Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak to these bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010, in the tradition of the wide-ranging debate that such bills allow. In particular, I want to talk about an extraordinary circumstance in Australia that I do not think a lot of people acknowledge or want to believe, and that is the extraordinary gender pay gap that exists between men and women in Australia. It is an extraordinary circumstance that equal pay was granted as a right by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission 40 years ago. I think if you spoke to the average man or woman in the street, they would say, ‘Of course, men and women should be and probably are being paid the same for equal work.’ In fact, the average industry gender pay gap stands at around 17 per cent today and, with some industries, like finance and insurance, this gap rises up to about 31.9 per cent—nearly 32 per cent—and that is an unacceptable situation. In the different states there is a lot of variation in how this gender pay gap stands. Western Australia, despite their extraordinary boom conditions and the wage potential for many workers, has a gap of some 35.7 per cent between the average income of males and females.

An excellent report called Making it fair was produced last year by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations, and I draw a lot of my data from this report. But, quite clearly, it takes more than a report being tabled in this parliament for this government to act. Despite this government claiming to be the friend of the worker, the friend of the downtrodden, the friend of those who are socially isolated or excluded, we have the extraordinary circumstance of the gender pay gap widening. It is greater today than it was five years ago.

We need to look very carefully, in today’s age of demographic strains and an ageing population, at what this will mean in terms of workforce participation and productivity into the future but also in relation to social equity—to giving all people a fair go in Australia—and I urge this government to consider very seriously why the gender pay gap exists and then to do something very deliberate and active about the problem. There are over 60 recommendations in the Making it fair report. I would hope a substantial proportion of those recommendations would be followed up, although I must confess that there is a lot about manipulating regulations and less about the various industries making some changes based on it not being acceptable in our society to pay differently for the same work.

In describing gender pay gaps a lot of people immediately assume that, because women tend to go into caring roles, roles where there is often part-time work, roles with less qualification requirements, perhaps that is an explanation for the gender pay gap and they say, ‘What do you expect if you choose to work in child care? Of course you are not going to be paid very much.’ But the point is that, in our society and our economy, the higher you go in terms of qualifications and pay levels, the bigger this gender pay gap becomes. Unfortunately, we have a situation in the business sector with women representing less than two per cent of chief executive officers in Australia. Only two per cent of Australia’s top 200 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange are chaired by women, and this number is declining. Women who study law or accountancy make up a greater proportion of the graduates from those courses. They have more than their fair share of awards as highest achievers of results obtained in those courses in the best universities in the country. But, when they step out in their first year of employment in very similar job situations, they experience substantially less pay. This cannot and should not be tolerated, and we need to ask why this situation has continued.

At the same time as we have this declining gender pay equity, we have a substantial increase in the number of women working. Between 1994 and 2008, there was a 41 per cent increase in female employment and a 42 per cent increase in the hours worked. So women are trying to do their best in participating in the economy but it is in the face of substantial discrimination and lack of equity when it comes to their pay. Women are overrepresented in low-paying jobs and in casual and part-time work but, as I said before, that is not the reason for this substantial gender pay inequity. The gender pay inequity is most prevalent across higher paying industries where qualifications are at the degree or post graduate level.

Obviously at the heart of the gender pay gap is a failure to truly value what has been called traditional women’s work, whether paid or unpaid, in Australia. But we do have a number of definitions of what is behind this gender pay gap in Australia. I will quote the Queensland government, who elaborated on the concept of pay equity when giving their contribution to the House of Representatives committee late last year. They said ‘a larger application than equal pay’—that is, equal pay for the same work—is behind the concept of pay equity and that the concept of pay equity must include issues like:

… entrenched historical practices, the invisibility of women’s skills, the lack of a powerful presence in the industrial system—

in other words, shame on the unions—

and the way that ‘work’ and how we value work is understood and interpreted in the industrial system.

The ACTU itself has had much to say about the problems, saying:

Pay equity promotes greater labour force participation of women, enhancing the quality of the Australian labour market and assisting in sustaining the tax base of an ageing population.

Treasury modelling shows that a modest 2.5% increase in labour participation rates would produce an additional 9% increase in economic output by 2022.

So, even if we ignore the equity issues and the discrimination against women in the workplace, there are very sound economic reasons why we must address this very serious problem.

There are a number of contributing factors in this pay inequity situation. The factors contributing to pay inequity are undeniably complex and multifaceted, but let me select a few from the Making it fair report. There are ‘social expectations and gendered assumptions about the role of women as workers, parents and carers resulting in the majority of primary unpaid caring responsibilities being undertaken by women’. For a lot of employers when they look at the employment of a woman—particularly if she is of a child-bearing age or of an age when she may have an ageing parent—have an expectation that she will be less reliable in the workplace, that she will be taking time off work for her caring responsibility, at some cost to the task, job or business at hand.

Then there is the disproportionate participation of women in part-time and casual employment, leading to few opportunities for skill development and advancement. That results in a concentration of women in lower-level classifications. We know that is a fact but we also know that women who succeed in becoming well educated and, in fact, out-perform men in, for example, law courses or in banking and finance, still face inequities—in fact, some of the greatest pay gap inequities. But then there is also the ‘invisibility of women’s skills and status, leading to an undervaluation of women’s work and the failure to reassess a changing nature of work and skill. Unrecognised skills are described as creative, nurturing, caring and so forth’, rather than as highly productive and skilled.

Another obvious reason for this gender pay gap is ‘sex discrimination and sexual harassment’. Then we have ‘working in the service industry rather than in the product related markets’. There is a cultural response to work in Australia which says that if you work in services you can be paid less than if you are actually selling a product in the market or you are involved in market development.

Then there is the ‘poor recognition of qualifications, including vastly different remuneration scales for occupations requiring similar qualifications, and the way that work and how we value work is understood and interpreted within the industrial system’. For example, compare how a four-year trained preschool teacher is paid compared to a four-year trained secondary school teacher. One is vastly more undervalued than the other in the status of their work, their career opportunities and their remuneration. ‘Women receive lower levels of discretionary payment as well, such as overaward payments, bonuses, commissions, service increments and profit sharing. This is partly because in the industries where women are mostly employed overaward payments are not usually available.’

I find it shameful to live in a country such as Australia, a developed nation, in the 21st century, where this gender inequity persists and is getting worse. It was referred to in question time today, but last week I was ashamed when representatives of nursing homes in New South Wales and Queensland came to parliament. The Australian Nursing Federation tells us that thousands of aged-care nurses, in particular in Queensland and New South Wales, will lose up to $300 a week under the award modernisation program of this federal government, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. I repeat: these workers—almost universally women—in the aged-care sector, one of our most significant areas of growth in demand for services into the near future, will lose up to $300 a week under the award modernisation program. How can this be tolerated? Of course we have Julia Gillard, the minister responsible for this area, denying that that is a fact:

Ms Gillard said the commission had “worked through those issues in a satisfactory way”. She said she did not accept figures that aged-care nurses could lose up to $300 a week under the award modernisation.

The decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is there for everybody to read. Indeed, the new pay rates for the 15,000 award-covered nurses in the two states will result, again, in a widening of the gender pay gap for women. I think this is a disgrace. I wonder why a lot of women persist in careers like child care, early childhood education, nursing and the services sector when they can look across the room and see a male doing similar or the same work but being paid substantially more. It is an insult and a lot of women feel it is a personal affront to their self-esteem. As the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations, Making it fair, found:

The value of paid work is not only about money. Women who realise that someone else in the workplace received different remuneration levels take it as ‘a personal affront and a personal problem’ and perceive the difference in terms of how they are valued. Paid work is ‘an important aspect of … [women’s] identity and allows them to use their skills and continue to develop professionally’.

We have to worry today when we are told that this government is going to re-examine what constitutes a skill in demand in the economy. That is an important thing to do. The coalition supports close monitoring of the skills in demand in our economy and making sure, for example, that migration matches our needs in this country and the potential for newcomers to find work. On the other hand, we need to scrutinise decisions made by this government, given its record and response to pay equity issues. We also need to make sure that skills in demand, as well as wage levels, accurately reflect need and are not simply perpetuating cultural differences and, too often, the lack of power of women in the workplace.

In the 21st century, Australia is leading the world, particularly the OECD, in giving women opportunities for education. Australia is typically cited as No. 1 when it comes to women and girls having equal educational opportunity. Their outcomes in terms of completing school and completing higher education, training and university qualifications are amongst the best in the world. Of course that is a lumpy statistic. We know Indigenous women are way behind their non-Indigenous sisters. Overall, Australia can be proud of the educational opportunities it gives to women and girls.

On the other hand, we need to stand ashamed at the gender wage gap. We need to work comprehensively to, first of all, inform the population at large about the gender wage gap across all levels of the workforce, from the lowest paid to the highest paid. We have to do away with the concept that a male breadwinner typically predominates in households. It has been suggested that the higher salaries and promotion opportunities for men are particularly derived from that myth: that there is a male breadwinner in a household and that therefore management assumes men will have longer careers than women and that inevitably they will not leave the workforce to rear children as women will.

There is a whole range of problems for women with this government, including its extraordinarily poor response to paid parental leave. I was quite shocked to look at the details of the government’s policy for paid parental leave which is due for delivery in 2011. It will provide way below six months of paid parental leave—universally regarded as inadequate, particularly by the Productivity Commission. There should be at least a six-month opportunity for a woman or a primary carer to be with their newborn. That amount of paid parental leave, as presented at the moment by the Labor government, is an insult to women.

