wyong council, and there has been considerable money spent through this program in relation to particular projects that have affected their local communities. The Gosford council has been able to build new play equipment, soft-fall areas, shade structures and picnic facilities at a couple of playgrounds. It has turned what were destitute playgrounds into busy hives of community interaction, with families going there all the time because of those resources. The same has happened at Canton Beach on Tuggerah Lakes, where Wyong council has constructed an all-access playground with additional picnic tables and barbecue facilities. Again, that is being put to great use. Wyong council has been able to build six new netball courts at its busy Baker Park complex. This not only provides much needed sporting areas for those people who play netball in my electorate but also will allow the Wyong council to host state championships because they now have the number and standard of courts required.

While all of these projects, which are worthwhile projects in their own right, have been taking place, they have been taking place with local people being employed. So we have had the dual effect of providing much needed local community infrastructure and, importantly, of creating local jobs. In an area such as mine, which traditionally has unemployment at two or three per cent higher than the national average and where employment is in areas that are most vulnerable to economic downturns, these sorts of programs have been absolutely vital. The Rudd government is about providing real money for real areas of major importance to people in terms of health, jobs and local government. These are not issues that you can spin and pretend are going to be addressed. You actually have to really do something. This government has really done things, and it stands in stark contrast to the record of the previous government. I commend these bills to the House.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 following the member for Dobell, whose contribution is one I always follow with great interest. We will, I think, be working closer after a recent phone call I had about a committee that we are on, so in the next little while we will enjoy each other’s company even more than we have in the past. I look forward to finding out more about the member for Dobell’s past and what he got up to in those days.

These bills are an opportunity to discuss the appropriations of the government more broadly. It has been the tradition in this place that we can talk about the appropriations of the government and the programs and policies that they have been implementing in what is now just over two years, and of course we are now not too far away from the next general election, which will be held some time later this year. In the national parliament Deputy Speaker Georganas will of course know that we have a state election in South Australia in the coming weeks and I think a few people will be surprised at the outcome.

We are talking today about how the Rudd government is travelling after two years, particularly in relation to the management of the economy as it gets to the appropriations of the nation’s taxpayers’ money that we in this place spend. Yesterday we heard a ministerial statement by the Prime Minister telling his story about how he has handled the economy in the past 12 or 18 months since the global financial crisis began in September 2008—it really began, probably, a little bit earlier than that, in late 2007, with the subprime crisis developing in the United States; it did obviously have a flow-on effect throughout the world—it sent shockwaves throughout the world—and governments in different countries responded in different ways. In some ways, they responded in a more collegiate fashion than has probably happened in the past and that obviously has some good aspects to it, but it also raises some questions.

We heard the Prime Minister’s version of how he believes he has managed the economy and the effect he has had on the economy. We saw, I think, a Prime Minister taking a great deal of credit for the economic performance of the country, which is obviously something prime ministers and governments like to do from time to time. But the problem with the speech yesterday is that it stands in contrast to the facts. The Prime Minister claimed yesterday—and the member for Dobell supported this claim in his contribution a short time ago—that the government’s stimulus packages were the reason, and I say ‘the reason’ very clearly, that the economy had performed so well in comparison to the rest of the world. We are in growth, unemployment has remained relatively low—off a low base—and our debt position in comparison with the rest of the world is reasonably good when compared to the United Kingdom and the United States. His claim was that the huge amounts of money spent—$23 billion in handing out $900 cheques to everyone in the country; $17 billion on school halls, which I think has increased by a couple of billion dollars from the initial announcement, but what is a couple of billion between friends these days!—were the reason that unemployment stayed low and growth continued. He claimed that it was because of the decisions of the government that that has been the case. The truth is of course that the stimulus package has had a very minor effect on the economic performance.

