Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to rise in this debate to speak about some of the important issues in the federal budget but also some of the important issues economically for Australia, with particular regard to the electorate of Casey. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a fellow Victorian I have said before in this chamber I know your familiarity with the eastern and outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Your electorate is a little more than a torpedo punt away but you are in the vicinity of the outer eastern suburbs. The electorate of Casey comprises outer eastern suburbs, part of the Yarra Valley, part of the Dandenong Ranges. The decisions that are taken here in Canberra in a budgetary sense are very much felt on the ground in the electorate, and I want today to address a number of those as we talk about the Rudd government’s third budget.

Three years ago this government inherited one of the best budget situations of any government in the world. Now as we consider this budget all Australians are very familiar with the policy implementation failures, the waste and mismanagement that have become a feature of the Labor government. We have had billion-dollar blowouts in the Building the Education Revolution, we have had countless examples right across Australia and within my electorate of value for money being abandoned in a rushed project with poor and disastrous policy implementation. No amount of opposition from the government members in this parliament will conceal the fact that the Australian people are a wake-up to what has been monumental policy failure on so many levels.

The parents of school communities across Australia and within Casey know about the failings of the Building the Education Revolution program because they see the waste, they see it in their school community. They know that under the previous government they had a choice about their school’s future through the Investing in our Schools program. Under this government they have no choice and when large amounts of money are spent they know that they are not getting value for money as a result of the mismanagement of this government’s programs.

On the ceiling insulation program—and I know this will be the case for all members of parliament and I know many of those opposite will never say what I will say but they know that what I am about to say is a fact—there has not in recent memory been an example of a government program that has adversely affected so many people in our electorates. The number of phone calls and amount of correspondence about this failed Home Insulation Program has been astronomical. I say that because the experience of Casey residents will be the same as the experience of other residents right across Melbourne, Victoria and Australia.

The Home Insulation Program, which the government belatedly admits was a failure, will be a symbol of the incapacity of this government to deliver policy effectively. It will be a symbol of this government’s waste and mismanagement. I stand here with my friend and colleague the member for Mallee, who has been a member of this House longer than me, and I am sure that he would agree that, once, a billion dollars seemed an incredible amount of money. Of course it is, but with a billion dollar blow-out in the Building the Education Revolution and a billion dollar blow-out in the ceiling insulation program, these are now just rounding errors for this government—rounding errors that occur time after time. The amount of debt we have—and the Leader of the Opposition spoke of this in his budget reply—now sees Australia borrowing $700 million each and every week.

In the electorate of Casey, under the Howard government, community infrastructure projects were funded, despite what those opposite would say. Significant community infrastructure projects were funded between 2004 and 2007—for example, the Monbulk Community Centre hub, to the tune of a couple of million dollars, and the Montrose Recreation Reserve, to the tune of $600,000. These were funded out of surplus budgets. We did not borrow that money.

Casey residents see the federal government racking up debt and deficit and they know that, at the end of the day, that is paid for by them. It is paid for in higher taxes, it is paid for in higher interest rates and it is paid for in fewer opportunities. In three short years, many people across the electorate have seen the government’s form on policy implementation and they rightly pose the question: if the government cannot run a ceiling insulation program, how could it possibly run bigger programs and how will it possibly implement policies into the future? The one thing the electors of Casey know is that the government has revealed its incapacity and that this government cannot and will not get any better in the expenditure of their money here in Canberra.

We have also seen broken promises and mass hypocrisy. The greatest hypocrisy we have seen over the last week—and I know the member for Mallee will agree—has been the decision, and the concealment of the decision, by the government to engage in political advertising on its resources tax. Australians will be interested to know that tomorrow will be day 7 of a national emergency. We will be at the end of one full week. Last Friday we and the Australian public discovered that the government had bypassed its own processes to enable this advertising campaign. Not only that; it spent all week in Senate estimates concealing it.

Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, could not have been clearer when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Last Friday night the news footage showed him as the Leader of the Opposition pledging with his hand on his heart to change the system and inviting journalists to come back if he when in government did not meet his promise. Well, he has not met his promise. He deliberately decided that the emergency of saving his political skin was more important than his solemn promise to the Australian people. People want to know when the Prime Minister decided he was going to break faith with the Australian people. Once he had there was, as we have seen with this government, this incredible effort to cover it up in the inquiries during the week.

The electors of Casey have seen that, if this government makes a promise, it is likely to break it and, if it implements a policy, it will muck it up. They have seen in just a few short years this government make promises to them that it does not keep and this government seek to implement policies and then waste money. When confronted over many weeks and months, as it was with the ceiling insulation debacle and the Building the Education Revolution school halls debacle, there is stubborn refusal to acknowledge the failure. There is not even the slightest attempt to say, ‘Maybe there’s a problem here and we should fix it.’ The government’s first instinct is to deny. This went on for months with the ceiling insulation program and the Building the Education Revolution program.

The sad part for those opposite is that the residents of the electorate of Casey and right across Australia can see this policy failure every day. They see it in their community. More than 40 residents have contacted me with disastrous stories about ceiling insulation. A lady had people knock on her door and proceed to install insulation. They damaged her roof and then disappeared. There are countless examples—

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Forrest interjecting

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am tempted to say that maybe the same installers went to Mildura. Sadly, there were so many cases like that. The first instinct of the government was to pretend that it was not happening. In doing that, they knowingly let this bad and catastrophic program continue.

This third Rudd government budget has answered the question for many in the Australian community. This government cannot manage money, cannot implement programs and cannot be trusted on anything it says in the lead-up to the next election. If the government will break promises it made before the last election, it will break promises in the future if it gets a chance. If the government is not competent to implement basic policy, that will never change. At the next election, the people of Australia will have a choice, and they will have that choice having seen the Rudd government over three years of policy failure, broken promises, waste and mismanagement. This budget is a budget that is starkly different from the budgets of the Howard government. Back in those days, those opposite complained about how money was spent in times of surplus budgets. Now, their promises on reducing the deficit and reducing debt must be kept alongside their track record on broken promises to date.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the appropriation bills, and I also welcome the budget. For us as a nation, this budget is able to build on a position of strength. That is important as the world is still grappling with the impacts of the global recession. We avoided the global recession—the worst the world has seen—but not all of the fallout from it. There is no way we could escape some of the fallout, but we did not go into recession. People can say that was good luck, but it was not—it was good management. Luck can always feature in a lot of things, but basic good economic management and political management helped make sure that we did not go into recession when almost all other developed countries with advanced economies did not.

Norway would have been one country that did not go into recession. Norway has also gained its richness and wealth over the years from resources. They have been world leaders in the way they manage their resources. I have great familiarity with this—as members of the House know, I lived and worked in Timor-Leste for nearly four years, so the resources sector is not unknown to me, and big mining companies and how they operate are not unknown to me either—some of them have immersed themselves in the debate that is happening here. I have seen the way that they operate in countries around the world, and sometimes it is not a pretty site. The Treasurer said in his budget speech, and I agree:

A position of strength from which we will build a modern tax and retirement income system, invest in renewable energy, and deliver historic health and hospital reform.

He further said:

A position of strength from which we will build the skills base and capital stock we need for a new generation of prosperity.

I want to congratulate the Treasurer not only for the budget but for three budgets, the three successive budgets of the Rudd Labor government. I also want to say to him: credit where credit is due, because often in politics people do not get credit where it is due. The economics editor Tim Colebatch, writing in the Age on 1 June, in an article titled ‘The dirt on dodging the GFC’ said:

And the Rudd government’s stimulus measures put a floor under retail spending, housing and construction activity when it was most needed. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

We should give credit where credit is due. He said some other interesting things in this article and one of them was:

The recession was concentrated in manufacturing, where output fell 11 per cent: mining output fell just 1 per cent. Mining didn’t save us from recession. The impact of China’s stimulus certainly helped us recover, but only after the worst had passed.

The article goes to the heart of the issue of the stimulus and clearly articulates that the stimulus helped save us from recession, and it certainly did. We do not live in isolation. We are members of parliament, we have got electorates, businesses, local people, schools and local economies, and it is clear that stimulus has worked to help keep us out of recession.

We would have seen people in long unemployment queues. I can remember seeing them, and members in this House would remember seeing them, and the queues go on for a long time. Some people I know, who were unemployed years ago, found it nearly impossible to get back into employment, particularly older people, and older males especially. I have seen it when we had high youth unemployment—

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

Back in the eighties and nineties.

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

Yes, in the eighties and early nineties. So we did not want to repeat that situation, and without the stimulus we could have had that happen. So let us be clear, we needed the stimulus. It saved our bacon, as the saying goes. Yes, we had a reasonable basis to launch from, but far from as sound and perfect as the opposition would have us believe. They often try and remind us that the Labor government inherited all the good things. Yes, some things were good, but there had been all those years of growth preceding the Howard government and through the time of the Howard government.

Let us just have a look at the facts. When in 2007 the Rudd government came to government, there were some really tough conditions. There was inflation, the highest in 16 years, and it had risen to that rate in the last quarter of 2007. The average increase was high in the Reserve Bank’s measures of underlying inflation. It was 1.2 per cent. That was in the December quarter of 2007, just after Labor came into government. But it was to be three per cent higher through the year. Throughout the previous government they had been given 20 warnings about inflation from the RBA. From everything that I have looked at it appeared that those warnings were not acted upon.

We know that productivity was at its lowest level. We have had debates about the 457 visas and, yes, they have been needed so that we could bring people into the market to do certain jobs. But if the productivity had been higher, had it been worked on, had there been policy input, it would have made a difference. The average annual productivity growth over the last five years of the coalition government was lower than in any other equivalent period in 16 years. The productivity growth fell from an average 2.1 per cent a year over the 1990s to an average of just 1.4 per cent during 2000.

There was no investment in infrastructure either. Yes, there might have been little projects, which are very welcome. I have seen some little projects in my electorate, and that leads me to digress to talk about the Investing in Our Schools Program, which the honourable member who spoke previously talked about in his contribution. I have seen some of the projects from that program, and some of them were good projects. But it was done on a competitive basis—not every school got one. When we are looking at schools, if it is good enough for one school then it is good enough for another school. That is why the BER and the NSP and a whole range of those programs can work, because they cover all schools. When we are looking at education, schools should not have to bid on a competitive basis for resources and things needed in their schools.