We also have a decline in funding for women who experience domestic violence. There has been a decline in funds to help train women in English language, particularly refugee and migrant women. We have seen the support for dysfunctional families falling away across Australia. We have seen the emergency response to the crisis in Indigenous communities in Northern Australia not continue to be delivered in the way that the Howard government began. We have example after example of this government paying lip-service to equality and social inclusion. It even has a title of ‘social inclusion’ tagged on to the Deputy Prime Minister. When you look to see what is happening for men and women in Australia, particularly women, you will be significantly concerned that indicators of equity and a fair go show that women are doing much more poorly. Women are having a much more difficult experience with life chances and life circumstances than they did under previous governments—for example, the John Howard government.

I do not know why we continue to tolerate the gender equity gap, but I will be doing all I can as the shadow minister for the status of women to put forward policies that do the right thing for Australia’s women. It is important in terms of women’s experience of life in respecting our values of social justice and equity. It is also of critical importance for our economy as we approach a time where additional productivity will be essential to deal with an ageing population. We know that women will more often be the poorer aged Australians in the years to come. There is a feminisation of poverty in Australia. I do not think anyone should be other than shocked and concerned about the level of poverty that women experience compared to men. It is not tolerable, but it is tolerated by this government and I think that is a dreadful shame.

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

I am pleased to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010. In just over two years, the Rudd government has already delivered a massive program of reform, but there is more to be done. Through this parliament, we have abolished Work Choices and, in doing so, restored fairness to Australian workplaces and provided greater security and peace of mind to millions of working families, especially to younger workers, working mothers and workers from our culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Through this parliament, we have delivered $47 billion in tax cuts, making all working families better off; we have already delivered nearly 300,000 new computers for schools; we have all but finalised, finally, a single national school curriculum; and we are delivering new trades training centres and language labs in our high schools and new halls and libraries in our primary schools as part of our education revolution.

In the electorate of Moreton alone, total funding through Building the Education Revolution is $77,975,011. I will take you on a bit of a quick walk through some of the things taking place in Moreton. The National School Pride program is supporting 38 schools and 85 projects with total program funding of $6,005,006. It is providing things like classrooms for students with disabilities. We have upgraded communication equipment. We have shade sails, ICT upgrades to classrooms, music rooms and interactive whiteboards. We have resurfaced basketball and tennis courts. We have ICT integration that brings wireless expansion and we have covered walkways, to name just a few.

Then we look at Primary Schools for the 21st Century, with 30 schools and 49 projects and with total program funding of $68,050,005. It is supporting schools such as Christ the King School at Graceville, which has constructed a covered learning area and a library for $2 million. Coopers Plains has done slightly better, getting a new multipurpose hall and resource centre for $2,000,001. Eight Mile Plains has a classroom and resource centre for $2 million again. Graceville State School has $3 million. MacGregor State School has a resource centre and multipurpose hall for $3 million. Moorooka State School has a multipurpose hall and resource centre for $2½ million. Our Lady of Lourdes School in Sunnybank has multipurpose spaces for $1,641,000 and a hall for $1,359,000. Robertson State School has a multipurpose hall and library for $3 million. Runcorn Heights State School has a new multipurpose hall and resource centre for $3 million. Runcorn State School at Sunnybank has a multipurpose hall and resource centre for $3 million. Salisbury State School has a new resource centre and multipurpose hall for $2 million. Sherwood State School has a multipurpose hall and resource centre for $3 million. Southside Christian College has six primary craft rooms for $2 million. St Brendan’s Primary School in Moorooka has $2 million for a library and a hall. St Elizabeth’s School in Tarragindi has multipurpose spaces for $2½ million. St Pius X Catholic School in Salisbury has a new hall, stair and covered areas for $2 million. St Sebastian’s Primary School in Yeronga has a library and classrooms for $2 million. Stretton State College has a new library for $1 million and a multipurpose hall for $2 million. Sunnybank Hills State School has classrooms to the value of $3 million. Sunnybank State School has a new multipurpose hall and new resource centre for $2½ million. Warrigal Road State School at Eight Mile Plains has classrooms and a multipurpose hall for $3 million. Wellers Hill State School has a multipurpose hall and resource centre for $3 million. Yeronga State School has a multipurpose hall and resource centre for $3 million.

If we move on to the science and language centres, three schools received funding of $3,920,000. Milperra State High’s project ‘Equitable access for newly arrived students of immigrant and refugee backgrounds’ is receiving nearly $1½ million; Nyanda State High, down the road from me at Salisbury, is receiving a science and technology centre worth $1.2 million; and Yeronga State High is receiving a language learning centre worth $1.3 million. That is a quick walk through some of the projects that are taking place as part of the education revolution—not just flagpoles but significant building improvements and significant changes to the future for our students and our nation’s future.

We are helping restore the health of the Murray-Darling, we are investing record funds in solar and wind power and we are training more nurses and more GPs. We are cleaning up after the mess that Tony Abbott made when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing, when he ripped a billion dollars out of the health system. We are investing in cancer research. We are delivering the biggest infrastructure program in the nation’s history. We are building new roads, new highways, new railways and new ports. We are building a national broadband network and we are delivering on hospitals and schools, as I walked you through in my electorate of Moreton. But there are 149 other electorates that also have schools that have building sites.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Public Security and Policing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not in my electorate.

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

I think that, if the member opposite is suggesting that he has no building sites in his schools, he is misleading the chamber. Every electorate, under the education revolution, is benefiting from the economic stimulus package. The Rudd, Gillard and Swan leadership team has steered the country through the toughest global economic conditions experienced for three generations—since the Great Depression.

These reforms, these major achievements, would not have happened if the Rudd government had not been elected. All of these reforms, measures and productivity gains strike at the very heart of what we are about as a government, and they reflect the sort of country we want Australia to be. Do we want to be a country that decided that tackling climate change was just too hard? Do we want to be the nation that squibs it? No, we do not. Do we want our ports, roads and internet to be crippled by bottlenecks or do we want to have the kind of infrastructure we need to drive productivity, innovation and employment? Do we want our kids to have a mediocre education, where they have got a new flagpole but not much else? Or do we want to deliver an education revolution in this country that will ensure that all of our kids are the smartest, the most innovative and the drivers of change into the future? That is what I hope for my two young boys. My older boy, Stanley, will be the age that I am now in 2050, when I will be nudging four score and seven. Hopefully by then my working life will be coming to an end and maybe I will be turning to my children for support. We need to make sure that all of our children are given as many opportunities as possible.

Do we want to be a country that is consumed by political division, or do we want to work together to tackle common challenges? As a nation, Australia is now at a fork in the road. We need to decide now the kind of country we are to be. When we look at research, like the Intergenerational report released by the Treasurer last week, we need to consider the implications for the Australians of today and the Australians of tomorrow. As a government, we will not respond by burying our heads in the sand or by going for the glib, quick political line. Kevin Rudd knows how to make the tough decisions that can shore up our nation’s future. The Rudd government knows how to grasp the nettle. Consider our response to the global financial crisis—a response which the latest employment figures tell us has supported 200,000 jobs and numerous small businesses. When I visit the small business owners in my electorate of Moreton, I am proud that I can look them in the eye and know that the Rudd government did what it could to help protect their businesses and to help them protect the jobs of their employees. It is all part of the Rudd government’s agenda, which includes two stimulus packages, our infrastructure rollout and our education revolution. These programs were not just about protecting our economy and jobs throughout the duration of the financial crisis. They are targeted measures to boost Australia’s long-term productivity and secure our economy—not just up until election night but for the sake of future generations. Take the education revolution, for example. I listed the example of Moreton, but I am sure that every MP in the House would be able to list many initiatives in their schools and in their communities.

The aims of the education revolution are twofold. They are, firstly, to provide quality education now and, secondly, to provide greater productivity for the long term. On this side, we believe that no student should be denied access to quality education—no matter where they live; no matter what their parents do for a quid; no matter their age, race or religion; no matter what sign is above the school gate; and no matter which federal MP represents them in this place. It does not matter. They all deserve quality teaching and quality resources, and the education revolution will achieve this. Those opposite gave flagpoles; we are giving flagships. They put plaques under their flagpoles; we are putting up libraries. We are putting up language centres. We are putting up resource centres. We are putting up classrooms. The Rudd and Gillard education revolution will ensure that, in the years to come, we have an educated and skilled workforce primed to take part in the new jobs and the new challenges of the future. These young people will be the ones driving productivity as our community ages. Isn’t it great to have a community where people are talking about education? Since the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, launched the My School website, many people are talking about education and what it means for the future of Australia. My youngest son, Leo, will be celebrating his 40th birthday in the year 2050, so I have a strong vested interest in this revolution being successful.

Consider our infrastructure agenda: jobs in the short term but productivity gains in the long term. The global financial crisis meant that there was an economic imperative behind the infrastructure agenda. It was about keeping people off the unemployment queues. Nevertheless, all of this infrastructure—the roads, the rail, the ports and the broadband internet communications—allow Australian businesses to get on with what they do best, which is making money, employing workers and paying taxes. The greater efficiencies in our transport and freight network are crucial to improving productivity. Productivity is not a four-letter word and the bottlenecks of years gone by do not improve our standard of living.

Last month I joined the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister Albanese, and other south side MPs Bernie Ripoll and Karen Struthers to fix the final sleeper on the goods rail line to Acacia Ridge in my electorate. I did an okay job, but thankfully another 120 workers had been there before me and laid the other 105,000 concrete sleepers. I was happy to play a very small part in laying that last sleeper. The $55.8 million line upgrade was delivered as part of our economic stimulus plan. It replaced old wooden sleepers with new concrete sleepers and installed new lines and new signals. This new 101-kilometre line ensures greater track capacity and allows more freight to be transported by rail. The project also created 120 jobs.

