Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 and the cognate bill. The Gillard government has confirmed it will accept New Zealand apple imports, signalling more proof that it has no regard for Australian farmers or Australian produce. It is not enough that Australian apple growers have to contend with Chinese imported apples; now they have to compete against New Zealand ones as well. It is just another blow to Australian farmers, who really must feel as though they cannot take a trick. In her address to the New Zealand parliament recently, the Prime Minister confirmed that Australia will soon begin importing apples from New Zealand.

Foreign apples should never have been allowed into our country in the first place. Our apple industry is free of fire blight and is self-sustaining. All this has done is undermine and potentially cripple what was a vibrant Australian industry, one which has meant so much to the economic prosperity of Batlow and Tumut districts, which are in my Riverina electorate, as well as many other regional areas. We have already seen what pests and diseases such as greening disease and the Asian honey bee can do to countries with horticulture and citrus. The Labor government wiped its hands of apple growers last July when it did nothing after Biosecurity Australia decided to permit Chinese apples to be imported, and now we have to contend with New Zealand apples.

When it comes to appropriations, one project which should be at the top of any health spending is Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. If ever a hospital deserved, required or was desperate for—call it what you like—government funding assistance, it is Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. This is the major referral hospital for the Riverina and, as such, it services upwards of one-quarter of a million people. The hospital has suffered from 16 years of state Labor neglect, but, to be fair, both sides have made promises and then not fulfilled them since a new hospital was first pledged way back in 1980. That is 30 long years ago—30 years of false hope, let-down expectations and unrealised dreams. The public of Wagga Wagga and surrounds deserve much better. They are patient people, but they are growing tired of excuses, empty promises, rhetoric and downright lies. They want action. They want a new hospital.

On Sunday, 8 August last year, as many as 4,000 people turned out in Wagga Wagga’s main street, Baylis Street, to rally in support of a new hospital. They did not just come from the city and its suburbs; they came from right across the region—from Temora, West Wyalong and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, which faces so much ongoing frustration of its own with the current water debate, thanks to this Labor government. The mayor of Tumut, Trina Thomson, spoke passionately about the need for a new Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. The previous time such a rally was held, in 2007, it attracted 2,000 people. Twice the number came out to continue the campaign. Members of the crowd carried placards and posters with a clear message: they want a new hospital for the region, not a patch-up job.

A recount of the hospital’s sorry history by cardiologist Dr Gerard Carroll dredged up every broken promise for a new facility dating back to the 1980s. Registered nurse Tanya Gleeson spoke of the horrors of treating patients in what she described as ‘a substandard, dysfunctional, decrepit building, which in places has asbestos, inefficient heating and cooling, broken facilities, mould, leaking ceilings and infection control issues’. Medical ward nursing unit manager Sharon Townsend compared the facility to Noah’s Ark. The chairman of the hospital’s medical staff council, Dr Richard Harrison, was the last to speak, and his words were certainly not lost on the crowd when he called for a new Wagga Wagga Base Hospital ‘now, not way into the future’.

Ninety million dollars has, thankfully, been promised by the state Labor government. The New South Wales coalition, through its leader, Barry O’Farrell, has stated that the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital is the No. 1 regional infrastructure project in what will hopefully, surely, be the Liberal-Nationals’ first term in office after the 26 March poll. That election day cannot come soon enough.