Child care was an absolute mess, and that takes time to sort out. Health reform had been deemed too hard in some areas. Yes, there had been some things that had happened, but it was ‘too hard’. The opposition leader, the member for Warringah, as the then health minister said it was too hard. He said the Commonwealth should take over the dominant role, but that was too hard to do, and then he ripped a billion dollars out of what is referred to as the Medicare agreement, the Australian healthcare agreement.

Regional development was another area. Yes, they had regional development projects, but we saw the regional development rorts. We all saw the Auditor-General’s reports on that. If you have a look at the map of where those regional development projects went to, it was to a very small range of areas, and some appeared to be favouring certain members of certain parties. And in 1997 they actually axed the department of regional development, which astounded me. I cannot understand how a coalition partner like the National Party, whose rhetoric is that they are the natural party in the country, allowed that to be just ripped out. They watched all of these things go.

Turning back to the budget, one thing that is clear is that without the stimulus we in Australia would have gone back 0.7 per cent in 2009. That was when the advanced economies contracted by three per cent, but Australia grew at 1.4 per cent. So this bodes well for us. Also, to comment on spending, the spending growth is capped at two per cent so it is responsible economic management. Under the previous government the spending growth was around six per cent, even up to 6.6 per cent. So if you want to do a quick check about responsible management, the facts have to match up with the political rhetoric, and they do not.

There were other important measures in the 2010-11 budget, particularly the health investments. There is $772 million to improve access to general practitioners and primary health care and $523 million for training and supporting Australian nurses. There is $467 million to modernise our health and hospital system, and that is e-records. That can sound a bit high-tech, but it is about our health. It is about having less interventions. It is about our health records, with our health status following us wherever we go in the health system so that they can be accessed by whichever practitioner we have to go to for treatment. That is really important. I know, as would other members here, that you can have to go to one doctor and then to another and might have to have multiple X-rays or blood tests. That is not good for us when we are dealing with health issues, because there are risks in that, but it is also an absolute waste of public money. Having the e-records will start to change the system so that a lot of that will not have to happen.

Obviously, one of the key reforms is in the area of hospitals. It is about hospitals being funded nationally and run locally. It is a change welcomed—certainly I welcome it—right across my electorate of Page. We are very engaged in local debate and discussions about how it is going to play out. I notice the honourable member for Lyne is here and I have heard him engaged in that local debate as well. It is a discussion that we do have to have locally to make sure that we have the best fit for our local needs.

I will discuss a couple of other issues in the budget. One is the resource super profits tax. Under it, the government will contribute 40 per cent of the investment in mining projects and take 40 per cent of the superprofits—and it is ‘superprofits’. It is not the regular profits, the standard profits, the normal profits—it is superprofits. This structure means that the tax applies to what the secretary of the Treasury has called ‘supernormal profits’. By taxing only supernormal profits, this tax does not distort production and investment decisions.

Listening to the debate, it is as though all the investments in the resources sector are about to happen now. In fact, they are locked in for years ahead. They are locked in internationally. There is absolute discord between what some of the big mining companies are saying and the reality on the ground. I have never heard such rubbish as when I heard them talking about sovereign risk. In the resources sector, the sovereign risk of a country is associated with a whole range of factors: its stability, its security, its political stability. These mining companies operate in countries all over the world in places where risks are great. In Australia, there is no sovereign risk. It is absolute nonsense when they talk about that in this debate. They are just throwing words around and running this whole fear campaign. The Leader of the Opposition has unashamedly jumped on board and become the champion of fear. His attitude is: ‘Can we scare people? Let’s go out and do it. Let’s run a campaign. We will not have any policy or any well thought out initiatives. Let’s just go out and try and scare people.’

The whole debate as it is being played out is unbelievable, especially some of the numbers and claims that have been bandied about. The mining boss, Clive Palmer, was absolutely ridiculous with one claim about the shutting down of a project in South Australia that did not even exist. It is a bit like the cheese factory that did not exist under the previous government’s regional rorts funding. It is similar absolute nonsense and Clive Palmer is a leader of the LNP, as it is called in Queensland.

We saw the same scare campaign last time a 40 per cent profits based tax was introduced in the eighties and that industry went on to flourish. So this will just get played out. The government’s engagement with most industry representatives has been very constructive. There is a panel set up just for that.

I will just make a couple of concluding remarks. Australia’s fiscal position is the envy of the world. Our net debt peaks dramatically lower and Australia’s unemployment peaks lower. I seek leave to have these graphs incorporated into my speech.

Leave granted.

The graphs were as follows—

I thank those opposite for doing that and I commend this budget to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and associated bills, and to do a round-the-world trip of some issues within the Lyne electorate on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. I will start with the central issue for a high-growth area that has traditionally been underserviced by state governments in regard to its own resource distribution formulas in the area of health. In the 2007 Garling report, the whole North Coast window was identified as being underserviced by up to $70 million per year. Our area has been underfunded for too long now due to our high growth rate and our large ageing population cohort. State structures have continually failed to deal with that growth. Therefore, the move by the Prime Minister and others to tackle the issue of health and hospital reform was strongly welcomed by me and others on the North Coast. It was described as a slam dunk for high-growth areas such as ours because it would bypass the perennial problems of state based funding, and the abuse of resource distribution formulas, through direct Commonwealth funding of local health networks. A bit of command and control at a clinical level and at a local level would be very welcome.

That was pre-COAG language. In post-COAG language it is probably less of a slam dunk. We are now at the detailed stage where boundaries are being defined and governance structures in regard to who is going to be involved and how they are going to be involved at a local level are being determined. I flag this as an issue of concern: we have the same foxes in the henhouse of reform—that is, the same state authorities that have been the traditional problem in high-growth areas are now, post COAG, back in a position of command and control over some of the critical issues around boundary definitions and governance of local health networks. Also post COAG, we have the concerning issue of once again putting state funding authorities and state based human discretion into resource distribution. We are potentially repeating the same problems of the past. I hope I am wrong. I hope that this detailed stage fleshes out this new state funding authority, which has been included in the Commonwealth funding direct to local health networks, and that it actually does not mean anything, does not get in the way and does not affect resource distribution formulas. I hope that there is no human discretion element and no ulterior state motives involved in it, which raises the question of why it is there at all. I sincerely hope that it plays a minimal role in deciding where money ends up and that we can be as pure as possible about Commonwealth funding direct to local health networks.

I also raise the concern that it is a state cabinet decision that is essentially being made now in regard to boundary definitions and local health network governance structures. I would hope those decisions are as pure as possible and that the Commonwealth is not walking away from the critical framework decisions that are being made right now. It is in this detailed stage that we will hopefully see a health reform system that is pure and does meet the rhetoric and the language of the Prime Minister when this whole process started. I sincerely hope it does, but I do flag that there are creeping concerns at the community, clinical and political levels. Some of those command and control issues are now creeping back to the area that was the problem in the first place—the state bureaucracy in New South Wales not coping with questions of equity and population movement to high-growth areas like the North Coast of New South Wales.

I sincerely hope that the federal health minister, the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet have not walked away from the detail stage and that they are still very much engaged with what is happening in this detail phase of the proposals. If necessary we do not just use carrot; we also use stick in regard to tied grants and in relation to any mechanisms that keep the rhetoric pure. We see in practice what has been promised in this reform program, which is critical for communities, particularly for high-growth communities such as the mid-North Coast of New South Wales.

Pre COAG I was thrilled that for the first time in the history of the seat of Lyne we had a Prime Minister, regardless of political persuasion, walk through the door of a local hospital in the Lyne electorate. That reflects on the history of the Commonwealth and on the history of political representation nationally and in the seat of Lyne. I will also give credit where credit is due and say I think it reflects well on the Prime Minister that he was willing to get his hands dirty on the topic of health and was willing to get into the regions and meet with clinicians and communities. I know the Prime Minister cops criticism for being overexposed in hospitals but, for regional areas such as mine, when this was a first to have a Prime Minister walk through our hospital’s doors, it was well received, I can assure this place. Again, regardless of political persuasion or who holds office, I would hope that in the future we all encourage prime ministers to get into the regions, to get into regional hospitals and to be willing to get their hands dirty on some of these critical community issues around health services.

I was pleased he came through our doors. By logical extension, when he came back a second time, he was also the first Prime Minister ever to come back. I think that was welcomed as well. I know our clinicians, of all political persuasions, pitched a very strong case to the Prime Minister and did leave an impression, which could be seen in the language when he announced the health and hospital reforms. At the National Press Club it was hospitals in the Lyne electorate, Port Macquarie Base Hospital in particular, that were front and centre in those debates and in those policy releases.

From a community perspective that is very, very welcome because we have a history on the mid-North Coast of division over health. Port Macquarie Base Hospital was the Australian experiment in regard to privatised public services, which caused enormous divisions at a local, state and national level in regard to the ideologies in and around how health services are delivered at a community level. The Prime Minister’s visit was therefore a good moment for us to be a leading example in a positive way rather than one that is dragged down and used to clobber one political party or another over the head as a negative example.

I appeal to this place to keep health and hospital reform on the agenda and ask that no-one walks away now that we are in the detail stage—that we do not leave it to the same decision makers at a state level to make the same decisions for the same poor reasons. The regions matter, and equity in resource dollars also matters. I would hope the Commonwealth stays very engaged on that front.

We have a submission for a fourth wing at Port Macquarie Base Hospital. It is a large project of $70 million but it is to meet the growing needs in our area. None of this reform will fly in areas such as mine unless we deal with the capacity questions that are confronting us on a daily basis right now—that is, the issues of more beds, more bricks and mortar and more capacity for hospitals such as Port Macquarie Base Hospital. That submission sits and waits to be dealt with by, preferably, the state government—because capital is traditionally theirs—but, in this environment where reform is on and capital is in the game, I also have put that submission before the government. I urge them to deal with it sooner rather than later.