The truth is that our economy has performed well because it now relies very much on the performance of the South-East Asian economies—the tiger economies of China, India and the economies throughout the Asian region. Those countries are also performing quite well. China had a slight dip to, I think, 7½ per cent growth for one quarter, but it is now back to its raging 10 per cent growth, which it is expected to have for some time to come yet. It is introducing into its middle class some 200 million people a year—they are figures that we struggle to comprehend—and therefore their desire for our resources has never been stronger.

In Australia we stand on the border of a massive upswing and a massive opportunity for our country, particularly in South Australia—Deputy Speaker Georganas, this will please you particularly—where we have a real opportunity to be part of a golden era as far as our economy goes if we are able to get the expansion of the Olympic Dam and other sites going without any problems. Those economies in India and China are growing so quickly that the desire for resources, uranium in particular, to help spark that growth is such that we have a real opportunity to be part of that story.

So really what we have seen over the last 18 months has been the effect of a structural change in our economy that has occurred over the last 10 years or so. Whereas 10 or 15 years ago we were very reliant on the United States and Europe, that has changed significantly to the point where the downturn in the United States has not affected us to anywhere near the degree that we first thought it would. It certainly affected people in Sydney and Melbourne in the financial services arena. There were quite substantial job losses there, as there was around the world, but more broadly the employment conditions have stayed very strong. They were coming off a very low base, of course—the Howard government left the Rudd government four per cent unemployment; they were extraordinary record lows—but unemployment has moved up slightly. All increases in unemployment are unwelcome because they bring problems arising from the human impact.

We now have an economy which is performing very well on the back of very strong growth conditions in South-East Asia. That is the reason; it is not because of the stimulus package at all. It is very difficult to find anyone who actually supports the Prime Minister’s contention that it is all because of his brilliance in developing a policy where you hand out 900 bucks to everyone and borrow $23 billion to do it.

I have encapsulated the reason that the Australian economy is performing quite well. It is a great story. It has huge potential for South Australia. We will soon overtake the boom in Western Australia and ours will be the growth state of the country. I am sure that Deputy Speaker Georganas will agree with me there. That growth is a great thing because it means increased revenue for the states, which means better services and so forth. I think we have a real opportunity there.

We are in such a great position because of the structural changes made over the last 10 or 15 years. I do pay some credit here to former Prime Minister Paul Keating and former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, as well, of course, as former Prime Minister John Howard. The three of them together showed real economic leadership in the way that they were able to change the structure of the Australian economy—I think Paul Kelly points this out very well in his book—so that we were able to participate better and take better advantage of the opportunities from the growth in China, India and the South-East Asian tigers.

This brings us to a couple of the dangers that are on the horizon for the Australian economy, or issues which could help restrict that growth. The first one is something I made a contribution about today in The Punch, the very well-read website run by News Limited, on an issue which was identified very well by Matthew Stevens in the Weekend Australian: the plans in the Henry tax review for a federal resources rent tax. I know there are members on the other side who understand the potential implications of such a tax on the booming resource sector in Western Australia and on so much potential that we have in South Australia—in particular, in Olympic Dam. We saw in the Weekend Australian a story by Matthew Stevens about BHP quietly sending the message out that, if we do have this federal rent resources tax recommended by the Henry review, we can kiss Olympic Dam goodbye. To South Australians, that is a real concern. It is a real and present danger to our potential to write our own ticket for a very long time. Olympic Dam, members understand, is potentially the biggest hole ever dug by humans. It has something like a trillion dollars worth of resources in it. It will have a life span of something like 60 or 70 years. Environmental studies of it are going on at the moment. BHP are committed to the investment. They have challenges with water and electricity; they are working through those at the moment, with some help from the South Australian government. They would probably have increased help from the South Australian government if a Liberal government had been elected in late March, but we will not get into that today. So there is real potential.