New South Wales infrastructure made a submission to the federal government’s regional round for the Health and Hospitals Fund which closed on 3 December 2010. As I said, the coalition in New South Wales promised $125 million; this regional and rural health fund has $1.8 billion for regional communities. Wagga Wagga Base Hospital should be first and foremost in priority for the fund. I call on the federal government to do the right thing and give Wagga Wagga and the Riverina a base hospital with facilities at least equal to most other communities in Australia. The locals in that part of Australia deserve nothing less.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the debate about the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 and cognate bill to talk in particular about residents in my constituency of Holt. I note that there is an appropriation with respect to flooding. I would like to talk about my experiences with recent flooding and the incredible resilience of the community that I represent. The community that I represent gets some pretty interesting press. There was a young fellow, Corey, who ran a house party and got a bit of attention; there is a television series that basically has a couple of characters at Fountain Lakes, but it is in fact the Fountain Gate shopping centre. If you surveyed my constituents about how they felt about being portrayed in that sort of light I think you would find a very interesting response. Let’s say, I do not think you would be selling many copies at the Fountain Gate JB Hi-Fi or Fountain Gate Dick Smith shop. But, as I said, I want to talk about the resilience of my community, not in the way in which it is conveniently portrayed in the national media but in focusing on their courage and tenacity when they come together and show the enormous community spirit which epitomises my area, particularly with respect to the flooding that has occurred substantially in my electorate.

On Friday, 4 February and Saturday, 5 February several suburbs in my electorate of Holt—Narre Warren, Narre Warren South, Lyndhurst, portions of Berwick, Hampton Park and Cranbourne North—were amongst Melbourne’s worst affected by a rare storm event caused by the tail of Cyclone Yasi. At Lyndhurst in my electorate more than 180 millimetres of rain fell within a 24-hour period. The deluge was such an extraordinary and extreme event that, according to a preliminary assessment by Melbourne Water, it was described as a one-in-500-years event rather than a one-in-100-years event. There is no doubt that this summer has been defined by natural disasters and national tragedy. It is very difficult to forget the images of cars flying down the streets of Toowoomba and hearing the incredible heart-rending stories of those who were lost and those who were saved.

In terms of the flooding that occurred, I want to talk about the incredible community spirit that was displayed when local volunteers and residents helped those in need when the severe storms hit our community. It has not been written about much, but the floods caused enormous damage to our community. However, it was amazing to see the community spirit of the people in the flood affected areas, like Narre Warren and Hampton Park—seeing neighbours helping others in need, even when they had been flooded themselves. The floods were not of the scale of those in Queensland but they affected 145 households, 10 aged-care facilities and senior citizens facilities and 364 businesses. It impacted on local schools, local sporting facilities, parks, roads and community facilities. Some homes in Holt still remain uninhabitable or unsafe to live in. Many roads, footpaths and fences are damaged. The terrifying nature and the rapidity of events that occurred resulted in some of my constituents being trapped in cars or homes, not knowing when the rain was going to stop. That was an incredibly dramatic experience for everybody. I will talk about how that was relayed by the social media a little bit later in my speech.

I am most proud of the volunteers and the residents in my community. As I said, without question they came to the aid of others in need even when they had been flooded themselves. For example, one of my constituents, Joan Crilly from Hampton Park, was particularly affected by a stormwater drain at the front of her house. She had been called and told that there was flooding in her street, so she drove down to her street. She could not get terribly far because a lot of it was underwater. She waded through the water to get into her house and the water was flooding through her property. The amazing thing that occurred was that people, even in the midst of this fairly treacherous situation, could see that there was a stormwater drain that was blocked. These people materialised out of nowhere, even though their own homes had been flooded, and tried to rip the tops off the stormwater drains so that the water could get through. It just epitomised the spirit of the people of Hampton Park.

You could read on Facebook, for example, that people whose homes had been flooded were walking into their neighbours’ homes to help clear out the flooding and assess the level of flooding damage. As I said, it is a very rare community spirit and something that I think epitomises the quality of the people who live in Hampton Park.

I cannot go without talking about the efforts of the Narre Warren SES unit, which was one of the busiest in the state on the weekend the storm hit. They received 684 calls for assistance just in that weekend alone. With the help of local CFA branches, the Narre Warren SES unit rescued dozens of people from flooded cars and assisted with the evacuation of an entire retirement centre. The SES has always been active in handing out information about what to do in emergency situations and this certainly came in handy both before and afterwards.

In particular, the efforts of Narre Warren unit coordinator, Tim Howell, and his dedicated team of volunteers were incredible. I know that many of these volunteers worked throughout the night responding to dozens of calls for assistance from residents, private nursing homes and many other businesses. As I said, we as a community are incredibly indebted to them for assisting those who were affected.

Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, being on Facebook yourself, I am sure you would have seen that Facebook is a pretty valuable tool for communication—never more so than when your community is being flooded. I live in Endeavour Hills, which is not far away from where a lot of the severe flooding occurred. One of the most extraordinary things I found was that when I was going home I was instantaneously getting updates about how severe the flooding was in suburbs like Hampton Park, in bits of Cranbourne and Narre Warren. It is an amazing medium, particularly when it is used like that. As I said, it brings the community together in almost a global village.

It was fantastic as a local federal member of parliament to see people who I was connected to via Facebook communicating what was occurring there. Some of that information was being accessed by emergency services as well. It was amazing to see the Youtube clips of the Hampton Park shopping centre where the rivers were running through the shopping centre towards the roads. It is an incredibly valuable tool that is being used. We have seen the value of Twitter and Facebook overseas, but they are also incredibly useful in situations like the floods that occurred in the region around Hampton Park. There is one particular person I wanted to acknowledge, Michele Halsall, who is an established and valued member of the Hampton Park community. She created the Casey floods Facebook page. It allowed people to instantaneously hook on, whether they were Facebook friends or not, so that they could communicate and see what was occurring.

What also occurred, and what I think is quite extraordinary, is that following the scenes of devastation we saw in Queensland, a local Casey Cares flood benefit concert was organised for 12 February. The organising committee of the flood benefit concert was led by Casey Deputy Mayor, Wayne Smith, who is a councillor for the ward and someone who is deeply committed to his community. He formed a committee. This group of people symbolised the charitable and generous nature of the residents of Holt. Inspired by the heart-wrenching scenes of the devastation in Queensland and in northern Victoria, they set about raising much-needed funds by organising a special benefit concert. Ironically, the committee had no idea that our community would be affected by flooding and the venue that was chosen to stage the fundraising event was itself flooded.

This did not dampen the spirits of the committee and the 100 performers who volunteered to participate in the concert. The concert was moved to the Cranbourne Community Theatre. I am proud of the fact that not even a flooded venue could stop our local community from banding together in support of flood victims across the country. To be in attendance at the concert, which was run on the evening of 12 February, was a great honour. I was also extremely proud that more than $7,000 was raised at this sold-out venue. This included the $1,000 donation presented to the mayor on the night of the concert by the Hampton Park Progress Association.

In addition, $12,000 was also donated to support the victims of the Victorian and Queensland floods by the city of Casey, and I wish to acknowledge the council for this contribution. I am also—as I was, particularly, during that evening—in awe of Holt’s home-grown talent. Performers like Madison Pritchett, Andrew Swift, the Casey Choir and many others were truly amazing, and showed that the arts are alive and well in Holt. The solo number delivered by Chelsea Wall deserves particular mention. Her home was badly damaged by knee-deep floodwater; nevertheless, she continued to go to rehearsals and participate. To have such a high standard of artistic talent and professional dedication on show again made me particularly proud to be the local federal member.

In speaking about that, I want to turn my attention to recognising two important events that occurred within the Holt electorate. The Community Spirit and Leadership Awards were held on 8 December. Forty-one students from schools across the area were recognised at an awards ceremony held at the Casey council chamber. This awards ceremony was attended by over 250 people, including parents, teachers and supporters. The awards recognised the outstanding contribution made by the students, and the difference that their contribution, hard work and dedication have made in their schools and our local community. The testimonials from the schools nominating the students were truly outstanding and tell of the great work done by our kids and the strong sense of community spirit that they have.

One of the award recipients helped plan and organise a fundraiser for a fellow student with a disability which raised $13,000 towards essential walking equipment. Another recipient had helped rescue a four-year-old boy who had fallen into a public swimming pool, even though she herself was not a very good swimmer. She went to the bottom of the pool and pulled the boy to safety. There were many other similarly impressive testimonials, ranging from organising fundraisers for a less fortunate family whose house had burnt down to collecting food each day for school breakfasts.