As well, we have put a submission in for what will hopefully be the next round of GP superclinics. That program has been broadly welcomed by both the community and the primary healthcare network locally. I am surprised at the politics around it and disappointed that some have chosen to oppose the concept of GP superclinics. It is a model that works. Aligning allied health and primary healthcare organisations generally into the one-stop shop concept is eminently sensible, particularly, I might add—from my old state parliament days—locating them as close to hospital emergency departments as possible to relieve pressures on emergency departments. I would certainly recommend that the minister for health once again look at our submission. It is exactly along those lines and includes a component on GP training. If government is going to make a contribution then there should be a contribution from the GP network to build a long-term GP structure for the future, as part of those who might receive some government support giving a bit of love back.

I flag the issue of mental health. I am not sure whether others have flagged it in this debate. There were a range of concerns expressed—including by the Chair of the National Advisory Council on Mental Health, John Mendoza—around the lack of support within this budget for mental health services. It does matter in regions such as mine. We have been traditionally underserviced. I was pleased we saw a change of budget position with regard to the ability of social workers and occupational therapists to participate in the delivery of mental health services. That was a sensible change after the budget. If it had not been changed, it would have had a huge impact in communities like mine. I make the pitch again, and I am sure there are others who have done so in this debate: mental health services are needed and they need much greater attention from government to get it right, because we have not got it right at the moment.

I noticed that John Mendoza also made some comments about Indigenous health services. The medical centre within my community that deals with 2,000 Indigenous residents made a very strong point to me—that is, there is largely no difference between Indigenous health issues and mental health issues. Of their clients, 70 per cent have mental health issues. We need to get our heads around—pardon the pun—a lot of these issues in a much better way from a policy perspective, because many people in the community are suffering and the services are not on the ground to meet the need.

I also want to mention education, while I have the chance. It is probably a nice segue from comments about silo thinking in public policy on issues such as Indigenous health and mental health. We have submissions before government within the education space around place based thinking. Our region has a pretty good track record of people making it through to year 12, but the figure is still frighteningly low at just over 50 per cent. For that to be the national average, I think, reflects on all of us and is something for us all to think about. Secondary school participation rates, in my view, are low; so why are they generally seen to be accepted?

We as a region have pretty good comparative levels of vocational education and training uptake, but traditionally we have had very poor tertiary education uptake. The Bradley review wants 40 per cent or higher of 25- to 34-year-olds to hold bachelor degrees by 2025, but our current levels on the mid-North Coast are 11 per cent. As a local community we need to get our skates on, but so does the federal government. There is a lot of very exciting work being done within the education space on low SES engagement and within the space of employment-education, and I welcome that, but we still face some challenges. I want to put on the record a comment in the DEEWR report—the government’s own report—that was released this week in the lead-up to the regional loading questions. The report focused specifically on engagement, access and participation rates in regional and remote areas. A comment in this report said that, based on administrative data—the government’s own data:

Regional and remote access and participation rates … have deteriorated over the last five years.

The report did not say ‘slowed’, it did not say ‘declined’; it said ‘deteriorated’. All of us who have read hundreds of government reports know that the language used in such reports is normally incredibly cautious and incredibly conservative. For a report to say ‘regional students’ access and participation has deteriorated’ is, I think, national emergency stuff.

If we treat as a national emergency a dispute with some mining executives then I would ask the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to have a conversation with the Deputy Prime Minister about the crisis of confidence with regional students’ access and participation rates and to get their skates on in turning this deterioration around. If we are serious about the national interest, if we are serious about meeting these Bradley targets—these ambitious and welcome Bradley targets—we need to deal with this issue now and turn around the trend which is saying that regional and remote students are not participating and not accessing education pathways. ‘Why not?’ is the question. And what is the government doing about it when it is a national emergency?

I also very quickly want to put on the record some issues about roads and bridges and the community regional infrastructure program. I am disappointed that this program has been cut. It has been treated as a stimulus only program. For regions such as mine, it was an absolute breath of fresh air to see Commonwealth funding going directly to local councils. It made a huge difference in their capital works programs. I would urge some reconsideration on that front and that it be an ongoing program. You do not have to be too much of a visionary to argue the case that such a program finishes the story around regionalism and the very point of the Commonwealth. You could argue that that job is only half done. Direct funding from the Commonwealth to local councils for community infrastructure was very welcome, and it is disappointing that it has been cut.

I have asked the government before, and I will ask it again, about a national timber bridge fund. It might sound small scale to some in this place but it is not for people who live on the North Coast of New South Wales. This issue affects not only my electorate but also that of the member for Page, who spoke before me. The town of Kyogle has the highest number of failing timber bridges in Australia. In the land of valleys and hills, these timber bridges are the lifeblood of many people. We cannot leave it to local councils to deal with this issue when the bridges are all failing around the same time, en masse. Councils are rate pegged in New South Wales and simply do not have the budgets to deal with this situation. It is a shame that, in 2010, we see one level of government struggling for money while the other two levels of government are splashing it around. I once again ask the government to consider this matter.

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

I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2009-2010 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010. The budget that was handed down by the Treasurer is a responsible budget. It is a budget that will return the financial position of the Commonwealth to surplus in three years time. That is three years ahead of schedule. It is a responsible budget because it recognises that, after having invested in key areas of the economy throughout the global financial crisis and having supported jobs and delivered the economic activity that flowed from the stimulus measures, it is now time for us to build for the future and build for recovery.

I note the success of those stimulus measures. The national accounts which were released yesterday really underlined the significance of the stimulus measures and their impact on the economy. The national accounts show that the economy grew by 0.5 per cent for the March quarter. That is a rate of 2.7 per cent annualised. Australia continues to be, as a result of these measures, one of the best-performing economies in the world. CommSec economist Savanth Sebastian said:

If these measures—

that is, the stimulus measures—

were not in the mix, effectively the Australian economy would have been broadly flat or even negative.

Scott Haslem, the UBS chief economist, said:

Traditionally economic growth has been split 80-20 between the private and public sector. Over the last year it was 60-40 in favour of the public sector as the private sector struggled.

So you can clearly see that, had it not been for that investment by the public sector to support jobs, to stimulate demand, the economy would not have been able to record the growth figures that have been achieved. Justin Smirk, St George chief economist, said:

Domestic demand, fired up by government spending and fiscal handouts, is the key driver for now …

Clearly these respected market economists have concluded that the stimulus measures were integral to the achievement of that growth that has just been reported. I remind the House that those opposite voted against those stimulus measures. Had we not been able to secure the support of others in the other place, then we would not have been able to do what we did in steering the Australian economy through the global financial crisis, supporting jobs and making sure that the economy continued to grow and to grow strongly.

I wish to refer to a couple of graphs, which I will later seek leave to incorporate into the Hansard. In particular I would like to draw attention to a graph that is described as ‘Fiscal position the envy of the world’. When we look at this graph, we can see in very stark terms that, when it comes to our fiscal position—returning the budget to surplus in three years, three years ahead of schedule—Australia is outperforming the rest of the advanced economies. If we look at the graph that is referred to as ‘Net debt peaks dramatically lower’, we see in very stark terms that Australia’s net debt is at much more manageable levels than that of any comparable economy throughout the advanced world. This is as a result of good economic management over many years in this country, over several administrations. Reform initiatives that were undertaken by the Hawke and Keating governments and the budgetary position that was maintained—notwithstanding the escalation in spending—under the Howard government allowed the Australian economy to weather the storm through the good financial management of this government.

I want to refer to a couple of measures that are set out in the budget. In particular, I want to talk about health, because health is one of the key issues that take a very prominent place within the budget. We have delivered $7.3 billion over five years starting from 2009-10, including $417 million for more after-hours GP access, including 24-hour hotlines, and $355 million for 23 new GP superclinics. I heard the member for Lyne, who is very passionate in advocating the needs of his community, talk about the need for a GP superclinic in his community. The member for Lyne had better be quick or he had better hope for the re-election of the Rudd Labor government, because without a Rudd Labor government that program, that investment in GP superclinics, will be ripped away by Tony Abbott. This is the same Tony Abbott who, when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing, ripped a billion dollars out of the health system. He now wants to rip away another $820 million of health funding. He ripped a billion dollars away in government and now in opposition he wants to rip away $820 million. There is no end to his determination to rip away base levels of funding within the health system.

If we have a look at the important area of education we see that there is a further attack that has been mounted by the opposition in relation to trades training centres. I am fortunate to come into this place and represent a community that has secured funding for two trades training centres delivering trades training opportunities in 13 local schools in my community. That program is going to be cut, the heart ripped out of it by the spending cuts that have been proposed by the opposition leader. Computers in schools has been a fantastic program. Come into the schools in my community and see the progress that has been made. So many of them had ratios of fewer than one computer for every eight students and secured funding in the first round of this program. We now have all of our local schools, years 9 to 12, running at a ratio of one computer to every two students. We have a determination to reduce that to one to one. Those on the other side want to rip away the funds that have already been allocated for this program. They want to ensure that the schools in my community will not have the opportunity to move from the ratio of one to two to one to one. I will be fighting hard on this issue because I know how important it is for the educational opportunities of young people in my community. In fact, in my community approximately a thousand computers will not be delivered if there is a change of government. In terms of National Partnership funding, I see that there is also an attack on measures that are targeted towards teacher training and teaching quality. Schools in my community are getting the benefit of those funds and they will be subject to those cuts and those attacks.

I want to mention briefly skills, and in particular the Apprenticeship Kickstart program which has been a fantastic program that has delivered massive benefits in a community such as mine. If we have a look at the impact this has had on apprenticeship startups through the global financial crisis, we see that from December 2007 to February 2008 there were 212 apprenticeships taken up. From December 2008 to February 2009 it dropped to 165. Then have a look at what happened after Kickstart kicked in. It got the numbers up to 243, not only returning those figures to pre-GFC levels but exceeding them, giving more young people in my community opportunities to learn trades, to develop their skills and to move into those parts of the economy that require those skills so desperately. Those on the other side would attack these sorts of programs.

I will briefly refer to the resource super profits tax and what an important initiative this is for delivering benefits right across the economy, ensuring that the entire Australian economy, all of the Australian people, secure the benefits from the exploitation of our nation’s mineral wealth. We will ensure that money is directed towards key initiatives that will stimulate and liberate economic activity right across the economy. There are cuts in company tax rates to 28 per cent—we are the only party proposing to cut company tax. Those on the other side, with their paid parental leave, that sham of a policy—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ciobo interjecting

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

The member for Moncrieff knows that it is a sham of a policy. I do not believe he would ever have supported this if he was in any party room discussions that decided this because he knows it is a sham. It is an impost that has been imposed upon business, and arbitrarily on big business. Why? Because they had to find the money somehow.