The project also delivered on an aspiration dating back as far as Federation for a national rail network connecting all mainland states. I think it was actually a COAG initiative from the early 1920s, where the Premiers and the Prime Minister of the day would have gone to the meeting by boat, horse and buggy, and train. Six separate state-based arrangements have been done away with today and we now have one set of common rules, operating standards and access regulations in place. It only took about 90 years to get it right, but the Rudd government was able to deliver. As we move to a nationwide standard-gauge rail network, freight operators can now access 11,000 kilometres of track, extending all the way from Acacia Ridge in Brisbane to Melbourne in the south and Kalgoorlie in the west. This is the kind of productivity boost our infrastructure investments are delivering all around the country—more jobs in the short term but also productivity gains in the long term.

Now let us look at the productivity record of the Howard and Costello government. Let us look at the productivity cycles in Australia since 1992, after the Hawke and Keating governments did all the heavy lifting and the workers of Australia made many compromises in the eighties and early nineties, which any economics student would recognise. Let us look at the productivity cycles. Productivity has gone down significantly from the mid-nineties, when it was at 3.3 per cent, to the late nineties—the start of the noughties—when it was 2.2 per cent. If we look at the cycle leading up to when we took government, it was at 1.1 per cent. In fact, when we took government, productivity, the major indication of a successful economy, was at nought, zero, nada, nothing—a sure sign of one of the laziest governments when it comes to reforming Australia’s history.

Putting aside climate change, one of our core challenges is to address our core economic problem for the future—not just in this, the second decade of the 21st century, but for the 21st century at large. What is it? Obviously, if we look at productivity, the core challenge is the ageing of our population. Consider this simple statistic: the share of our population over the age of 65 will increase from 12 or 13 per cent of our total population today to nearly 25 per cent of our population in 2050—from one in seven of our number to one in four of our number. So, as I have said, when my son Leo is celebrating his 40th birthday, more than one in four people will be over 65—including his dad, hopefully. Our overall population will rise. It will be a bigger Australia. But the ageing of the population will rise even faster. Forty years ago, in 1970, there were 7.5 people in the workforce for every one person over the age of 65. Today, there are about 5.5 workforce participants for every person over 65. By 2050 that number will drop to 2.7 people in the workforce for every person over 65. This is the core challenge, and it is a scary challenge.

Two things flow from this population dynamic. The first is that, because we are going to have a much larger number of older Australians, older Australians will command more services in health and hospitals, in aged care and also in retirement income. On average, hospital expenditure on people aged 65 to 74 is currently double that of people aged 55 to 64. For our oldest Australians—those aged 85 and over—spending increases to almost five times that spent on people aged 55 to 65.

Last week Treasurer Wayne Swan released the Intergenerational report entitled Australia to 2050: future challenges. Treasury analysis contained in the report points to the fact that over the next 40 years real health spending on those aged 65 and older is expected to increase around seven fold. Real health spending on those aged 85 and over is expected to increase 12 fold. That is why it is ridiculous to have a leader of the opposition who ripped a billion dollars out of the health system standing up and saying we now need to have a talk about health. This is the product of the increasing age of Australians overall and, secondly, the fact that, with innovations in pharmaceuticals and medical technologies and the rest, the cost of treating each individual aged Australian will rise as well. That is our first problem. Obviously there are not too many drug companies out there that are charities.

The second problem is of course that the proportion of Australians in the workforce generating the tax revenue to support these services will become less. In 1970 Australian government spending on health equated to 1.2 per cent of gross domestic product. Now, Australian government health spending equates to four per cent of GDP, and the Intergenerational report projects that it will rise to 7.1 per cent in 2050. In dollar terms that is an increase of over $200 billion by 2050 and equates to an increase in real terms in average Australian government health spending per person from about two grand today to about seven grand in 2050. This is why we need major health reform.

What are our options when faced with rising health costs on the one hand and the number of Australians working declining proportionally on the other hand, in turn generating less economic activity and less taxation revenue? Obviously you have to improve productivity, which is why the Rudd government has committed to those innovations in education, broadband, infrastructure and the like. I wish those opposite would get on board and embrace in this House what they embrace out there in their electorates.

The bills before the House provide additional funding for the successful Home Insulation Program and the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. The Rudd government is continuing to invest in quality projects delivering quality outcomes for all Australians, not just for now but for the future, and I am proud to commend the bills to the House.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Public Security and Policing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010. I am not sure if you have seen the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray. It is a fantastic movie in which no matter what he does every morning he wakes up and nothing has changed from the day before. What that reminds me of is Building the Education Revolution because at my schools in Berwick, whatever they do, every day the principals, the staff, the students and the teachers get up in the morning and they go to school and nothing changes.

I want to speak first of all in particular about Berwick Primary School. This school has a great team led by Principal Kaye Seton, who has been doing a fantastic job, and school president Jason Barlow. It is interesting that they were very conservative when they sought money from Building the Education Revolution. Rather than go for $3 million, they thought that they would just ask for $2 million.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ripoll interjecting

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Public Security and Policing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor members opposite—Bernie Ripoll in particular—think it is funny that one of my schools is getting ripped off by the state government. I think it is a disgrace and the Labor members should take this very seriously.

The school only asked for $2 million and they thought they were being very fair and very generous. With that, they wanted a multipurpose room; it sounded like a great idea and everyone thought it was worth while. They then realised that the amount of money they would be seeking would not be $2 million. The quotes they had from architects were in the vicinity of $650,000. Because they thought the government would be flexible they said, ‘Can we use the remaining money to upgrade our gymnasium?’ The school has now got 800-plus students and they thought that if they upgraded the gymnasium with the remaining funding it would be of great benefit to the school. They did the right thing. They did not come straight to me and seek support and nor did they go to the media. They worked quietly behind the back door trying to get the government to see common sense and make sure that they would get a decision based on common sense and flexibility. What we have seen with Building the Education Revolution is quite the opposite. When they said, ‘Can we actually see the figures for this multipurpose building?’—which had been quoted at $2 million—they were never shown any respect at all. They were never told or shown any quotes. They were just told it cost $2 million, and when they said, ‘Hang on; our quotes are saying it is $650,000’, that meant absolutely nothing.

So we wrote to the Minister for Education on 24 June last year saying that Berwick Primary School—and they were doing the right thing; they were doing it all behind closed doors without going to the media—wanted to use the remaining funding. They deserved the funding. The commitment was $2 million. Remember that they did not go for the full amount of $3 million. They wanted to use the remaining funding for a secondary project. Sadly, they have had no good news from the minister. We wrote again on 1 December and again we have had no good news on Berwick Primary School.

I congratulate Jade Lawton from the Pakenham-Berwick Gazette for her article on 18 November 2009. This is not a happy photo. You can see the president of the school council, Jason Barlow, standing in front of the half-sized gymnasium they have at the moment, and also Emily Lidgerwood and the principal, Kaye Seton. It is not a happy photo; it is not a happy story. This should have been a great story to tell in my electorate, but what has been proved many, many times is that the Rudd government is very good at speaking the rhetoric but not very good at actually delivering. The students at Berwick Primary School are missing out. It is outrageous that they are missing out on the additional funding. It is very unfair that when the school have assemblies, for example, not all the students can fit in the gymnasium. When they first undertook the building works, it was designed so that the gymnasium could expand, and it is just a disgrace that the government is not offering the school the flexibility to use the additional money which they were promised. It is very sad to see that take place.

It is not the only school in the area that has been affected. In fact, I seem to have a number of schools in my electorate facing the same dilemma. I do not know how many times I have spoken in the House about Berwick Lodge Primary School—another school, of course, in the suburb of Berwick. The principal, Henry Grossek, is doing an amazing job out there with the students and has been an ambassador in keeping the government to account on its Building the Education Revolution. Remember that this has cost $14 billion, so you want to make sure the money is wisely spent. Henry was promised $3 million, and he thought, ‘That’s fantastic!’ He thought they would use that money wisely. What they wanted to do was build a library and six classrooms. Any member would think it would be a great idea to use the money for actual education. But, instead, the school was told that they would have to use one of four or five templates and that they must build a gymnasium. Henry Grossek said: ‘Hang on, the school already has a gymnasium. Why can’t we have a classroom—or six classrooms—and a library?’ He was told, ‘No, that cannot happen.’

We have the ridiculous situation that Beaconsfield Upper Primary School want a gymnasium but have been told they cannot have a gymnasium but need to have classrooms. The schools are 30 minutes away from each other, and one school is getting told they have to have a gymnasium when they want classrooms and the other school is being told they must have classrooms when they want a gymnasium. There is no flexibility in this at all. What the state schools are putting up with is a disgrace. I quote Henry Grossek from 1 April 2009:

At a national level, the program is being implemented in a terrible way. Impossible time lines, apparent lack of any due diligence with respect to the tendering process and an inability of the federal government to at this point in time pull the Victorian government into line. Where is all the money being siphoned off to? And no idea on process for resolving disputes that schools may get into with the state authorities on what facilities they can have.

We actually thought Henry had had a win with the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. I believe a meeting took place in May last year in which the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged the concerns of Berwick Lodge Primary School and stated, ‘Yes, you can actually use the money and have the flexibility to build a library and six classrooms.’ The good news is that that issue has finally been resolved; but, as Principal Henry Grossek says, ‘Show us the money; there is still a lot of money out there which should be coming to the school for a secondary project.’ Sadly, that money is not forthcoming.

That is one thing about which Henry met with the Deputy Prime Minister, who as education minister he believed was running the show. He got a guarantee from her that the issue was going to be resolved when he specifically asked her, ‘Can the leftover money be used for a buddy project?’ In the conversation that followed, as it was repeated to me, the principals—I believe there were a number of principals there—were assured that they could have a buddy project. So at the moment there is the crazy situation where there is just no flexibility. There are all these schools in Berwick that are not getting looked after the way they deserve. It is an absolute disgrace.