A real danger coming out of the Henry tax review is a new federal tax on the mining industry which will create huge difficulties for potential growth in South Australia. As we know from the briefings from BHP, it will potentially stop the Olympic Dam development. Why would you put a new tax on the resources sector at a federal level? Because you have such a large debt. That is ultimately the big problem that the stimulus package will create: a debt burden on future generations because the spend was too big, too much upfront. We are going to see, unfortunately, the impact of these decisions. As we know, Labor governments spend too much and then tax too much to catch up. That is the real danger. Hopefully, the South Australian government and Premier Mike Rann, although he has other challenges on his plate, can focus on this issue and make very clear to the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the South Australian election that this would be a bad decision and would damage our economy enormously.

The second aspect which is potentially going to have an impact on the growth of the Australian economy and the opportunities for the Australian economy at the moment is the increasing industrial activity in Western Australia and in other parts of the county. In Western Australia, the big unions are back in town. They have been given an adrenalin boost with a massive injection from the Fair Work laws, which began operating in large part on 1 January. They are using those laws to create the industrial havoc which unfortunately damaged our economy so much and so often in the early to mid-1980s, and again early in the 1990s until former Prime Minister Paul Keating realised that we needed to start to change this culture if we were going to take advantage of these great opportunities in the future.

You will have seen stories in the Australian earlier this week about unions forcing a $50,000 pay hike: ‘Woodside dispute threatens to widen’; ‘Business to appeal against a “flawed” Fair Work ruling’; Paddy Crumlin from the Maritime Union saying, ‘Only dinosaurs work harder for more pay’; and ‘Sides dig in despite return to work at Pluto’. Pluto is the project which the Prime Minister was so proud to take credit for last year, and now Woodside are engaged in a very nasty industrial dispute about the quality of hotel rooms for the fly-in fly-out workers. If there was a bigger signal that the unions are back in town—

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

Mr Gray interjecting

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking about the Appropriation Bill, Parliamentary Secretary. The tradition has been that you can talk more broadly on challenges for the economy. I would have thought industrial relations was a challenge for the economy. You are the parliamentary secretary for Western Australia, are you not? Big strikes are up—and this is the big difference here. It is going to create that resource bottleneck, which Glenn Stevens talks about, that you do not want to create in the economy.

We need to have a balanced look at these laws, and I think the Deputy Prime Minister has gone too far with the Fair Work laws. The leader of our party has said very clearly that in some aspects the previous government went too far on workplace relations. Unfortunately, what we have seen is the Deputy Prime Minister paying back significant debts—and we saw some of those debts earlier this week with the donation figures in the papers. She has taken this—

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

Mr Melham interjecting

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection!

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

Mr Melham interjecting

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When our leader was former minister for workplace relations, I think he was part of the government that created two million jobs. We do have a real challenge in Western Australia, in particular, and in other places with the way that these Fair Work laws are operating. What we are seeing is that they are fair for the unions but not all that fair for the Australian economy.

I will touch on some specifics relating to this bill, namely the appropriations of our country and the payments to Fair Work Australia, which is the new Industrial Relations Commission—the new umpire in the system—and how it is interpreting what were always very vague rules in relation to how good faith bargaining would work. The act was written in such a way that it leaves open for interpretation how the good faith bargaining laws will operate.

At the time of the bill, it was very difficult to point explicitly to how these things would work until there were decisions. Now we are seeing decisions. That is the important aspect of the operations of these laws. What we are seeing now is that the good faith bargaining provisions of the Fair Work laws will be the next legislative instrument that the unions will use to get back into every workplace that they possibly can. There was a dispute just yesterday about this. Fair Work Australia lifted the bar on notice requirements. What they have done is made it far easier for unions for walk back into work sites where they are not welcome, create disputes, get themselves back in the picture, increase membership and lift up industrial disputes—which are the bottlenecks that Glenn Stevens identifies are a real risk for Australia’s growth and for interest rates and which will restrict our ability to be part of this golden age of economic opportunity that China and the South East Asian economies are producing.

The Fair Work changes by the government are very much at the heart of the dangers to the Australian economy. Make no mistake: we stand at the edge of a huge opportunity for this country. We are at the beginning of an upswing the likes of which we probably have never seen before if the predicted growth levels for China come true. Our resource sector is doing extraordinarily well, as is our services sector. We have intergenerational challenges and so forth, but we have real opportunity.