The RSPT is about ensuring that all Australians secure the benefits of the exploitation of our mineral resources. They are a finite resource, they are non-renewable. They are the resources of the Australian people and once they are dug up and shipped off overseas, every time that happens a little bit of Australia’s natural wealth is exhausted, dissipated. That is why it is so important that we are able to capture some of the benefit of that and spread it right across the economy to ensure that communities such as mine in Western Sydney are able to get some of the benefit of that. When the Reserve Bank makes its judgments on whether or not to increase interest rates it takes into account the rapid growth, the capacity constraints and all of the challenges that occur in places like Western Australia and Queensland. Meanwhile, those small businesses in Western Sydney doing it tough get slugged with the same increases in interest rates where those capacity constraints lead to that effect.

What we say is, ‘Let’s share the benefits.’ Let us make sure that small businesses in communities like mine get a tax cut, get an opportunity to build on the investment allowance that we introduced during the global financial crisis and get a one-off deduction of up to $5,000 on their capital items that they purchase to invest in the future of their business.

We say that we should be investing in superannuation. I note that those on the other side always want to tell us, in the debate that we are having at the moment, that they support superannuation and that they think we should increase it but just not yet. With all of these things it is: ‘Just not yet.’ Their attitude is: ‘Yes, we believe in an adequate retirement savings, but most of the people that we represent, well, they can adequately provide for that above and beyond what might be compulsory contributions, so the rest of the unwashed masses should be happy with nine per cent until we determine at some future point that they might be entitled to it.’

They have never supported superannuation. They opposed it from the start and they continue to oppose it today. I want to quote the Leader of the Opposition because this particular quote puts in very stark contrast the position of this side, the government, and what we want to do for working people to boost their retirement savings, and the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. He said this in 1995, but I have to say that comments he has made more recently reinforce this view. In 1995 he said:

Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.

It is not a con job; it is an initiative that has delivered one of the biggest funds management sectors in the world. There is $1.1 trillion under management. It has assisted in steering us through the global financial crisis. This is a great achievement this country has put in place and we want to build upon it. We want to make sure that everyday people in my community are able to retire with a decent standard of living.

I would like to conclude by saying that the trilogy response to the budget was like a play within a play within a play. But, when we finally drilled down to what the response was, it was about opposing the things that will build a more prosperous future for Australia, going into recovery. It was about opposing health spending—but are we surprised, from someone who has a record of ripping money out of the system? It was about opposing superannuation—but are we surprised, from someone who is on record as saying it is the biggest con job ever foisted on the Australian people? It is about opposing infrastructure spending—but are we surprised, from those who spent all of those years in government failing to invest in the infrastructure needs of this country and building capacity constraints that ultimately led to the interest rate increases that they told us we would never have because they said they would keep them at record lows. All they did was lie to the Australian people. They failed to tell the Australian people that the Reserve Bank makes these judgments independently. To the extent that they could contribute to taking the pressure off interest rates by investing in infrastructure, they were asleep at the wheel and failed.

We have someone who is also opposed to the resource super profits tax and opposed to putting a price on carbon. This is an opposition led by leader that is opposed—

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

I draw the member’s attention to the word ‘lie’ and I ask him to please withdraw that comment from his statement.

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

If that suits you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. What the opposition and particularly the Leader of the Opposition stand for is opposing things—oppose, oppose, oppose. If you really want to have a look at what it is that they stand for, when you strip away all of the hot air that is the opposition of the opposition, they stand for one thing and that is Work Choices. They stand for ripping away the standards, the conditions and the wages of working people. They did it when they were in office and the sad reality is that they failed to hear the message the Australian people sent them at the last election, and that was: ‘Get your hands off our penalty rates, get your hands off our unfair dismissal protections and get your hands off the protections that mean that we are not forced to go into workplaces and bargain one-on-one with an employer that has vastly superior bargaining power.’ They were the messages that they sent to the former government. The failure of this opposition to hear those messages is something I intend to spend every waking hour between now and the next election informing and advising my community about. I seek leave to have the graphs I referred to incorporated in Hansard.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise the member that a previous speaker also sought to have similar documents incorporated. I advise you that the incorporation of the documents will only be granted if the documents meet the Speaker’s requirements.

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

I understand that.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the cognate debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills—in other words, on the Rudd Labor government’s most recent budget. It is instrumental when looking at the Rudd Labor government’s performance over the past almost three years to look at the way in which this government has truly come to fruition in terms of the promises it has made to the Australian people and how much it has actually delivered. It is instructive when you look at the journey of the Rudd Labor government and at the state of the nation’s economy to look at who it is we now have governing this country and what their philosophical and ideological beliefs are.

We know in 2007 that the Prime Minister stood before the Australian people and said, ‘Elect me because I am fiscally responsible, I am economically conservative and you can trust me.’ Shortly after being elected the Prime Minister wrote a treatise effectively in which he spoke about the dangers of neoliberalism, about the great concerns that he had about capitalism and about the structures that this country and others have had in place for decades. He did it in the context of global economic tumult as a consequence of the so-called GFC. I have no doubt that, within the core of the man who is our Prime Minister, there is a wholly unreconstructed socialist who is pulling the levers of the economy of this country.

As a young man growing up I often heard comments about former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Gough Whitlam is heralded as being among the greatest of the Labor pantheon. He was a man who represented all the greatest ideals of the Australian Labor Party. His approach to government in a short period of time—I would argue, with my knowledge of history, it was too long a period of time—did incredible economic damage to this country. A common statement was that the very last thing Australia needed was another Gough Whitlam. I almost thought it was common knowledge. Unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves with this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister and his Labor government in less than three years have brought profound change to this country, and I predict it will take decades to repair the damage that has been done.

We know the former coalition government, in 12 years in office, did a number of notable things. Among them was the full repayment of $96 billion of Labor Party debt. The Labor Party have form when it comes to managing the nation’s finances and their form is to spend big and to tax big. Every time Labor are in power in this country they spend recklessly and then have to raise taxes to pay off their debt. Every time Labor are in power they drive the budget into deficit. Every time Labor are in power there is a reason why it has to happen. This government once again, true to form, have done exactly that.

So after 12 years of diligent, disciplined, safe stewardship by the former Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, the coalition paid off in full Labor’s $96 billion debt. We effectively lifted a burden off future generations of young Australians so that they would not have to pay the price for the ridiculous and reckless spending of the previous Labor government. We got the budget back into the black, and because we had paid off the debt and had the budget back in surplus, we were able to ensure that instead of paying billions of dollars every year towards the repayment of Labor Party debt, that money was better able to be channelled into the programs that the Australian people needed.

It was done in two ways. One was through investment in issues like health, education and infrastructure, and the second was through the provision of tax cuts, meaningful tax reform and personal income tax cuts. Those tax cuts, when it came to personal income taxes, amounted to around $150 billion. Our tax reform package, which Labor opposed, included the abolition of wholesale sales tax, which was being levied—I think from memory—at 12, 22 and 32 per cent, and it was replaced by a single growth tax, the GST, with all the funds flowing directly to state governments so that they had an ongoing source of revenue. That was the tax reform legacy of the coalition. More than that, the previous coalition government brought about reforms which actually reduced this nation’s unemployment level to a 30-year record low, to below four per cent. So I believe on any measure that Australians can be justifiably proud of the performance of the previous coalition government.

Contrast that with what we see happening under the appropriations bill and the performance of this government. We know that there was global economic tumult. We know that there was some need for some stimulus of the Australian economy. But the problem is that what the Labor Party gave the Australian people was not what they promised or what the Australian people wanted. What the Labor Party has given all Australians—and, most distressingly, future generations of young Australians—is debt and deficit. In the short course of around two years this Labor government has racked up what is expected to be net peak debt of around $95 billion. So we spent 12 years paying off the debt that Labor gave us, only to have them in two short years turn around and deliver another $95 billion of debt. That is the indictment on the Australian Labor Party, because it will be my children and the children of tomorrow that have to pay off Labor’s debt.

Frankly, I—and I know many other people in the community—get fed up with Labor Party politicians and with this Prime Minister and this Treasurer marching around the country claiming to be Santa Claus, saying, ‘If you do not like spending on schools, then get out of our way. If you do not like spending on these projects, get out of our way. If you do not like spending on this new initiative that we have got, get out of our way.’ I say right back to the Australian Labor Party—what I believe in and I know young Australians believe in—and that is: let us have sustainable spending and value for money, not the kind of ridiculous, wasteful, reckless spending that we see from this government, which has absolutely scant regard for value for money and for what Australian taxpayers work damned hard for. Australian taxpayers can spend their money a lot better than Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, and it is disgraceful that the Labor Party would dare to stand up and argue that $600,000 school canteens and $1 million covered outdoor learning centres, which only two years ago had a cost of around $200,000, are in some way justifiable given the economic tumult.

It is absurd that Labor Party politicians would say to future generations of Australians: ‘Yes, we know we promised that we were going to provide a computer to every child in school between year 9 and year 12. We know we have only delivered 25 per cent of that—one in four. And we know that the cost has doubled to now be in excess of $2 billion. But that doesn’t matter. It’s only a billion dollars!’ So a billion dollars on computers in schools, several billion dollars under the so-called Building the Education Revolution, billions of dollars wasted under the solar program, homes burning down under their completely bungled and botched insulation program—and Labor members have the audacity to look Australians in the eye and say, ‘We’re doing a good job.’ How patently absurd.

I went to the opening recently of one of these new so-called education revolution buildings at one of my schools in Moncrieff. I endured a Labor senator standing there and waxing lyrical about how visionary the BER was and how it was a record investment in Australia’s school needs. I had the opportunity to speak, and when I stood up in front of those children I said to them: ‘You should enjoy this building. The community should own this building because, you know what, the community is going to take decades to pay off the debt that put that building there—decades to repay the $95 billion of debt that needs to be repaid.’