In the Dandenong Ranges we are getting through the fire season this year. Luckily, so far there have been no major fires, though we did have a small fire up in Emerald the other day. But, with school going back, it seems absolutely crazy to me that not one school in my electorate in the Dandenong Ranges has a sprinkler on its roof. That is the most basic safety measure. If there is a fire and there is an ember attack, you would think you would need a sprinkler on the roof, but there are none.

I have personally great respect for the Attorney-General. He has listened closely to my concerns in my meetings with him. We need to ensure when it comes to schools on catastrophic and extreme fire days that they have a sister or buddy school so that if a school is closed down—for example, up in Ferny Creek or Olinda—the parents know the night before that the next day they need to take their children to a school off the hill. It is common sense.

One of the greatest concerns I have is if a school is closed down for the day and not all parents are as responsible as they should be. This would be especially likely if after two or three of these catastrophic and extreme days they thought to themselves: ‘There is no need to take my child to work or drop him off at nana’s place or leave him with a friend off the mountain. He should be right at home now by himself.’ That is a real concern of the CFA members, too. One thing about having a buddy school is that the principals could check to make sure that all students were accounted for and off the hills safely. The fire precautions for the schools up in the Dandenong Ranges are a disgrace because of the lack of effort that has been put in to make the schools more fire safe.

The No. 1 thing, though, for people to remember is that, if there is a day with catastrophic and extreme fire danger, they have to be off the hill. The concern I have is on one of those days when a fire comes out of the blue. For those who do not know the Dandenong Ranges, a fire can go from the basin to the top of Sassafras in 10 or 12 minutes, as happened in I think 1997 or 2000. It takes a car that long to get up there and that is how fast a fire can move up there. We do not want a situation where the schools are caught out and where the principals and staff have no training in fire management. At the moment, most of the schools do not have shutters and, as I said, there are no sprinklers. It is a recipe for disaster. I am a strong advocate for having underground bankers at schools. You never know—it could be once in a hundred years or once in 30 years that you have a fire come through and the students and teachers are trapped there. In that situation, you can at least have a bunker. But a lot of research is needed to work out the safest and best way to go forward.

Another concern I have locally is with what is happening to Clyde Road. In the last federal election I announced half the funding to build Clyde Road. Then we had the Prime Minister—then opposition leader—come out. In an article of 21 November 2007, again in the Berwick-Packenham Gazette, by Jim Mynard, the heading is, ‘We’ll fix Clyde Road too, says ALP’. In that article my opponent at the time said that Kevin Rudd and Labor had listened to the concerns of the tens of thousands of residents who used the road every day and wanted it fixed. He said:

... only Kevin Rudd and Labor will work cooperatively with the State Government to do something about it.

They were obviously going to fix it. It all sounded fair and reasonable.

Then we go to Wednesday 9 April, 2008 and an article in the Berwick Leader which quotes Harry Hutchinson, who is one of the local traders. The heading is, ‘Keep your promise.’ It states:

Show me the money!

That’s the call to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd from Berwick Chamber of Commerce president Harry Hutchinson.

The article went on:

Mr Hutchinson said more than 200 businesses in Berwick were directly affected by the choked condition of Clyde Rd. And then there were the thousands of customers and the residents of connecting suburban streets to be considered.

…            …            …

A spokesman for Federal Regional Development Minister Anthony Albanese said the Rudd Government would honour its funding commitment for Clyde Rd.

Then there was a recent article by Jade Lawton in the Berwick-Packenham Gazette. It is a fine article by Jade; she has done a great job. This article says of Clyde Road:

The State Government allocated $1 million to investigate duplicating the bottleneck ...

And we have Harry Hutchins from the Berwick Village Chamber of Commerce calling on the government to do something. They are losing a lot of business down there.

This was a promise made in the last federal election. We heard today in question time the Prime Minister and others talking about keeping their promises but it seems mightily unfair that in the seat of Deakin at the Springvale Road intersection the traffic congestion has been fixed—I am a big supporter of fixing the Springvale Road—and yet at Clyde Road not one sod of soil has been turned.

This government is taking this country into billions and billions of dollars debt. They cannot get the local schools programs working. There is no flexibility there. They are trying to rush them out. The school principals are not happy; the students are not happy. We are supposed to have this beautiful loving relationship between state and federal Labor governments but very sadly there is not much love down in Victoria, especially in the suburb of Berwick.

Again, Clyde Road is a disgrace. We hear the Labor members talk about what a fantastic job they are doing but it is as if they have a huge credit card and all they are doing is spending, spending, spending. Guess what: one day it has to be paid back. Sadly, the day is going to come when residents in my community of Berwick and others have to pay that money back.

Finally, we had the community cabinet come down to the Emerald Secondary College. I had an election commitment—from memory it was for $2.5 million—to the Emerald Secondary College for a performing arts centre. My Labor opponent matched that during the campaign. He did not take the lead much; he always seemed to match my commitments. The only ones he did not match were the environment ones—a wildlife hospital and weed management. Kevin Rudd was quick to go out to Emerald Secondary College to have his community cabinet there and talk about the great job they are doing and all the money they are spending. The only problem is that now Emerald Secondary College are in the situation where they need $500,000 to get the job done but everything has taken too long and there is so much money being wasted by this government. For example, there are the exorbitant costs of the Building the Education Revolution. The school needs another $500,000. The Prime Minister is very keen to go down to Emerald and wave the flag and say what a fantastic job they have done but Emerald Secondary College comes back and says, ‘Hey, we need a helping hand because this has taken so long.’ Remember, they are entitled to $3 million. It just seems mightily unfair that the government has been kicking and screaming. Hopefully, this issue is resolved.

On that note I will leave it, but hopefully the government will come to its senses and look after the schools and students in Berwick. We hear how they are trying to do the right thing but sadly it is just not happening out in my electorate.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I turn to the substance of my contribution to this debate, I have to say this. The member for La Trobe may be very disappointed about the money that is being spent in his schools; he may not talk to his school communities and be able to organise for the projects that the schools wish to have funded. But I can say that in the Shortland electorate of New South Wales it is not so. I heard the member for Oxley say that he was not having those sorts of problems—he has none of those problems; I have none of those problems. So I would have to put it to the House that maybe the member for La Trobe should try representing his electorate just a little better.

I found very interesting his suggestion that every school should have a bunker. I am wondering whether he thinks those bunkers should be funded instead of classrooms, school halls and gymnasiums. I am wondering whether or not he feels that that is the kind of investment that needs to be made in schools. From my point of view, bunkers definitely come second to having the appropriate infrastructure that all schools can use so that kids can go to school and have a good classroom to learn in with state-of-the-art technology or, if the technology is not there, the facility for that to be put in at a later date, because those buildings are up to a standard where the newest technology—smart boards et cetera—can be placed in most classrooms.

The member for La Trobe also said, I think, that the Rudd government is ‘spending, spending, spending’. Just for his edification, the Howard government was very involved in ‘spending, spending, spending’—but it was ‘spending, spending, spending’ in Liberal and National Party held electorates. What a difference an election makes! Prior to the last election, the Shortland electorate got the leftovers from the table. The Shortland electorate was one of those electorates which the previous government chose to ignore. It chose to ignore the needs of the people who lived in that electorate. It chose to ignore the needs of people in the electorate with the 11th highest number of people over the age of 65. The median income in electorate of Shortland is much lower than the median income in other electorates. So I find it very disappointing that members of the opposition can come into this parliament and complain about money being spent on schools or on roads, or about money being given to local councils, and this happening on an equitable, across-the-board basis as opposed to something like the Regional Partnerships scheme—a scheme which was very popular with the previous government. Under that scheme, money was invested in pet projects in National Party and marginal Liberal electorates. Now, for the first time since I have been a member of this House, the people of Shortland know that they are being treated equitably. They are not being treated as second-class citizens. And that is happening through this budget process.

One area that I would particularly like to concentrate on is the money that is being directed towards local government. As I have already mentioned, local government was very much the poor relative and it is only since the Rudd Labor government has been elected that federal government has embraced local government and recognised it as a third arm of government and given it responsibility for identifying the local infrastructure that is needed in local government areas, and then funding those projects. Lake Macquarie council, which is in the Shortland electorate, has benefited considerably from the money that has been given to local councils. This is something that did not happen under the previous government.

I would like to talk about a couple of these projects. The Rudd government has given $9,715,199 to Wyong Shire Council for local infrastructure and services. That is an enormous amount of money that was not being delivered before and is providing for libraries, schools, sportsgrounds, community centres and waste, sewerage and other services. I would like to talk more about a couple of the projects that actually fall within the Shortland electorate. One of these concerns the Mannering Park walkway, being the construction of a shared pathway between Waverly Road and Griffith Street. It allows the community and visitors to appreciate the lake and move within the catchment area along the designated pathway. Lake Macquarie is the largest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere. Mannering Park is on the foreshore of Lake Macquarie and this is a stunning walkway. It is available to be accessed by people with disabilities. It is a beautiful pathway. Residents are out there in the morning walking and, in addition to that, it is also a tourist attraction. It really is about engendering healthy activities within the community.