These laws will potentially reduce our opportunity to do well out of this. These laws are a clear and present danger for our economy. We have seen that in recent days with the stories in the Australian and in the rulings from Fair Work Australia. They have gone too far. It would be wise of those on the other side who understand the economy better than the Deputy Prime Minister to reel them back in and get back to a fair balance, particularly in relation to industrial disputes.

Two years on and at the beginning of an election campaign, we see an economy that is travelling very well because of the hard work of Australian business and its workers. There are some real dangers because of changes that the government has made. There are some real dangers because of the level of debt that the government has entered into to fund its spending. That is going to create challenges for us into the future which we did not need necessarily to have. There has been misspending; badly focused spending. That has caused some of the great difficulties and challenges that we now face.

Then there is the Henry review of tax, which we have not seen. The government will not let anyone into it. We are waiting with bated breath to see what is in it. We have heard rumours about what may or may not be in it. But those on the other side who have a genuine interest in the mining industry in this country will be very concerned about this potential federal resource rent tax and the implications that it will have. Anyone from the mining industry will tell you that it will stop projects going ahead and stop economy growth and opportunity. It will do so in states like South Australia, which sits at the edge of a golden era of opportunity. If it is recommended I hope that the government sees that it is a bad move. We could know today, but the Treasurer will not let us in on the secret of what is in this review. We wait with bated breath to see what comes out of that.

From our side of politics, this year we will see a very forward-thinking and positive agenda as far as management of the economy goes. I know that our new leader is very focused on the economy and how we can make it better and stronger. We will see some very good plans released in the near future about what the next Liberal government’s approach to managing the economy will be. His record in government was outstanding. He was part of the team that created over two million jobs, real wage increases of 25 per cent and real opportunity for future generations. That is what we need from the government in this country, rather than huge spending, waste and wrong priorities that will put pressure on our budget into the future.

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

I rise to speak in favour of the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and cognate bill Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010. In so doing I will just pick up one point made by the member opposite—that is, potential recommendations by the Henry review in the context of the resources sector. These suggestions are all in the media and simply have the status of speculation. In the context of a resources rent tax, I know a lot about, and have worked in, an industry that works under the only resource rent tax regime that exists in Australia, and there is not one single oil or gas project in our country that has been held back by the petroleum resource rent tax regime. It was a tax system that was created in the early 1980s and worked very effectively to remove a whole range of ad hoc and ad valorem taxes and replace them with an excellent tax, regarded as being one of the best in the world. It is a tax which remained untouched by the Howard government, a tax which remained untouched by Peter Costello. It is a tax which did nothing but quietly hum away, generating substantial revenue for Australian taxpayers, who are the resource owners. The beauty of the resources rent tax structure is that, by its nature, it cannot compromise whether or not a project goes ahead. It is a tax whose simple beauty is that it cannot affect whether or not a project will go forward. Whether or not Henry recommends such a tax for Australia is yet to be seen; whether or not the government accedes to that recommendation is yet to be seen.

This debate is a good debate. It is a pity that the member opposite is so poorly informed, but I am very happy to spend time with him to explain to him that in fact this tax, which has worked so seamlessly and effortlessly for 25 years or more, has generated substantial revenue for governments of all colours and persuasions and has not been amended in its nature at all.

We stand at this point looking at this legislation and knowing full well that we can be optimistic about Australia’s future. We can be optimistic because we have a government which has responded appropriately and in the right way to the global financial crisis, creating the right kind of investment in our community and keeping our economy strong, and supporting employment and the communities that otherwise would have suffered the horrible force and brunt of unemployment that would have come Australia’s way with the global financial crisis, which did travel through the United States and Europe, through Britain and through the countries of most of our trading partners. The sheer intelligence of the government’s response has been clearly missed by those opposite. But it is important for us to point out that we now have communities that are affected by unemployment and that we do need to continue to press the case for the stimulus, and we need to do that both to protect our communities and to protect our economy and its skill base.