We hear the sophistry of the Treasurer when he says, ‘We’re going to get Australia back in the black in three years time,’ as if in some way it is a credit to their economic stewardship. But they will not have Australia back in the black in three years time. They might, if everything goes exactly according to their overly optimistic forecasts, get Australia’s budget a billion dollars back into surplus, but the $95 billion debt will still be there—and it will be there for decades. So when I see people like the member for Lindsay, who spoke prior to me, stand up and crow that Labor has Australia in the lowest net debt position in the Western world, I am forced to scratch my head over what an incredibly misleading tale Labor members provide in this parliament. The reason that Australia has the lowest level of debt in the Western world is because of the starting point: zero net debt—in fact, nearly $50 billion worth of assets.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Owens interjecting

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How incredible that Labor members sit in the chamber now and shake their head, no. Fifty billion dollars of net assets is an inescapable fact, and it has been your government that has eroded that $50 billion of assets and left us now with $95 billion of debt. The members opposite can laugh—

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Laughing at your ignorance!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but that just highlights how completely ignorant they are of the facts. Labor members do not appreciate when you go from a net savings position of $50 billion of surplus—which they have expended in full—to leaving Australia with net peak debt of $95 billion, that in some way that is wrong.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s wrong!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I would dearly love to hear from Labor members who claim that that is wrong. I would love to hear them explain how that is wrong and attempt to justify to future generations of Australians that they have to pay off the debt that this government has left. I would dare say about the robustness than their arguments that, frankly, this piece of paper would have more strength.

What else have Labor said they will be able to do? What else have they promised the Australian people that they have absolutely failed to deliver on? We know that Australians are justifiably very concerned about the state of health. On the Gold Coast, Australia’s sixth largest and fastest-growing city, we have a number of unique pressures on the public health system. That is part of the reason the former coalition government put so much emphasis on driving people who could afford to pay into private health insurance through incentivisation. We knew that the more people there were in the private health system, the less pressure was placed on the public health system.

Unfortunately, our good work in the area has been undone. When in government, we lifted the level of private insurance coverage from the low 30s up to, in my electorate for example, the mid-50s. That meant that more people were using the private system because they were incentivised and they could afford to use the private system. But, because of Labor’s absolute ideological commitment to socialised health, we have now seen them slowly unpick at the edge of that. Kevin Rudd, prior to the last election, stood up and said that he promised not to touch private health insurance, but, as with so many of the promises of this Prime Minister, it meant nothing. One of their first acts in government was to start to erode the effectiveness of the private medical insurance scheme by playing around with thresholds. There are projections that this would force up to a million people who were privately insured onto the public system. That is Labor’s solution: to push people who were not a burden on the public system and who were actually utilising the private system back into public hospitals.

To compound the problem, the Labor Party said it would deal with this effectively through the rollout of what it called GP superclinics. Apart from the fact that the GP superclinic model has been lambasted by medical practitioners, we also know that in a city like the Gold Coast, Australia’s sixth largest city, not a single GP superclinic has been built or promised—not one. The Gold Coast is Australia’s sixth largest city, with a population of 500,000 people, and this government, which hails itself to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, has neither promised nor built a single GP superclinic there. The government has made the problem worse by taking people from the private system into the public system. Is it any wonder that Australians are scratching their heads about what exactly this Labor government is up to? It is not delivering services. It is, in fact, compounding problems. It is little wonder that the Gold Coast hospital is so frequently on bypass. It is little wonder that Gold Coast residents and residents in my electorate are forced to go up to Brisbane because of the incredible neglect of the public health system on the Gold Coast.

Another promise that was made by Rudd Labor ahead of the election was to end the double drop-off. How many times did we hear the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister talk about how Labor would end the double drop-off? They were going to create 260 childcare centres across the country that would enable working mums and fathers to make a single drop-off of their children at school and child care at the same time. Now, as with all the other false and hollow promises of Rudd and of Rudd Labor, this has also been axed. This was yet another promise where, suddenly, apparently the market radically transformed itself in two years, so now they no longer need to build these childcare centres.

The truth is that the Rudd Labor government would say anything to get elected and then just junk it after the election. That is what has happened. But we were warned. The current Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, the member for Kingsford Smith, said—and was in fact quoted by a radio announcer ahead of the last election when he made a remark in one of the airport lounges—that it did not really matter what Labor said, because they would just change everything once they got elected. Now we see the absolute truth of that statement.

So it is little wonder, then, when it comes to Labor’s performance, that this Prime Minister says he is an economic conservative, but then writes extensively boring essays on neoliberalism, runs up $41 billion of debt in this budget alone and has $95 billion of net debt forecast for this country. It is little wonder when he promises a computer for every child from grade 9 to grade 12 but then only delivers, in my own electorate for example, 16 per cent of those computers. This is a Prime Minister who promises the Australian people that he will not touch private medical insurance but then seeks to unpick it and pull it apart; a Prime Minister who promises that he will be strong on border protection but then does everything he can to completely dilute and water down our border protection policies; a Prime Minister who says that he knows and understands small business but then creates incentives which are totally ineffectual because they rely on small business cash flow; a Prime Minister who says that he understands the needs of older Australians who are self-funded retirees but then proposes an obscene 40 per cent extra tax on the industry that has helped to make this country strong and the economic powerhouse that it is; and a Prime Minister who erodes the retirement savings of older Australians, both those who hold shares in mining companies and, through his threatened exploitation of Telstra’s provision of copper cable, those who hold shares in Telstra.

On each of these fronts, is it any wonder that Australians have lost faith, confidence and trust in our Prime Minister? The track record of this Labor government is appalling. Australians can see straight through this Prime Minister and straight through this Labor government. It is best summed up in a comment that was made by one of my colleagues. He said that Kevin Rudd is just like Gough Whitlam but lacking the conviction.

Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to give my very strong support to the budget that was delivered by the Treasurer in this House a couple of weeks ago. In so doing I also acknowledge comments that were made by the member for Moncrieff regarding Gough Whitlam. I think it is important to remind the House and those listening that, if he was such a terrible Prime Minister and if it was not for the investment in social infrastructure, support for community services and development through education thus ending discrimination and other measures, my colleague the member for Parramatta—indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister and many other women in this House and I—would not be here. Unfortunately we would see a parliament still full of people mostly like the member for Moncrieff, which I am sure everybody would agree is not necessarily a good thing. We need different perspectives in this parliament and sometimes we need the facts.

I congratulate the Treasurer for the budget that he has delivered, but I offer just one piece of advice to him, which is the fact that he has undersold his achievements in this budget. We heard from the Treasurer that this would be a no-frills budget, a fairly financially conservative budget and measured in its response to dealing with the global financial crisis. It is certainly setting Australia down the path of returning to surplus and is looking at ways in which we could reduce our deficit and be a responsible economic government. However, what the Treasurer has not done is acknowledge that he has managed to do all of that. He has managed to produce a budget that is financially responsible, that sets the nation in good stead for the years ahead, that takes us down a path which will see peak debt halved and will see the budget return to surplus in just three years, which is some three years less than was originally predicted.

He has done that and at the same time also delivered some very key, important economic reforms to all sectors of the Australian community. Whether you are a young person looking for a job, or a woman in the workforce caring for your family, or someone looking at going into the aged care system or someone who is concerned not just about our economic sustainability but about our environmental sustainability with the Renewable Energy Fund, there are a whole range of measures in this budget which deliver some very important reforms and very important initiatives to support the Australian community. At the same time we are doing so in a very responsible economic environment which sees us addressing the issue of the deficit and reducing our debt. I commend the Treasurer on the budget that he has delivered and I think it is a very significant one for the times that we are currently living through.

I will particularly mention a few of the things in here that I think are very important not just to the nation but to the community of Bonner, which is the electorate that I represent. To begin with, we have the health announcements. Nobody can possibly decry the significance of a $7.3 billion spend on health. We all know that wherever you are in this country, whether you are in a metropolitan city or a rural and regional area, there is an issue with accessing good-quality health services when you need them. This budget goes a long way to improving those services for people regardless of where they are. In particular I am very interested to see more around the Medicare Locals and e-health initiatives. There is $417 million for Medicare Locals, a service which will give people the sort of after-hours access to medical advice and care that they currently cannot get. They cannot get it because there are not enough doctors in our suburbs to be able to service that need. They cannot get it because we have not been clever about the way we can use the skills of nurses, doctors and allied health professionals to see more people receiving advice more quickly.

As I have said many times before in this House, we all know—and I know personally as a mother of three—that, if a child is going to get an ear infection, it is not going to happen from nine to five, Monday to Friday. You can almost count on that being the very time it is not going to happen. The fact that people will now be able to seek after-hours advice through GP services, that they will be able to either contact the National Health Call Centre Network or get advice from a nurse or a doctor or be sent to a service in their local area that they know is open after hours and that will be able to see their children, is a fantastic initiative that will not just see extra dollars go into health but see extra dollars go into health that are going to make a difference for the wellbeing of our community.

On top of that, there is the $467 million set aside for e-health and developing e-health records. When I have spoken to my health professionals in Bonner, they have said to me that the one thing they believe could improve the health system significantly is the opportunity for a national e-health system. They see so many people unnecessarily hospitalised or unnecessarily traumatised because, in an emergency in particular, health professionals dealing with that person do not have the data and the background of their overall health record. They do not necessarily know all the medication they are taking. They do not know their past health history. If they were able to access that instantaneously, it would reduce the amount of trauma that people go through when they are being wrongly diagnosed or given medication that is not compatible with other medication that they are on. It can actually prevent people needing to go to hospital because you can provide a much better diagnosis based on their whole medical history. It is a very significant initiative and one that I know is welcomed by the profession.

Of course, health is not the only winner in this budget. We have heard a lot of discussion about environment policy, the issues of climate change and the support for a trading scheme. Personally, I am incredibly disappointed that the opposition did not take the initiative in the Senate to support the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I am very disappointed that the Greens, who have set themselves up as the party that most cares for the environment and is most committed to seeing a reduction in emissions, did not take the opportunity to see a trading scheme go through the Senate when they had it. I think it is one of the biggest disappointments that I and my local community have seen in the last couple of years. But I know that we as a government have not resiled from our commitment to put a price on carbon and to look at ways to get the big polluters and the industries involved to pay their fair share in reducing emissions. Nevertheless, we know that this is an ongoing debate and one that we the government will not walk away from until we get a good result.