The other walkway that was funded under the federal government program was the Buff Point cycleway extension. Once again it is along the foreshore of a lake. This time it is Budgewoi Lake. It allows the community and visitors to appreciate the beautiful lake foreshore. If you are in the area, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, it is something that you should visit because it is a stunning investment in a local area that is providing infrastructure and engendering a healthy lifestyle. I know that you, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, are very aware of the importance of exercise. When you are in an environment like the environment that such walkways and cycleways create in the Wyong Shire part of the Shortland electorate, I am sure that you would be very supportive of them. Just as we are investing in Wyong Shire, we are also investing over $14 million in the Lake Macquarie council area, funding the same type of infrastructure: libraries, sportsgrounds, pools, community centres, waste, sewerage and other services that are so vital to the people of Lake Macquarie.

Neither the Mayor of Lake Macquarie nor the Mayor of the Wyong Shire Council are Labor Party members. In fact, the Mayor of Lake Macquarie is an independent member of the New South Wales parliament and defeated a Labor Party person, so he cannot be described in any way as being partisan. I know from speaking to him that he is appreciative of the money and the investment that the federal government has made in Lake Macquarie. He has gone out of his way to say this to me, and I know that he is very, very supportive of all the programs. Likewise, the Mayor of the Wyong Shire has expressed his appreciation of the money that is being invested there and knows how important it is for the area.

One of the unique program projects being funded through the federal program is the extension of the Red Bluff shared pathway in Eleebana. It includes the provision of decking material, handrails and balustrades. It will feature lighting, public art and interpretive signage. It will go across the water, and it will be a unique pathway. It will join up to the rest of the pathway that has already been built around the foreshore of Lake Macquarie. It will take the pathway a stage further, around quite a difficult area. It is something that the council would not have been able to complete had it not received the funding from the federal government. It will be unique, it will be special and it will be something that creates, once again, the opportunity for families and visitors to the area to get out and enjoy the environments of the biggest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere.

One other walkway that I did wish to mention is the final stage of the Fernleigh track. The minister announced funding for that at the end of last year. He has announced that there will be $2 million given for stages four and five of the Fernleigh track, which will lead to the completion of an almost 20-kilometre continuous bikeway/walkway going from Newcastle right out to Belmont. Funds for the construction of the pathway come from the National Bike Path Project, and I believe the track is the largest project to be funded under that scheme. It was funded because it was a unique pathway, because it creates a transport corridor and because it is providing a tourist attraction in the area. It goes through a number of different environments. It also demonstrates that, for once, electorates like Shortland are receiving funding from the federal government, and that funding is based on the need for and the uniqueness of projects, not whether or not they are in a marginal seat.

I also want to acknowledge the funding that has come to the Shortland electorate through the stimulus package and the Building the Education Revolution program. I hear members of the opposition complain about the funding. I have had a lot of communication with schools, and the schools in my electorate are not complaining about the federal government giving money; they are ecstatic. One comment I have had from a principal is that this is the single biggest investment in education that he has seen in his lifetime. He believes that the funding through Primary Schools for the 21st Century will make an enormous difference to the students that attend the school he is principal of.

I must say that I have received universal support for the project across private, independent and Catholic schools and public schools within Shortland electorate. There have been projects such as the refurbishment of student drop-off and pick-up areas. There has been the refurbishment of a number of schools under the National School Pride Program. Schools have become centres of economic activity. You drive past a school and you see that building is taking place and work is taking place. Immediately after the project came into being, you could see that the schools were having facelifts. There was painting taking place. All of a sudden a situation existed where schools were being transformed.

There have been a number of studies looking at the learning environment that students are in, and these studies have shown that, if students are in cramped, poorly furnished and poorly equipped learning centres in schools, their educational outcomes are inferior to those of students who are in a learning environment that is well maintained and that has the equipment that they need. This is what the education revolution is about. It is about ensuring that all schools are well furnished and are good learning centres.

Places like the Belmont Christian College received $2.5 million for the construction of a library. Belmont North Public School received $850,000 for a classroom facility upgrade, and I refer the House to the previous statement by the member for La Trobe. Belmont Public School received a new COLA and new classroom facilities. Blacksmiths received a new hall and Budgewoi, new classroom facilities. Caves Beach received a new special programs room and a COLA. Charlestown received a new hall, a COLA, a classroom facility upgrade and a new library. It really shows the kinds of projects that have been approved. Charlestown South received new classroom facilities and an upgrade of classrooms; Dudley, a hall and COLA; Eleebana, classroom facilities; Floraville, classroom facilities; and Gateshead, a classroom facilities upgrade. For all the schools within Shortland electorate there have been projects that relate to classroom upgrades, halls or COLAs. And who benefits? The students benefit.

The final issue I would like to raise relates to the Belmont Medicare office. I am very pleased to say that the Belmont Medicare office was opened on 14 December—

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that in WA?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Belmont Medicare office in New South Wales, in the electorate of Shortland. It has been well received by the people of the area. It is situated in the Belmont Central shopping centre and it was opened early, in fact. It has been of great benefit to the people of the area. As I mentioned earlier, Shortland is an older electorate, and prior to the Howard government closing the previous Belmont Medicare office in 1997 it was one of the busiest offices in the area. The people of the area want me to place on record their thanks to the government for reopening that office, and they are very pleased also that there are some Centrelink services now available there as well. This is the Rudd government listening to the people of Shortland electorate and delivering—delivering the Medicare office that the Howard government removed and also delivering to schools and making sure that local government has the funds to put in place the proper infrastructure that is needed for the 21st century.

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

I rise to speak on these appropriation bills and welcome the opportunity to discuss government spending more broadly and mention some important issues and projects pertinent to Canning. Firstly, I would like to note Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 as it relates to funding for community infrastructure. It is not surprising that in an election year this bill authorises further funding for community infrastructure—more cash splashed by a government that does it so well. Don’t get me wrong; I encourage the government to invest in infrastructure in Canning, but they seem to be reluctant to invest in many projects. One can only assume that the strategic project funding being authorised in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) will be part of the type of election pork-barrelling strategy that they so hypocritically accused the Howard government of in 2007. We know that $21 billion of borrowed money from the stimulus package funding still remains unspent and the Prime Minister wants to keep spending it despite it accumulating huge interest for all Australians.

I find it rather strange that we have the Reserve Bank of Australia wanting to cool the economy by raising interest rates—they did not do it last week, but I will bet with anyone in this place that they will raise them next month—and yet we still see the federal government stimulating the economy. On the one hand, the Reserve Bank is dampening the economy; on the other hand the federal government is still stimulating the economy, with borrowed money. As I said, even the Reserve Bank is backing off, yet the government continues to pour in more and more money, placing increasing pressure on the Australian families and first home buyers, who are staring down the barrel of further interest rate rises. Every rise in interest rates of one-quarter of one per cent adds $55 a month to the average mortgage. That is a lot of money for families already running tight budgets. We hear that some first home buyers already want to hand back their homes because interest rates are rising.

We heard the Prime Minister chastise the opposition last week for suggesting that the stimulus spending should be wound back. He said: ‘Should the coalition stop the stimulus spending, we would have to get up and tell the 5,000 schools whose projects haven’t started yet that they wouldn’t get them at all.’ Talk about hypocrisy—how quickly those opposite forget. Let me remind the Prime Minister that that is exactly what the Labor Party did when it took government in 2007. When it knocked off approved Regional Partnerships projects, it told community groups, local councils and sporting clubs in Canning and across Australia that they could not build their ovals, their halls and their gardens. We should not expect any more from the Prime Minister, whose government has been rife with backflips and hypocrisy to date.

Speaking with Canning residents as I move throughout the electorate, the issues that concern people most are common. They worry about debt and managing their mortgages. They are concerned about crime on the streets, they cannot access decent broadband and many have been disadvantaged by the changes to Centrelink rules. After more than two years in government, Mr Rudd has delivered nothing but symbolic gestures. The Prime Minister seduced the Australian public into voting for him and now they are starting to feel somewhat betrayed. Australians are really starting to ask themselves about what this man has promised and what he has really done for them. The answer is: not much at all. The government has held review after review on everything from groceries to whales. One billion dollars has been wasted on consultancy fees and $200 million was spent on the pink batts fiasco—you hear about them being hidden in bushes on the edge of highways rather than being put in houses. Millions of dollars was spent in transporting and accommodating Mr Rudd and his entourage of 60-odd to the failed Copenhagen summit. Thirty million dollars was thrown away on the first National Broadband Network plan and, after more than two years, not one new broadband service has been delivered. The reality is that the Labor Party’s plan is just impossible to deliver.

Labor has sunk this country into unprecedented levels of debt and continues to spend the borrowed money, largely from China. I understand something like $2 billion a month is borrowed from China. Is it any wonder it is from China? I understand from media reports the other day that the Chinese have something like $215 trillion in reserves, so they are the ones with cash. The government has lost control over Australia’s finances, spending, as someone else said in this place, like drunken sailors and losing track of the bill—or simply not caring. Debt has exploded to $120 billion at this stage and, as I say, it is heading towards one-third of a trillion dollars if you listen to the forward estimates—a huge burden for future generations. History repeats itself. Labor governments simply cannot balance the books. It took us 10 years to pay off their last account and it will be a coalition government that puts this country back into surplus.

Aside from maxing out this nation’s credit card, what has Mr Rudd achieved this year? Well, he has written a children’s book! That is another fine example of his focus-group approach to leading this country. I understand he does not get out of bed in the morning until he gets the report from the focus group from the night before! For the master of spin the gloss is wearing off and the public are starting to look for substance. The Australian public elects leaders to make the tough decisions. Janet Albrechtsen was right on the mark when she commented:

... the old adage of no pain, no gain does not apply under Rudd. On the contrary, he relies on no pain, all gain: inflict no pain on voters to continue the political gain for Rudd.

She went on to say:

... the problem with Rudd’s rule is it means that he is fast becoming a Prime Minister who lacks the spine to make tough decisions ... Rudd risks leaving a legacy of having done as little as possible for as long as possible.