One of the worst impacts of the global financial crisis in Australia in 2009 was in fact a winding back of apprentice numbers and the training of people for the resources sector in my state and in other resource rich states. It is important that we do keep our skills performance and training measures up to scratch to ensure we do have enough skilled workers to furnish that growing economy. It is great to see South Australia as a powerhouse of the resources sector, joining Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales in leading the Australian mining sector’s recovery.

In this legislation $14.9 million has been reclassified as part of the payments which are structured under the East Kimberley Development Package, payments which are made to the Shire of Wyndham and East Kimberley, a shire which is essential to the delivery of the East Kimberley Development Package announced jointly by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, on 3 July last year, in Kununurra. The East Kimberley Development Package builds on the work of several governments in Western Australia to create an outstanding agreement with the Mirrawong Gadjurong people both to allow for agricultural and horticultural development and to ensure appropriate compensation to traditional owners and Indigenous people in the Kimberley area.

Importantly, the social investment package, the East Kimberley Development Package, was constructed in close cooperation with the government of Western Australia—with Premier Colin Barnett, Minister Brendon Grylls, health minister Kim Hames and education minister Liz Constable—to ensure a hand-in-glove approach to supporting infrastructure in this region with that newly elected state government.

The $14.9 million that has been reclassified is delivered through the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, demonstrating the great partnership that exists now at all levels of government to ensure that the social disadvantage in the East Kimberley is addressed by substantial investments in infrastructure that match the substantial delivery of programs funded by the state government. The package forms part of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan and was developed in response to the unique economic and social circumstances of the East Kimberley, and it will contribute to the Australian government’s national-building agenda, providing a stimulus to the economy as well as addressing Indigenous disadvantage.

The East Kimberley Development Package specifically supports the region through investing in social and common-use infrastructure. Since being launched, the Australian government has worked with the East Kimberley community and the Western Australian government, the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley and two Indigenous organisations to further develop the planning and design of 29 individual projects. Project plans have been submitted for nearly all projects, based on designs prepared with extensive community consultation.

On 22 January, I had the pleasure of joining the Wyndham East Kimberley shire president, Fred Mills, and the member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Barry Haase, to officially open the Wyndham swimming pool. The opening took place on a Friday evening, as a thunderstorm was gathering and lightning and the wind were gathering around us. Both the member for Kalgoorlie and I had great pleasure in watching that pool be opened, watching the kids of the community play in that pool and noting that it was originally opened in 1966 as part of the post-Olympic push to deliver pools to communities across the country. Now why was that particular 44-year-old facility important? Because the only other swimming facility, down the road, is in the river at Wyndham, which is populated by extremely large crocodiles, a massive current and tidal drift and is simply unsafe for any recreational use by swimmers, divers or the like. The swimming pool is a critically important piece of community infrastructure in Wyndham.

I was interested to learn that even the incredible amounts of rain the Wyndham pool will receive in the wet season—some evenings up to two inches, in the old measure, 50 millimetres in the new measure—will not affect the functioning of the pool. The water in that swimming pool, the whole 25 metre by six lane pool and the two adjacent kids pools, is turned over every three hours.

While the $950,000 that we contributed to that particular project is relatively small, an extremely small component of the nearly $200 million which is the East Kimberley Development Package, it is evidence of the strength and integrity of the package and of the cooperation that exists between the Australian government, the state government of Western Australia and the local government authorities. It is evidence of the strength of working together to deliver community identified needs. The Commonwealth funds were supported by $388,000 from the Western Australian government’s Department of Sport and Recreation and $106,000 of in-kind contributions from the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley. It is evidence of the strength of employing local labour and encouraging Indigenous employment. Of the 60-odd people who worked on the project, 41 were local and 10 were Indigenous. It is evidence of the strength of this project that leaving an enduring piece of community infrastructure for generations to come will be both enjoyed and celebrated and will once again become part of the fabric of Wyndham.