In the meantime, the Treasurer has had the foresight to put into this budget some $652 million for a renewable energy fund, because we all know that, if there is one single way in which we can reduce emissions, it is changing our dependence on carbon and fossil fuels. We have to look at ways we can boost renewable energy. It is not going to happen overnight but it is going to happen. It is going to happen with a government that is prepared to put funding into research and development and to support the small initiatives out there that will probably one day become mainstream with the right level of support and endorsement. We are going to encourage the community to reduce their emissions by changing the source of their energy and by looking at ways in which they can seek alternative energy sources that are renewable. So this fund is a significant step in the government’s commitment to dealing with climate change and taking action—not paying lip-service but actually putting in place initiatives and policies that will see genuine outcomes on the reduction of carbon emissions across this country.

I am also very pleased to see that there is $661 million—in fact more than that—in this budget for skills training and support for youth employment and education policies. One of the biggest things that has confronted us and something that industry has been saying for years in this country—and it has become crystal clear throughout the global financial crisis and the government’s response to it—is that, while we were benefiting from a major resources boom and while the accounts of the country were rising significantly, we were not planning for the future to make that boom sustainable. We were not investing in the infrastructure that we need to support our export industry, particularly the resources industry. We were not investing in the ports, the rail, the roads and all of that very important physical infrastructure required to get the stuff out of the ground and get it to wherever it needs to be.

More importantly, we know that industry was also saying that we were not investing in the workforce. We were not putting much-needed programs and policies in place that were skilling up our young people to take advantage of a continued and more sustainable resources boom. Luckily for the young people in Bonner and for the young people across Australia, we now have a Rudd Labor government that understands the cry from industry and has answered their call. This government understands how important long-term secure employment is not just for economy prosperity but for social prosperity. We are putting money into much greater skills and training programs that will see a long-term benefit over the forward years.

As I said, we have invested over $661 million in reforms and programs to increase our skills base. This will ensure that our training system is responsive to the skills that our economy needs to prosper. It will provide the sorts of jobs that people need in terms of economic growth. It will mean that young people, regardless of who they are or where they come from, will have opportunities to contribute to that growth. This will mean that they can seek the advantages of those programs and they can be valuable contributors to economic growth in this country.

The Skills for Recovery Program will provide, over four years, $299 million—nearly $300 million—to look at capacity constraints and to create up to 39,000 training places. It will supply $242.5 million over four years to develop training systems that will support participation, support training and support the link between the training that is needed and the businesses that are looking for employees. The Foundation Skills Package will help 140,000 Australians build core foundation skills such as language, literacy and numeracy.

I know that, when the huff and puff of various debates is set aside, every single member of this House will acknowledge the enormous contribution that people who have come here from other countries have made to the building of Australia. I know that everyone in every electorate across this country can identify those migrant communities and individual people who have migrated here who have built up an enormous strength in terms of their contribution both socially and as part of the economic growth of this country. In fact, we could not have done it without them. Here is a program that will provide support for another 140,000 Australians who, with the benefit of some basic skills—such as literacy, numeracy and language—will be able to continue that very valuable contribution that people from other countries who have migrated here have made.

I also acknowledge the significant contribution in this budget to the aged care system. We all know we are facing an ageing population. We all know that aged care, in a sense, is the elephant in the room. It is the very huge financial and social policy debate that we will have in the next couple of years. If we do not get right the mix between adequate funding and good programs to support both the not-for-profit and private sectors in providing aged care facilities, many Australians will not get in their older years the care that they deserve. In this budget there is $907½ million over the next four years to deliver better aged care workers, greater training, more staff and capital support—that is, all of those things that go into making an aged care facility not just good or adequate but actually a lovely place to be, a place where people will enjoy their retirement and enjoy all the support that they need as they get older and frailer.

There are many other initiatives in this budget that I unfortunately have not got the time to talk about. I just want to acknowledge the increase in funding for international development assistance, particularly in my role as Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I am so pleased that, even despite financial constraints, we are committing to increasing funding to support our goal in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I am also very pleased to see the historical increase in funding for legal assistance. We all know that the difference between getting legal aid and not having access to good quality legal assistance can make the difference for a young person between getting their life back on track and going completely off track for the rest of their life, with them being a burden rather than a contributor to our community. It is a very important part of the budget and I commend this and the other programs and congratulate the Treasurer on his efforts.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills. The third budget handed down by the current Labor government will go down in Australian history books as being the hypothetical budget. It is based on a wing and a prayer. It is based on robbing the resource industry and it is based on dreams and hypotheses. This budget is not worth the paper it has been written on. The Rudd government took office with a coalition created surplus to the tune of $45 billion. Three years later, here we are looking down the barrel of debt, debt and more debt. Reckless spending and gross mismanagement of taxpayers’ dollars will result in Australian families wearing the millstone of debt for many years to come. Prime Minister Rudd’s unfettered access to the taxpayers’ money is akin to Scrooge McDuck going for a daily dip in his cash filled bins. I can picture Mr Rudd throwing the cash in the air and yelling: ‘Ah, mirth and be merry. My worries are over! I will kill the golden goose. I will make resource companies pay the highest tax in the world, and that should make Australia the richest land in duck world.’

It is now time for the Labor government to put their comic books down, to stop imagining themselves as cartoon characters and superheroes and to understand the gravity of the situation they are about to place all Australians in with the introduction of what they call a tax on ‘superprofits’. Superprofits are apparently profits in excess of just six per cent. The Labor government believe that, by taxing the resource industry at the highest rate in the world, they will increase investment. This creative and imaginative thinking may be applicable in duck world but the reality is that it will not work in the real world.

So why is the Rudd government willing to put at risk the living standards of all Australians? I will tell you. Firstly, he needs to claw back revenue to cover the cost of his cash splash that is now costing all Australians in higher interest rates. Secondly, his polling of south-eastern Australia has convinced him that he can keep people from the truth and con them into believing he is some sort of modern day Robin Hood, robbing the rich to give to the poor. And thirdly, he believes, or so he tells us, that miners are not paying enough tax.

On Monday, 31 May in the House, the Prime Minister said in defence of his great big new tax on mining: ‘Whichever way you cut the cake … the return to the Australian people via the taxation system is infinitely less than it was a decade ago.’ On Tuesday, in a question to the Prime Minister, I asked him how he could reconcile that statement with data compiled by Access Economics, Treasury, ATO and ABS which show that the total tax-take from mining over the last decade has increased from $2.6 billion to $21.9 billion. How could he describe tax revenues, which have increased by more than eight times, as ‘infinitely less’? Mr Rudd gave no explanation whatsoever.

Let us look at some cold, hard facts. Australian projects compete with other projects in other countries for capital. Obviously, less profitable projects will not be looked upon as favourably by investors as those which are more profitable. This is just plain common sense. The Labor government has assumed there will be no change to the perceived level of sovereign risk in Australia with this new super tax. Capital and currency market initial reactions to the announcement suggest the perceived sovereign risk has increased. According to the Australian, Macquarie Bank advised clients that Australia was ‘now seen as being a high sovereign risk destination to invest’ and there was a ‘significant risk of major capital flight out of Australia’. BHP Billiton CEO Marius Kloppers warned that Australia was in danger of ‘tarnishing’ its reputation as the ‘gold standard’ of investment destination for mining companies. According to Mr Kloppers, ‘it would be extremely unlikely to think that we can approve a major investment while this uncertainty hangs over us’.

The impact that this tax will have on investment and projects is immeasurable. The resource industry of Australia, the very same industry that has fed and clothed Australians for many years, did not happen by chance. Ingenuity, planning, resourcefulness, belief and, most importantly, hard work, often in the face of great adversity, have all contributed to the now successful industry. Many towns in regional Australia have been built on the back of resource companies. These companies provide the population with infrastructure such as airstrips, hospitals, schools, police stations, ports and roads that local towns and communities enjoy.

The mining sector has paid $80 billion in tax over the last decade. That is $80 billion dollars back into the communities of Australia, and the Rudd government has the audacity to tell us that putting this tax collection at risk will not affect the living standards of everyday Australians. What gibberish! This same sector paid eight times more tax last year than it did a decade ago.

The Treasurer’s Economic Note, dated 23 May 2010, stated:

…  wholly-domestic mining companies paid an effective tax rate of only 17 per cent and multinational mining companies paid an effective tax rate of only 13 per cent—both dramatically below the headline company tax rate of 30 per cent.

In reality ATO statistics show that for 2007-08 the mining industry as a whole paid 27.8 per cent effective corporate tax rate, and that rate equates to 41.3 per cent when royalties are included. BHP Billiton, year ending June 2009, had an effective tax rate inclusive of royalties of 43 per cent. BHP Billiton alone, between 2004 and 2009, paid total taxes of over $24 billion. These taxes are helping to support the entire nation—a nation where the majority of the population is on the eastern seaboard and the majority of whom have never even seen a remote mine site. Yet these same people are being conned by the Labor government and lulled into a false sense of security that there will be more money in the coffers for them. Well, let me tell you: there will be no extra cash coming from my patch if this great big new tax is introduced.

Already Fortescue Metals has put $17.5 billion of its projects on hold, due entirely to this great big new tax and its far-reaching effects. Steve de Kruijff, Chief Operating Officer for Xstrata Copper North Queensland, said in a press release:

We have decided to suspend exploration activities in north Queensland until there is greater certainty on the fiscal regime for future mining developments. Exploration activities are high risk and, while the targets we had identified are prospective, the proposed tax has introduced great uncertainty about the potential impact on the economics of developing resources into viable operations in Australia. It would also change the relative economics of these prospects compared with exploration programs that Xstrata Copper is pursuing in other parts of the world.

Oz Minerals chief executive, Terry Burgess, in a statement to shareholders regarding the impact of this great big new tax on the Western Copper project in South Australia, stated:

… in light of the proposed resources industry tax, we will be unable to make a decision on this project until we have certainty on the proposed tax arrangements and therefore the economics of the project.