With an election in the wings, the unions will be out in force again, manning the booths and everything else that they do to look after their mates in this place. They are back in business. One is being investigated for attempting to impose no ticket, no start 1980s bullying tactics on building sites throughout Australia. In fact, you see what is happening in the Pilbara at the moment. The absolute star of the income of this country has now got demarcation disputes. They are picketing at the gates. There is a two-kilometre long queue of vehicles trying to get into their work site on the Pluto project. This is because they do not want to have moteling. What is ‘moteling’? It means you actually go into single-men’s quarters and when you have done your fly in, fly out term, somebody else comes in. If you think that is all very hard, I was a young teacher in the Pilbara back in the seventies. Can I tell you that I slept in those single-men’s quarters and I was happy to do so. Those were the people in the dongas that built the Pilbara that we know now. They are the people who helped the productivity of this country. But we have got the old union jack boots in charge. We saw Joe McDonald up there with Kevin Reynolds helping man the gates.

That is what this country has got to face under the Labor Party’s new workplace relations rules. We know that illegal strike action has risen under this Labor regime. Minister Gillard lacks the will and the way to get the unions under control. Around 1,500 illegally went on strike, as I said, at Pluto. We cannot be held to ransom over these sleeping arrangements. In fact, this is bizarre. I was in the north-west myself when 21 ships were ‘swinging on the pick’, as they call it, off Dampier, because they were not getting cream biscuits for morning tea. We cannot afford a repeat of Labor’s previous record. Between 1985 and 1996 the average days lost to strike was 44.4 working days per 1,000 employees. Under the coalition this got down to 2.3 days.

Delivering better roads, community facilities, schools and health services to Canning is a priority. It is great to see that many of the worthy projects that I have fought for are becoming a reality as we speak. The Port Bouvard Surf Sports and Lifesaving Club clubrooms are well underway and should be open in the next month or so. The Mandurah Entrance Road that the former state government refused to build—a Labor government, by the way—as part of the Forrest Highway is still under construction and will provide a much-needed direct link to Mandurah. The Pinjarra pool, which had $1 million worth of Regional Partnerships funding ripped away, is now under construction, albeit without any federal government investment and no hydrotherapy pool attached to it, as planned.

I will continue to fight for the train to Byford, the Pinjarra bypass and the Tonkin highway extension. We need to bring Mandurah’s bridges up to date, improve sewerage throughout the Peel region, and reopen a fully functioning intensive care unit—or, as it is called, high dependency unit—at the Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital as a health priority. Almost 5,000 patients were transferred from this hospital between July 2007 and 2009—hundreds because they required higher level of care.

There is a state-of-the-art emergency department there but, because of the previous Labor government’s deliberate inaction, patients in need of high-level care are being shipped out of the door to places like Fremantle Hospital while 10 high-dependency beds gather dust in the Armadale hospital. These facilities are vital because all over Canning rapid growth is evident. It is underpinned by Western Australia’s strong economy, job opportunities and the prospect of a second mining boom. Local governments are under increasing financial pressure to keep up and they need the support and investment. With the population of, for example, Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire expected to double to almost 27,000 people by 2016, infrastructure needs to be put in place now to accommodate that almost seven per cent growth rate.

One of the crucial projects is the Tonkin Highway extension. More than 17,000 vehicles travel daily between Armadale and Byford on the South West Highway, and this number will continue to climb as developments in Byford, Hilbert and Wungong take shape. The highway extension, in conjunction with the train extension, which I will mention shortly, is needed to alleviate congestion to keep Byford streets safer. I have written to the transport minister, Simon O’Brien, in Western Australia urging the Barnett government to fast-track planning, costing and preliminary work for the extension and to allocate all-important funding. Ideally, it makes sense to extend the highway to Mundijong, but a viable alternative is to extend the Tonkin Highway from Thomas Road to the South West Highway via Orton Road, which would provide immediate relief for the Byford community.

The extension of the Armadale train to Byford is now long overdue. State Labor’s 2001 election platform promised the electrification of the passenger rail network from Armadale to Byford by 2008, but it was forgotten during the years that they spent in government. The train would provide commuters living in the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire with public transport to work in Perth and students with transport options to schools in the outer metropolitan suburbs. While upgrades to the Australind tracks would be vital, much of the infrastructure is already in place to make this a reality.

Building new infrastructure and improving existing facilities in the south of Canning is time critical. Completion of the Forrest Highway has opened up the corridor for dramatic growth. The Shire of Murray alone is expecting to exceed their forecast of up to six per cent growth. Newmont’s Boddington goldmine, which opened last week, will employ around 1,000 people, with many moving their families to the region and putting pressure on Boddington’s township. All this means improving the existing road network and building bypasses to keep the heavy-haulage vehicles out of the towns. In conjunction, this frequent and reliable public transport between regional centres throughout the Peel region is essential, particularly between Pinjarra and Mandurah.

Improving environmental outcomes remains important. Canning is home to world acclaimed and heritage listed wetlands and waterways, but the federal government’s funding cuts to the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council have affected environmental management of these waterways throughout the region. Combining this with essentially dismantling the Green Corps program is not a great look for a party that claims to have some care about the environment.

One of the other major concerns and barbecue stoppers in my electorate is one that the Rudd government simply chooses to ignore: the mounting number of asylum seekers arriving on almost a daily basis at Christmas Island. Just as soon as the government granted visas for some asylum seekers, there were more at the doorstep. There is a constant stream, so it is little wonder that the budget for offshore processing at Christmas Island has blown out by $130 million. Nearly 300 people arrived last week alone. Ten boats have arrived this year and there are no answers about where they are being housed. Australian people deserve to know whether the government intends to start bringing asylum seekers straight to the mainland. This is policy failure by the Rudd government.

My constituents want to know why the government has no objection to the fact that Centrelink benefits paid to refugees has increased by 40 per cent to an estimated $628 million under its watch. A strong migration system to deter illegal arrivals is the answer. Unless the government gets a grip on the shoreline, welfare payments will continue to skyrocket. In the last financial year, 52,469 refugee visa holders received Centrelink benefits, including the age pension, disability support pension, Austudy, Newstart and youth allowance, and more than $20 million was paid to refugees in, believe it or not, baby bonuses. All this while there are grandparents in my electorate who are raising their grandchildren without the government benefits that foster parents receive. There are war widows unable to access pensions and families with severely disabled children having their carer payments cut off.

I would like to take this opportunity to mention a small win in what has been a huge fight for many mum-and-dad franchisees in and around Australia, including in my electorate. As many of my colleagues know, for the last few years I have been representing aggrieved franchisees. A celebrated case involved Lenard’s, which is based in Brisbane but has franchises throughout Australia. Many who lost everything have decided to walk away from fighting the franchisors, hoping only for a chance to start again. Who can blame them?

One couple, Peter and Dianne Roguska, have been fighting their battle for nearly three years, eventually winding up in the Federal Magistrates Court. I was delighted to hear from the Roguskas last week with the good news that finally a verdict had been delivered in their favour from the courts. They have now relocated to the Kimberley for teaching positions after the furniture franchise, Woodstock, that they had bought failed after only 18 months. They had to fund the case themselves and go to court to get their successful outcome. They are to be congratulated for hanging on when it must have seemed futile and legal fees were mounting up. They are in the Kimberley teaching because they ran out of money and could no longer pay their legal bills. They have had to go to the outback and teach to get the funds to start again. They won this case with no help from the regulator, the ACCC. I only hope that the changes to the franchising system that have been announced will bring about some real, not merely superficial, change for the franchising sector and hold rogue franchisors accountable.

I have listed many issues here that are very important to the constituents in my electorate generally. These are the issues that I have been, and will be, pursuing. I intend, with some vigour, to make sure that we deliver on them this year. I thank the chamber.

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

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010. The Rudd Labor government is delivering for Dawson. That is the good news for the people of Dawson. The Rudd Labor government has delivered more in two years than the previous National Party member delivered in 11 years. In the past few years, working alongside fellow Queenslander Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan, the federal government has secured more funding than ever before for our electorate. The electorate of Dawson has received record funding on such things as local community infrastructure, the Bruce Highway, health, schools and education. The Rudd Labor government is truly delivering for Dawson.

The Rudd Labor government have delivered $95 million over five years towards the southern port access road in my electorate in southern Townsville. Just last month I was with Minister Anthony Albanese and Queensland Minister for Main Roads Craig Wallace at the opening of stage 1 in my electorate. This road will take 500 trucks a day off of local roads in Stuart and Wulguru, with 960 direct and indirect jobs sustained over the life of the entire Townsville Port Access Road Project. More has been delivered on funding the Bruce Highway in the last two years than in the previous five years of the Howard government. That is what I call truly delivering for Dawson.

I am proud of the success of the Caring for our Country program. The Reef Rescue component of Caring for Our Country is comprised of five integrated components: water quality grants of $146 million over five years, which is good news for the people of Dawson; reef partnerships of $12 million over five years, which is another excellent factor delivering for Dawson; land and sea country Indigenous partnerships of $10 million over five years; reef water quality research and development of $10 million over five years; and water quality monitoring and reporting, including the publication of an annual Great Barrier Reef water quality report card, worth $22 million over five years—truly delivering for the people of Dawson. Farmers have benefited greatly from this direct assistance. It is assistance that the National Party could never deliver for farmers in Dawson. Our agriculture minister, Tony Burke, has seen first-hand the good work of farmers in my electorate of Dawson and I would like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for the time he took early on in my term in government to come to the people of Ayr and the Burdekin and visit the sugar cane community there. The local people said that it was amazing that they had never had the minister for agriculture in the previous 11 years come to their town, their homes and their farms and see first-hand what their small community is doing in adding to the bottom line of this nation’s wealth. Even though the other side there mock it, cane is actually one of our chief exports—sugar is a major export—and the people of Dawson, in cane, mining, cattle and tourism, are adding to the bottom line of this nation, and we are doing it in spades.