This is just one of many projects currently underway or in the planning stages through the East Kimberley. Construction has commenced on projects such as upgrades to the Wyndham health facilities, with the hospital component complete and the construction of staff housing now beginning. This is important because it will allow us to bring into Wyndham specialists and medical professionals—from Perth, principally—who will be housed in appropriate accommodation in Wyndham and thus be able to carry out their professional skills to the advantage of the local community, knowing full well that they have got great, secure and safe accommodation which will allow them to practise their professional skills to the best of their ability.

We also have improvements to the residential rehabilitation facility near Wyndham. This facility is effectively there to assist local people who are in the process of rehabilitation from the curse of alcohol, the effect of which in the East Kimberley area is truly caustic and truly damaging to the social fabric there. We also have upgrades to the Kununurra airport and the patient transfer facilities at that airport.

The Western Australian government also recently awarded contracts for construction of 23 dwellings in Kununurra and Wyndham, and a tender is currently out for construction of five more dwellings. Community consultations are progressing for the more complex projects of the Kununurra Hospital expansion and the redevelopment of the Kununurra education precinct.

There has been tremendous involvement of the community in designs for the Wyndham Community Jetty, which will be an important community asset. The jetty currently sits on a pontoon on the Wyndham River. It is clearly an important community asset but is also unsafe in any difficult weather conditions—and, given my reference earlier to the nature of that river and its occupants, the crocodiles—getting a good, safe community jetty in place will be an important addition to community amenity in Wyndham.

A key aspect of the East Kimberley development package is the promotion of Indigenous employment opportunities. These opportunities have already begun to be realised as construction is gearing up. I am told that, of the first 12 participants to go through pre-employment apprenticeships and training with Kimberley Group Training, 100 per cent of them are local Indigenous people. Funding for the salaries of and mentoring support for 20 new local apprentices will increase the availability of skilled labour in the region for years to come.

The project planning and design work done to date mean that a series of projects will commence shortly. All projects funded under the package are scheduled to be completed by June 2012. The package is a fantastic example of the strength of all levels of government working together. It is an example of the importance of all levels of government working together in Northern Australia to deliver outstanding outcomes. Over the course of the last few years, observers of governance structures in Northern Australia have often pointed out how weak they are. In many ways, the response of the government of Western Australia to getting it right in the East Kimberley—and the response of the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley to its challenges to get right governance, decision making and project delivery—gives us hope that the delivery of projects in this area will be enhanced by much better governance systems and control.

It is not hard to see that Northern Australia, over the course of the last 30 years—and this is certainly not a partisan observation—has been marred by governments from the south of this country, whether in Perth, Canberra or Brisbane, simply shouting instructions to Northern Australia and not having governance structures in Northern Australia that can be responsive. Government in Australia has tended to work on a south-north basis, whereas governance in Northern Australia is a more local phenomenon that does require investment, capability building and a cooperative approach from the Australian and state and local governments.

With that, I would like to thank my state colleague the Hon. Brendon Grylls MLA and Shire President Fred Mills for their tireless efforts to get the East Kimberley development package off the ground and to deliver results in a short time frame. I also pay my regards to Peter Stubbs, who is the chief executive officer of the Ord expansion project and former chief executive officer of the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, for the work that he has done to prioritise projects, to stand by the tough decisions that that local government authority has had to make, and also to create the right structures to deliver projects on time.

I am often fond of saying that, in regional development and regional Australia, people who have a grumpy sense of self-reliance are so much better at understanding their needs and at looking at politicians from our town of Canberra and making a pretty quick assessment as to which ones are speed humps and which ones are really going to help. I look forward to attending more local launches of projects in the East Kimberley and throughout Northern Australia, and also to catching up with the member for Kalgoorlie when he is up in the Kimberley carrying out the work that he does for his constituents. In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.