According to Ivor Ries, Head of Research at EL&C Baillieu Stockbroking, as published in the Eureka Report:

There are 270 major resource projects in Australia undergoing feasibility studies and financing with a total capital value of $320 billion. These projects would have employed somewhere around about 120,000 people during the construction phase. The Resources Super Profits Tax has stopped them dead in their tracks. All of those projects are now frozen.

Never before has a proposed government policy had such a direct effect on my electorate. You, Mr Rudd, are dudding the people in my patch and we won’t stand for it.

Ashok Parekh, a local chartered accountant with over 3,000 clients in the Goldfields, has been a chartered accountant for 32 years and has been operating his own company for 25 years. In 2003 he received a Centenary Medal from the government and last year he was awarded the highest award of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Meritorious Service Award. Here is what he has to say:

I have lost faith due to the recent performance of the Rudd Government. I think they have lost the plot. What the Federal Government is doing is very similar to the old communist system. The tax is bad for all Australians. We have suddenly become a sovereign risk with all the mining companies in the world. Already mining companies are finding it difficult to raise funds because of this tax. We are also finding in the Goldfields there is reduction in turnover for retailers because the general public are scared of what is going to happen. The idea that lots of small businesses are going to benefit from the company tax, reducing from 30 to 20 per cent is misleading. Most small business are set up in structure of either number one, a sole trader, number two, a partnership and number three, a family trust. None of the structures will get the benefit in the company tax because they are not companies.

In Kalgoorlie we have an electronic notice board, or a ticker board, on the Palace Hotel, the most prominent position in town. While it usually displays financial information, right now it says ‘Kevin Super Tax, High-Interest, Insulation Rudd has got to go, no batts about it.’ If this does not indicate the feeling of true Australians, true Australians who have not fallen prey to Kevin Rudd’s spin about the great big new tax, what does? The Labor Party need to listen to the people of Australia, the people who are about to have the rug pulled out from under them.

Two people aware of this are Derek Johnston of JNS Mine Management and Pat Schimanski of GWH Equipment. On Saturday, 29 May, they took it upon themselves to inform the people of Kalgoorlie of the dire consequences of the resource tax. Nearly 600 people signed their petition in the few hours they were in St Barbara’s Square in Kalgoorlie. Pat Schimanski of GWH Equipment said:

The purpose of the petition is to raise awareness of the tax. These politicians—

and I am sure he was not speaking of me—

think miners are an easy target. They think we are easy beats. If these Labor clowns don’t get kicked out we here in Western Australia should cut the cord to the rest of Australia. This tax will affect the food on the table of all Australians.

JNS’s Derek Johnston said:

My business has dropped since the announcement of the tax; it has dropped off because everyone is now looking at costs.

Let us look at what some of the profits from some of these resource companies do for local communities, something our eastern seaboard friends are either unaware of or unashamedly do not care about. You see, our friends in the eastern cities have doctors, nurses, teachers, bitumen roads and the flashest coffee beans you can buy, all at their fingertips. This is not so over in remote Western Australia.

Let us look at the Telfer mine. Telfer provide between $5m and $6m a year for the Martu people—who cover six language groups from Wiluna to Fitzroy Crossing; that is an area about the size of New South Wales—through the following community programs: health, education, training, employment, sport and recreation, and community, cultural and social events. They ensure that remote community stores have fresh fruit and vegetables, and they are installing bar code systems in stores. They have supplied fuel to communities that have run out. They fix community sporting ovals, and Telfer’s airstrip has been used to bring up support specialists for schools and to enable nurses and teachers to go home on R and R. Many Martu communities have no doctors, no post office and no police station.

Many houses in the communities have no phone lines, and there is no mobile communication. The chances of members of Indigenous communities getting employment in this remote area is severely restricted. Telfer recognise the need for Indigenous employees and mine managers to balance Martu cultural traditions and beliefs, such as the need to attend funerals in various parts of the state. Telfer’s emergency response is the only emergency response team in the area, thus providing an essential service to remote communities. This company and other mining companies in Western Australia are providing essential services and jobs to remote communities. Keep this in mind: bigger tax equals less profit equals fewer jobs—it is as simple as ABC.

Rio Tinto have engaged in comprehensive efforts to maximise Aboriginal participation in the resources industry. A $200 million contract going to a joint venture with a strong local Aboriginal participation will help traditional owners to build capacity in mining services, and in this way traditional owners will increasingly participate in the resource development taking place on their own country. This initiative is over and above the $112 million that Rio Tinto will spend through Aboriginal contractors this year. More than $50 million of this will be spent through members of the Pilbara Aboriginal Contractors Association, or PACA. Again, bigger tax equals less profit equals fewer jobs—it is as simple as ABC. Eight out of 10 jobless Indigenous people are presently unable to work because of illiteracy, alcohol or other psychological problems. In some rural areas, 70 per cent of children do not regularly attend school. The Indigenous unemployment rate is around three times higher than that of non-Indigenous people. Rio will spend more than $10 million this year on Indigenous education and training in the Pilbara. Remember: bigger tax equals less profit equals fewer jobs—it is as simple as ABC.

These companies and many more like them provide life opportunities for the people of rural and regional Western Australia—not just an existence, which is what the Labor government want the people in my patch to return to. If this super profits tax is such a great thing, such a godsend for Australia, why the need for the Labor government’s obscene spending on advertising it? It has been confirmed that the government began doing market research in March and had prepared an advertising campaign by April—before the tax was announced in May. That completely blows apart Mr Swan’s argument that the mining industry’s campaign against the tax justifies the government’s decision to do its own advertising.

The Rudd government has breached its own advertising guideline on the basis of a national emergency and is spending $38.5 million on a taxpayer-funded television and newspaper advertising blitz promoting the resource super profits tax. Mr Rudd’s excuse for losing his moral compass is that we have a national emergency. Let me assure you: a greater threat to the nation is the introduction of a great big new tax on mining. This threat will impact all Australians and is cause for real concern. Killing the golden goose will do nothing to secure investment, jobs, taxes and royalties into the future. The only way to guarantee the future prosperity of this country is to drop this dud government and elect a Liberal coalition government.

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

I would like to use this opportunity to talk specifically about the remarkable contributions that this federal budget makes towards sport. This budget delivers a record $1.2 billion for sport over the next four years, including $325 million in additional funding for the Australian Sports Commission and incorporating $195 million in new funding for sport. To put this in context and to make it very clear, what we have announced is the biggest single funding injection into Australian sport in our nation’s history. Unlike the previous government, our government will be providing long-awaited security to Australian sports as we signal the end to the previous government’s short-term bandaid solutions and provide another example where the government have delivered on our commitment to be a strong financial partner of sport.

Along with the record funding increase, on 11 May this year I released Australian Sport: The Pathway to Success, which provides a new vision for Australian sport that will help forge the way to a healthier community and a stronger sporting sector. I think it is important to note that the government has always made it clear that there is a need for us to better support sport and to help tackle emerging challenges in our society and also maintain our status as one of the world’s greatest sporting nations. We have understood from day one that sport is critical to the wellbeing and good health of our individuals; to bringing communities together; to teaching life skills; to uniting the nation; to sending positive reflections to the international community; to boosting trade, tourism and economic activity; and to giving moments of pure joy, pride and inspiration.

We are committed to strengthening sport, and we have outlined the process by which we will achieve this. I am really proud of our record in just over 2½ years in government, from last year investing the biggest ever injection into Australia’s community sporting infrastructure, as part of our response to the global financial crisis, to reforming the leadership of the Australian Sports Commission, to funding EuroHub to assist Australian athletes in their international endeavours, to working with Football Federation Australia, state and territory governments and sporting codes to lodge a fully compliant bid for the FIFA World Cup, to successfully legislating to put in place a strengthened anti-doping structure in the reformed ASADA, and introducing the Local Sporting Champions Program to better support our developing athletes—to name just a few initiatives.

Over the past decade, sport in Australia has been promised leadership and direction but, under the former government, report after report gathered dust on the shelf. I have read the Oakley report, which the former government heralded would be the biggest reform to sport in decades—but was left sitting on a shelf, not responded to and soon effectively forgotten. We as a government know the challenges that this has posed for sports and for the sports sector in this nation, as the previous government squandered the opportunities and the momentum that developed from the Sydney Olympics. That is why we committed to act. That is why, upon coming to government, we released our new directions paper, which outlined the crisis that sport was facing and the case for reform. We announced that we would appoint an independent panel to help direct the best way forward, and that is why, at the Olympics in 2008, the Prime Minister declared that our government would be strong financial partners of Australian sport into the future. And it is why, upon receiving the Crawford report, we publicly stated that we would increase funding to both community sport and elite sport. This year’s budget did just that. The funding announcement within it, along with the release of the government’s policy document, shows just how committed this government is, has been and always will be when it comes to backing Australian sport.

In terms of our high-performance athletes and systems, the government is committed to ensuring that Australia not only cements but builds on our reputation as a world leader in elite sport. In doing so, we will provide not only new money to support Australia’s talented sports men and women but also long-term stability for sport through locking in previously terminating funding into baseline funding going forward for sports budgets.

This equates to an additional $42 million of funding to support high-performance sport alone each and every year. This funding will ensure that our national talent identification program is doubled, broadening the net to uncover more of our potential champions and boosting the development pathway. It will provide further support to our high-performance coaches, because our government recognises just how important high-performance coaches are to our system. This investment will ensure that we retain as many of our high-performance coaches as possible. The government will also boost direct assistance to athletes, providing greater levels of financial support to an increased number of Australian athletes, assisting them and allowing them more flexibility to dedicate to their training.

In addition to this support, the government will underpin this investment through the recent landmark agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories to establish the first national sport and recreation policy framework to help guide the development of sports policy across Australia. This agreement will better enable cooperation across the pathway, increasing the alignment of our institutes and academies of high-performance sport.

We know that sport is not just about supporting the dreams of our future champions; it is also about gaining opportunities and experiences. Australian sport should be bustling with children lining up to play their favourite sports, keeping healthy or just having fun. Sport should have a strong community and development sector, providing a pathway to keep all of us involved and active and to nurture our future champions as they develop. Our government has committed $18 million of new funding each and every year to strengthen our sporting system and increase participation and activity. The government is committed to working in partnership with sport to see a real increase in the number of Australians being active.