Tony Burke, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has seen the innovations and the investments in smart technologies that make the farmers’ farms more productive, and they protect the Great Barrier Reef. They have improved the health of the reef and the productivity of their farms. Today I had a call from the CEO of Mackay Sugar and he was absolutely ecstatic that today they are signing up a $120 million cogeneration project, which has been made possible by the decisions of this Rudd Labor government in raising the renewable energy target to 20 per cent from a measly two per cent by the previous coalition government. We have enabled Mackay Sugar to go online and today to sign for the start of that project. This is truly good news for the environment, good news for renewable energy and good news for adding value to the sugar industry in the seat of Dawson. The RET scheme, which will deliver a 20 per cent target for renewable sources by 2020, has allowed Mackay Sugar to start building this viable $120 million cogeneration plant at the Racecourse mill, because they have a guaranteed market for their electricity. For the information of the members here, they will produce enough renewable energy to supply Mackay with 33 per cent of its electricity needs, year in, year out. That is an excellent solution.

The Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, has seen this first-hand together with the Mackay Sugar chair, Eddie Westcott, and the board. This fantastic project has been on the drawing board—wait for it!—for 11 years. Eleven years of National Party representation failed to deliver in adding value to the sugar industry and failed to protect the environment by producing renewable energy and supplying Mackay with one-third of its electricity needs. But guess what? Within two years this Rudd Labor government has enabled Mackay Sugar to sign today the deal to commence work on a $120 million renewable energy project. I am truly proud to be part of this government that gets things done and truly does deliver for the people of Dawson.

We have also delivered on all of our election commitments in the seat of Dawson: $14 million for the Mining Technology Innovation Centre, the Australian centre for mining innovation, based in Mackay. Mackay is a service mining town to the Bowen Basin mining area. That is a fantastic achievement. Then there is $4 million for the Mackay Aquatic Park, which was often spoken about by the National Party former member but they never actually delivered the $4 million in any election. We did it.

We committed $50 million for the Bruce Highway upgrades in South Mackay and delivered, once again. We committed $25 million in funding for the Burdekin Bridge over four years. Something which I am particularly proud of—and again, the previous National Party federal member for Dawson went to two elections promising to fund a Mackay rugby league stadium and failed to deliver—we, the Rudd Labor government, have delivered $8.8 million for the Mackay rugby league multipurpose stadium. The people of Mackay and the seat of Dawson rejoice over that decision.

We also delivered $112,000 for the Dolphins’ soccer clubhouse and $1.3 million for sporting infrastructure for the Harrup Park Country Club. Also, we have a stimulus package, which the other side of politics voted totally against, which delivered to the people of Dawson 585 projects totalling $135,610,000, including $121,247,000 for every one of our 73 schools in over 277 projects. Then, of course, there is the Bluewater Trail in Mackay, worth $2.97 million—another great delivery to the people of Mackay and the people of Dawson. There have been moneys to councils for regional and local community infrastructure, $1.99 million; the Better TAFE Facilities Program, four projects worth $2.63 million; the Mackay TAFE refurbishment, $2.645 million; shade structures over Mackay regional council parks, worth over $1 million; and $743,000 for Cannonvale and Bowen bike paths, including $518,000 to build a shared 4.5 kilometre pathway for the Bowen Front Beach to Sports Complex Cycle Link Project. Again, these were delivered by the Rudd Labor government.

We have delivered $225,000 towards the Cannonvale pedestrian bike path route project to link a major tourist resort and a residential area to the Whitsunday Shopping Centre; trade training centres; $3 million for Mackay Christian College, Carlisle Christian College and Whitsunday Anglican School; and $5.9 million towards the combined Mackay state high schools facility at Central Queensland University. This is truly delivering for the people of Dawson—delivering in areas in which the previous National Party representative did not deliver at all.

We have delivered funding for computers in schools—125 computers for Mercy College, 105 for Bowen State High School, 269 for Mackay State High School, 187 for St Patrick’s and 67 for Burdekin Catholic High School. And there is more, oh yes, there is a lot more being delivered. In Townsville I lobbied hard to deliver the funding for the Flinders Street Mall. That upgrade, with the Commonwealth’s contribution, is worth $16.2 million. And guess what? I lobbied hard with the Mayor of Townsville, Les Tyrell, to deliver $16.2 million. Why? Because the member for Herbert was absent, but the member for Dawson delivered for the people of Herbert and the people of central Townsville $16.2 million. Why? Because of an ineffectual Liberal Party member over there.

It is not just these commitments that have been delivered. The Rudd Labor government proves day in and day out the everyday real commitment and representation to the seat. We deliver. We have a clear agenda and a clear objective and we have the political will and determination to deliver, deliver, deliver for everyday working people.

Following the 2008 floods, along with all levels of government, we provided financial assistance, which was matched by state disaster relief, for the thousands of residents—8,000 homes in total were affected—of Mackay who were flooded out and lost everything. Thousands of homes and businesses were completely wiped out. The federal office of Dawson in Mackay was also flooded out, and we ended up having to move a year later, because it was simply unworkable. We ended up working out of my house for something like six months, because no other premises were available. Many, many businesses were affected.

So thousands of homes and businesses were wiped out due to the flooding, including my electoral office. Though we were flooded out, we did not stop. We needed to be there for our constituents in need. My staff and I operated the electoral office from my home for months. I want to put on record today the dedication of my staff. I want to name each one of them. There is the office manager, Jane Casey; at front reception, there is Adel Howland; there is my media manager, Andrea Pozza; there is my research assistant, James Sullivan; and there is our casual worker, John Pollitt. I want to say thank you to all of my electoral staff for their work through the most trying and harrowing of times.

I was elected in November 2007 and had no facilities to work from February 2008 until we got into new premises much later. They worked as a team. They came together and we did not stop serving the people of Dawson. We in the Labor Party are committed to helping working people, small businesses and community. I want to thank my staff from the bottom of my heart. Through very hard and tough times, we kept on. That is the Labor way. We do not stop. We have a clear goal, we have a clear vision and we have clear work to do and we will never stop serving the everyday people of this nation. My staff have stuck with me from the very beginning. They are loyal. I want to thank them for what they helped me do even through the disruptions. I thank them very much.

As a united team, this government has delivered also. We have delivered extra funding for the Youth Information Resource Service, a service that provides help for young people in crisis and, particularly at a time when we had a spate of youth suicides, this government—through the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and through Jenny Macklin—provided an extra $200,000 emergency funding to help with that terrible situation. I thank them for that. We have provided extra funding for volunteer groups, veterans, pensioner groups and tourism ventures.

I am grateful to the cabinet for holding two community cabinets in my community, in Mackay in 2008 and in Townsville in 2009. I love community cabinets. It is grassroots democracy. It is speaking to the people. This is direct democracy and this direct democracy has ensured that stakeholder groups and constituents can be heard by the Commonwealth government.

Finally, I would like to say that the people of Dawson have for far too long been left out—hung out to dry—by an out of touch National Party. They are totally out of touch. It is an honour to serve the people of Dawson. I promise to work hard to continue to deliver for the people of Dawson. Whatever happens, I do not want to see the National Party take the seat of Dawson again. As you would know, I have announced that at the end of this term I will be stepping down for reasons of ill health. I promise that right up until then I will continue to give 110 per cent. I will not stop serving everyday ordinary people. I will not stop serving small businesses. It is an honour to do that. I can only say that the joy that I have seen on people’s faces has made it all worth while. I commend these bills to the House.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I will be speaking about today are issues relating to Defence, a department that basically has a litany of disasters associated with it. It is a department that, quite frankly, is in comprehensive need of reform. In fact, it is difficult to think of any major acquisition that is not in trouble. For instance, there is the issue of 12 submarines that is identified in the Defence white paper. That, quite frankly, is a joke. At the moment, we are having a great deal of difficulty in crewing even three of our six Collins class submarines. Indeed, we are having a great deal of difficulty with the maintenance of those submarines. The white paper has not even identified a capability gap requiring 12 submarines, and yet there it is: a huge expense for the future.

As a way of highlighting the problems within Defence, and particular of major defence acquisitions, I will be discussing the issues relating to the joint strike fighter or the new air combat capability. When you have a look at Defence claims—and indeed to outside claims—with regard to the capability, you see that Defence, far from being experts, have a history of very bad calls in terms of timelines and costs, never mind issues relating to capability. Only a few short months ago we had the head of the Defence Materiel Organisation, Dr Stephen Gumley, telling us that everything was okay with the program. It was all hunky-dory; he was certainly not losing any sleep! The fact is that very recently the United States Director of Operational Test and Evaluation was incredibly damning of the program. In that report they stated that even with favourable test results from now on and with more test aircraft and more funding, initial operational tests and evaluation could—I repeat, ‘could’—be finished by 2016.

They stated that LRIP, or low-rate initial production capabilities, are not representative of the fully developed capability. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation warned against using computer models before they are ready and have been demonstrated to accord with reality. I have to say that that reminds me of another area where computer models are used an awful lot—and that is on climate change. The F35C, which is the carrier-capable variant, through weight problems leading to increased landing and take-off speeds, is already over tyre-limit speeds. In other words, the speeds that are required of the aircraft are over what the tyres are rated for. That has led to various things being done in an attempt to reduce weight, which I will go into a little bit later.