According to the OECD, Australia has the fifth-highest rate of adult obesity in the developed world. The dramatic increases in body weight that we have seen over recent years have already seen the number of Australians with diabetes triple over just the last two decades. And, according to ABS data, participation rates have stalled over the last decade amongst Australian children. We know that, during the 12 months to April 2009, one million children aged from five to 14 did not participate in any organised sport outside of school hours, with a higher proportion—some 44 per cent—of girls not participating in organised sports compared with 30 per cent of boys. In a recent survey, approximately 11.8 million Australians, or 73 per cent, reported no involvement in organised sport. In 2005-06, approximately 5.5 million people reported that they did not participate in any sports or physical recreation activities of any kind over the preceding year.

So, in order to reinvigorate re-engagement in sport amongst our community and to regain our competitive edge, we need to look at ways to do things differently. We need to place a strategic focus on collaboration, reform and investment across the entire sporting pathway, from the grassroots up. We want to work with sport to achieve this goal, because it is sports and national sporting organisations that already have the connections with state sporting organisations, local communities and state and local governments to support and grow sport at all levels.

In recognition of the essential role sports play in leading and growing the sporting base, the government, through the commission, will, for the first time, provide funding to national sporting organisations to provide direct assistance to community clubs and organisations in support of initiatives that aim to expand participation. This will be done through comprehensive participation plans that we, through the commission, will ask national sporting organisations to put in place about how they drive participation within sport and within their local communities. In addition, the government will double the Local Sporting Champions program to support 8,000 junior athletes to participate in competition and to boost opportunities for up-and-coming athletes to compete in domestic competitions.

Alarmingly, we have also seen a decrease in sport in our schoolyards. Despite there being an obvious partnership between sport and education, when it comes to achieving both health and educational outcomes in our children we have seen a decline in the quality of sport and physical activity being delivered in our primary and secondary schools. Whilst there has previously been a national requirement for schools to provide a minimum weekly allocation of two hours of physical activity, the requirement did not specify the level or intensity of activity required in line with health guidelines and did not provide any detailed information as to how physical activity was delivered or met.

The Australian government has announced our commitment, in partnership with the state and territory governments, to prioritise sport and physical education in our national school curriculum. In a landmark agreement, state and territory ministers agreed in response to the Crawford report that the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority prioritise physical education in the development of phase 3 of the national curriculum and further agreeing that the number of hours committed to physical activity in the school curriculum must be maximised. Getting sport right in schools will not only help tackle the serious health issues that we face as a community but also help sport tap into Australia’s sporting talent on an unprecedented level.

It is important that we recognise that sport in Australia is largely dependent on the volunteer and that Australia has a proud history of volunteering. Who could forget the worldwide recognition of those volunteers who helped make the Sydney Olympics the best Olympics ever? Whether it be the volunteer coaches or officials who help run our local sporting competitions, this government recognises just how important these volunteers are to sport and to the broader community. In this budget, we will provide funding to support volunteer coaches and officials and those volunteers who play such a remarkable role in sporting clubs across the nation. This funding will provide additional coaching and officiating training opportunities for up to 45,000 community coaches and officials, including subsidies for the costs associated with training for 5,000 new community coaches and officials.

In addition, we will provide funding support to national sporting organisations to deliver coaching and officiating education programs, especially in regional areas, deliver funding to support mentoring to community coaches and officials, deliver a national sport volunteer strategy and introduce a national sports volunteers awards program to reward those volunteers and promote their contribution to sport and the wider community.

We also believe that sport has a unique capacity to bring communities together. But sport needs to be more conclusive and a sector which better reflects our diversity—and that means both genders. Our government has great ambitions for women’s sport, both on and off the field. One of our biggest challenges, of course, is getting women seen, heard and supported by our media so that we can end what seems to be the never-ending cycle of no media coverage equalling no resources for women’s sport. Recently we released the report Towards a level playing field, which reveals that in 2008 coverage of women in sport made up just nine per cent of all sports coverage in Australian television news and current affairs. On the other hand, male sport occupied a whopping 81 per cent of television news and current affairs reporting and 86 per cent of non-news programming on television. To put this in context—the nine per cent of coverage dedicated to women’s sport—horseracing alone receives more airtime than all women’s sports combined in Australian television news.

I am really proud of the steps that we have taken so far to address these issues and to help promote women within sport. Over our 2½ years in government we have undertaken several measures including a $2.4 million investment to Netball Australia to support the transTasman netball competition, $400,000 to support and promote the free-to-air coverage of this wonderful championship and also delivery of funding over four years to the Football Federation of Australia, which included the condition that they support a televised women’s Westfield W-League. In support of raising the profile of women’s sport and as a result of the funding included in this measure I can announce that we will also be funding Women in Sport awards to recognise exemplary initiatives, which provide special support for women’s and girls’ participation in sport whether as players, coaches, administrators or officials, and to recognise and reward outstanding media reporting.

The culture of sport itself is long overdue for a significant shake-up and we have signalled that this is exactly what we intend to do. Our government will require all national sporting organisations to annually report on the gender representation of their boards with the information then being published. Too often we have heard excuses about the frequently dismal representation of women on sporting boards such as, for example: ‘If there were women with the appropriate skills then of course we’d appoint them.’ Well our government is happy to work with sports to help them find these women.

I was pleased to announce that the government will establish a register of women with appropriate skills and experience to assist sport to improve their record. The Women in Sport register will enable women to register their skills and interest in being involved in sport and sporting organisations can readily access potential candidates and find a match to their needs. This initiative is not only about growing the number of women on Australia’s sporting boards, it is also about working from within to promote healthy cultures in Australian sport and that requires women.

Labor governments have a fine tradition when it comes to supporting sport. It was under Labor and under Hawke that we established the Australian Sports Commission. It was Labor under Keating who gave sport, up until this budget, the record funding boost to prepare us for the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games. While both these governments injected significant resources into sport they also drove innovation and reform, putting in place the foundations for Australia’s future sporting success.

In this budget we proudly build upon this tradition. Through renewed focus and strategy, enhanced partnerships across tiers of government, a close cooperative approach with our sporting organisations and the biggest increase to sports funding in Australia’s history, we map out the course for Australia’s continued sporting excellence. Of course the implementation of this strategy will require a dedicated partnership approach. We as a government are committed to this because, ultimately, we recognise that sport is important and we need to work to keep it as the strong central thread that it has become to Australian life.

The success of sport cannot be measured in simplistic terms alone. We need a bolstered participation base, we need strengthened development pathways and we need successful elite performances if we are to cement our place as a truly great sporting nation. I am really pleased with the contributions that this budget has made to achieve these goals with a record funding increase; the biggest amount of funding ever dedicated to sport in this country in our nation’s history.

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

In rising to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills I do so in the heat of what is a full-on debate about a brand new tax, a supertax. It is well named because it is a tax on superprofits but it is also a tax on people’s super. As I have said before, for every dollar that goes into Mr Rudd’s pocket by way of taxation that is a dollar less for people’s superannuation. This impacts on the standard of living for Australians who are on fixed incomes provided by their savings in their superannuation.

Last night I attended, as many others did, the Mineral Council’s dinner. We heard many fine speakers point out just how bad the big new tax on so-called superprofits is for Australia. We are seeing advertisements that are being put out currently by the Labor Party in the guise of legitimate government advertising but which, in fact, are just plain old Labor Party advertising paid for by the taxpayer—$38 million worth. The main content of their advertising is to try and say that mining companies do not pay their fair share of tax. They conjured up this figure of somewhere between 13c and 17c in the dollar by finding some obscure report put together by a PhD student supervised by a professor, which was submitted to the Henry review as a footnote. They have seized on this report, which was a mixture of Australian and New Zealand figures and so unreliable that it was withdrawn from the draft upon which the government is basing its statements.

Yesterday in the parliament we quizzed the Treasurer continually about the pie chart that he has put out asking him whether it had any modelling significance, any real basis, or was it just dreamt up in his office. For question after question he obfuscated. He talked around the side of it, he would not answer the question and finally he did say it was made in his office. We should understand that the Treasurer has form. Back in 2000 he was exposed on The 7.30 Report by a journalist called Wayne Sanderson who brought to light the fact that the now Treasurer and then member for Lilley, who lost his seat in ‘96, had tried very hard to keep it by giving a brown paper envelope to Lee Birmingham which contained $1,400 in $50 notes. The envelope was then taken by the said Lee Birmingham to the Democrats campaign manager with whom Mr Birmingham said Mr Swan had spent some time only a day or two before. Lee Birmingham delivered the brown paper envelope containing $1,400 to the Democrats and the Democrats in return gave their preferences to Mr Swan.

This matter Mr Swan said was a terrible thing. He had not paid for those preferences at all—high dudgeon. It was referred to the Australian Federal Police. Mr Swan came out and said he had been cleared, but I think what was actually said by the spokesman for the Australian Federal Police was, ‘There is no further action in relation to Wayne Swan.’ The Federal Police spokesman said, ‘I can’t say there was no case to answer, but no further action will be taken.’

This is the same Wayne Swan who is telling us that the mining companies in fact do not pay their share of tax when the Taxation Office’s own figures show that they are paying in excess of 40c in the dollar. When you count up royalties paid and corporate tax paid, that is the amount that they are paying. Yet in these deceptive and lying ads there is no mention made of the corporate tax which those mining companies are paying. It is no wonder that they are in high dudgeon and angry about the way in which they are being derided and ridiculed as an industry when, in fact, they are—I like the words—the new sheep’s back on which we ride to prosperity.

We have seen the promise that the Prime Minister made when he was Leader of the Opposition that he would never allow an advertising campaign to be rolled out unless the Auditor-General gave it the tick-off. Never mind politicising the Auditor-General, he was going to be the stamp of approval for the integrity of the ads. So what are they like? They did not like the job the Auditor-General was doing, so they created a new committee headed up by Mr Alan Hawke who found that the Auditor-General was undermining the authority of the secretaries and that the Auditor-General should be sacked and guess what? Mr Hawke got the job. But that was too much for this Prime Minister—he sacked him too and used the let-out clause so that he could get the Cabinet Secretary to respond to the Treasurer and say, ‘It’s a national emergency, we’ve got to spend this money.’

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

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Mackellar will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.