They have had problems with software instability in the program. Thermal management is an issue. The aircraft is incredibly dense: it has a whole lot of avionics; a powerful radar for its size; and an engine that, of necessity for its thrust, runs very hot at its core. Therefore, they are having problems with cooling, particularly of the fuel. The fuel that they bring back is overheating and they are having problems with pumps and so on.

Also, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation identified that the JSF is vulnerable to battle damage. In order to try to bring the weight down—particularly for both the F35C, the carrier variant, and the F35B, the marine short take-off and vertical landing variant—they removed fuel-safety check valves. In other words, if you have a problem and there is a fuel leak the fuel will continue to pump. They have removed fire extinguishers in certain areas and so on. Those are not good things for a combat aircraft.

In fact, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation says that the aircraft is vulnerable to fire if hit, and battle damage to controls could cause the loss of aircraft and pilot. This is certainly not something we want to see for our people within Defence. This report of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation is more at odds with the official schedules—here I am talking about the schedules of Lockheed Martin, the United States Air Force and our Defence department—than any program before. In fact, this program is so badly off the rails that US Secretary of Defense Gates fired the program manager within the United States Air Force. I have to say, Secretary Gates has been an incredible fan of this aircraft. He has been spruiking it as if he is a salesman for the project. It is only latterly that he has come to a realisation about the significant issues there are associated with the program.

The issue of costings is very interesting. In 2002 Colonel Dwyer Dennis, of the US JSF Program Office, said to Australian journalists, ‘It will cost about $37 million for the conventional take-off and landing aircraft, which is the air force variant,’ which is actually the variant we will be getting.

At Senate estimates in 2003, then Air Commodore John Harvey said the cost would be US$40 million. At the Senate estimates hearing of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, in 2003-04 once again, then Air Commodore Harvey said, ‘It will cost US$45 million in 2002 dollars.’ Again at Senate estimates in 2006, Air Commodore Harvey said, ‘The average unit recurring fly-away cost of the JSF will be around US$48 million in 2002 dollars.’ In November 2006, again Air Commodore Harvey said, ‘The JSF price for Australia will be $55 million on average for our aircraft in 2006 dollars.’

In 2007, in a briefing to the office of the Minister for Defence—and I was at that meeting—Air Vice Marshal Harvey stated:

DMO is budgeting around $131 million in 2005 dollars as the unit procurement cost for the JSF.

That is very significantly different to the numbers that had been peddled before. Dr Steve Gumley, in October 2007, said:

There are 108 different cost figures for the JSF that I am working with and each of them is correct.

Clearly, they are all wrong, given the way the numbers have been going. Despite what had been said at the meeting at which I was present where they referred to the unit procurement price as $131 million, Dr Steve Gumley, in July 2008, to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, said:

… I would be surprised if the JSF cost us any more than $75 million in 2008 dollars at an exchange rate of 0.92.

Then in September 2009 Dr Gumley confirmed previous advice—that is, $75 million in 2008 dollars, at an exchange rate of 0.92. Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defense, in February 2008, said the cost would be about $77 million per copy. In 2009, in the Australian Financial Review, I stated that costings were demonstrated by binding information provided to Norway that it would be between $165 million and $235 million per aircraft. Air Vice Marshal Harvey criticised my costing as being an Israeli ‘never to exceed’ pricing. He was very critical of what I said at the time. Now what do we find? We are purchasing aircraft at $229 million each. Admittedly, this will also be paying for certain infrastructure and so on associated with the new aircraft, but the estimate is that the unit procurement price is about $178 million each. We have seen a whole litany of wrong costings by defence. We have seen other costings done by me and other people which have been far closer to the mark.

I see very little due diligence. I have to admit to my chagrin that this was a decision that was initially made by the coalition government, but the current government has a lot to bear in this regard, with the honourable exception of the member who is sitting in the chair at the moment, the member for Brisbane. The fact is there has still been no coherent comparison of all contenders, and this is a travesty in a project which is going to cost tens of billions of dollars.

In terms of time lines, in 2006, then Air Commodore John Harvey stated that the first JSF would be delivered in 2012 and achieve an initial operating capability in 2014. In fact, they will be lucky to achieve an initial operating capability by 2018. On 23 February 2006, in a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade looking at new air combat capability, after Harvey had said that it would be 2012 for the first delivery, I said we would be unlikely to receive any JSFs in 2012. Consider who is right on that one.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the JSF is good enough for us, whether it has all the capability we require when you look at the region. The fact is that, just in the last week, we have seen the shape of the future of our competition and that is an aircraft made by Sukhoi called the PAK-FA, which is the Russian aircraft that is made in direct competition to the F-22. Looking at the shape of the aircraft, in my view the stealth capacity is not up to the F-22, however it would be in the same ballpark as the JSF. But it has significantly greater capability, particularly in terms of aerodynamic performance and many of the sensors that it employs.

The concern is that the new air combat capability or the JSF, if we continue down this line, will be around in the time that my great-grandchildren are around. Do we really believe, particularly given that the PAK-FA has already flown and the Russians are looking at marketing it in the second half of this decade, that the JSF is going to cut it in this time frame, when my great-grandchildren are around?

On the issue of capability, Defence are betting on what are called stealth and network-centric warfare and they are also saying that, in terms of air combat, manoeuvrability and aerodynamic performance no longer matter because the missile will do the manoeuvring. Interestingly enough, a Rand Corporation report said of the Joint Strike Fighter, ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.’

Let us have a look at some of the concerns about the Joint Strike Fighter. First of all, they talk about the issue of stealth. There are problems with the aircraft in terms of its stealth capability. It is very compromised and it is focused on what is known as the X-band or a certain range of frequencies of radar in the frontal sector. The problem that is the Russians are already developing longer wavelength radar for fitment to aircraft and they will be able to be back-fitted to aircraft like the legacy Flankers and also PAK-FA. Another problem is that the Joint Strike Fighter does not have good stealth even within the X-band from either the side or rear quarters. They are also betting on network-centric warfare, which is basically getting a whole lot of information that is not directly available to your aircraft and its own sensors—in other words, it is sharing of information.

The point is, in terms of concept this is really nothing new; it has been around since the days of sail. If you have your fleet here and the enemy fleet there and you cannot directly observe them as you have a frigate in between, semaphoring the disposition of the enemy fleet is a form of network-centric warfare. Another problem with network-centric warfare is that it necessitates that you transmit information. As soon as you transmit you are detectable; people can detect you all emissions, so that it is a very significant concern as far as the stealth of these aircraft is concerned.

Let us have a look at the issue stealth. What happens in an engagement? The Joint Strike Fighter holds its missiles in an internal weapons bay. As soon as it wants to shoot it has to open the weapons bay doors, which means that you can detect the aircraft very easily with radar and target it. In addition to that, the Russians have infrared search and track detectors, and the European pirate infrared search and track has similar capability. Head-on it is able to detect aircraft at 50 kilometres, from the tail at 90 kilometres and an AMRAAM launch—advanced medium-range air-to-air missile—at 100 kilometres. So it is far from ‘You will not know that you have a problem until the missile actually hits you up the backside’, as Defence are fond of saying.

In terms of the missile doing the turning, the problem is that missiles do not tend to work as advertised. Let us go back through a bit of history here. The AIM-7 Sparrow missile, which was used by the Americans in Vietnam, had a probability of kill of 0.7 in tests. That means that 70 times out of 100 the missile killed its target. It went to Vietnam, and that went down to eight times out of 100. The Vietnam era AIM-9 Sidewinder, once again, in tests got 65 out of 100; in reality, 15 out of 100. The AIM-9 ‘Lima’ got very good results in the Falklands of 73 out of 100. By the time of Desert Storm, they had worked out how to combat these things, and it was down to 23 out of 100. AMRAAM, the missile that we have, at the moment has a demonstrated capacity of 46 out of 100. It sounds good, but that is against fleeing non-manoeuvring targets that are not using electronic countermeasures and do not have beyond-visual-range missiles themselves. This is all a very significant concern for us. Defence are telling us that beyond visual range is what it is all about; we are never going to have within visual range again. So why does something like the F22 have a gun?

Let us have a look: how can we improve the situation with Defence? In my view, the first thing that we can do is look at decoupling the funding of DSTO from Defence. DSTO must have the capability to act and conduct research in a completely independent manner while still doing the work required to support defence projects. The DSTO leadership must not be in a subservient position to Defence leadership. There should be completely separate chains of command reporting to the Minister for Defence. There should also be DSTO and Australian National Audit Office personnel integrated with all defence acquisitions and project upgrades. The Defence Materiel Organisation will probably need to be dragged kicking and screaming into this, as they will resist these measures and use arguments stating that they will not be to operate efficiently while hamstrung by these personnel conducting oversight. They will also say that there should only be this sort of oversight when a project gets into trouble. That is nonsense. Oversight is required to prevent trouble from occurring.

In terms of a legislated approach to reform, perhaps we should have something like an Australian version of the Goldwater-Nichols act that was introduced in the United States in 1986 under Reagan, which did a considerable amount to improve the issues relating to US capability in both acquisitions and upgrades. The policy must be put in place to allow robust debate within Defence and at all levels on capability issues. There must be no censure of Defence personnel who question capability, doctrine, ideology or the way things are done. Defence must engage with its critics in the Australian community and address concerns with actions, not disparaging rhetoric. We see an organisation such as Air Power Australia, which has been criticised ad nauseam by Defence, and yet it has a far more accurate record in its estimates of price, time lines and so on than Defence has. Fixing Defence is critical to Australia’s future, and I urge the government to carry out comprehensive reform in this regard. (Time expired)

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

It being nearly 6.40 pm, I interrupt the debate in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.