Importantly, this awards ceremony gave me the chance to say thanks to these students on behalf of the community and to let them know how proud we are of them. I am going to read through their names because I think they deserve to be acknowledged. So I would like to acknowledge these very impressive young Holt constituents: Moesha Attard, Lexie Harris, Carissa Nettleton, Dharna Nicholson-Bux, Nyamboum Ruei, Daniel Cooper, Shoana Davenport-Stilo, Joel Shaw, Dean Kemp, Jean-Pierre Hanna, Renesha Siemeniak, Nathan Usher, Zoe Flight, Natalie Wickens, Joshua Strachan, Molisi Tu Inauvai, Phoebe Grothaus, Oleg Glazunov, Stacey Beach, Daniel Ando, Sophie Wieckmann, Shona Morrison, Madeline Nelson, Nevena Djuric, Zoe Stopher, Jessica Schuyler, Jamie Rundle, Samantha Herholdt, Sam Crotty, Jesse Caminiti, Molly McLean, Mitchell Dunne, Isabella Zygouras, Emma Seal, Daniel Marquison, Karena McNeely, Douglas Dias, Timothy Riley, Daniel Martin, Olivier Permal, Sitarah Mohammadi, Bridget Bugeja, Dylan Cavalot and Joshua Dodgson. There are a lot of names there, but they deserve to be acknowledged because of the contribution they have made to our community. As I said at the start of my presentation, on a national level the community does get some pretty bad PR. But it would be pretty good if the national media sometimes paid attention to the quality of the young people we actually have in our community.

The Holt Australia Day awards at Hampton Park on Australia Day were amazing, as they were in Doveton. There were a couple of young people that I particularly wanted to mention from amongst the large number of people who received awards—it is ironic that we held the Hampton Park Community Spirit awards in the Hampton Park Reserve, given that the reserve was effectively underwater a few days later on 4 and 5 February as a consequence of the flooding. One of those young people was a young man called Anthony Bickham, who bravely rushed into a burning house to help a woman and her daughter. He rescued them and brought them to safety.

As I said to you, Holt is a growth area. A lot of young families come here to create and live the Australian dream. They bring their families out here. They are trying to create prosperity not just for their family but for their children and their children’s children. It is a great honour to represent this constituency. When you hear the stories of the courage, the commitment, the resilience and the contribution made by the people of Holt, you realise that Holt is the best electorate in Australia.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the appropriations bills, particularly Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011, because I want to revisit the subject of the youth allowance changes the government has made over the last 12 months. I will just give the House a potted history. The House would remember that the government introduced changes, which the opposition opposed, to the independent youth allowance some time ago. We held out against those changes for a good 12 months and then, finally, struck an agreement with the government to ensure that money flowed to students in rural and regional areas who might otherwise not have been able to access tertiary education because of their financial circumstances. We said at the time that we believed that the government had not gone far enough, particularly in including inner regional students in the new criteria—in fact, the old criteria which became the new criteria we had agreed with the government. We said at that time that we would be revisiting the subject and, in fact, Senator Nash put forward a motion in the Senate to highlight the plight of inner regional students.

If you then fast forward to more recent history, the Senate passed the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010, sponsored by Fiona Nash, which would have allowed inner regional students access to the old criteria for youth allowance, which in turn would have meant that money would have been able to flow to thousands of students who would not otherwise have been able to access tertiary education. That bill was transferred to the lower house and members might remember that, last Monday in the House of Representatives, we had a debate about that very bill. The opposition’s view was that we could consider and pass the bill and that it would then be up to the government to present it to the Governor-General.

The government, under the great pressure that the opposition were applying, struck a deal with the Independents. That deal, from what we could gather, was to agree to a review of the independent rate of the youth allowance, that review to commence on 1 July with new guidelines to apply from 1 January 2012. The very strong impression that the Independents had was that they had struck a deal with the government that would include inner regional students, allowing funds to flow to those students. There were tumultuous scenes in the House of Representatives when the government realised that the opposition had the votes to carry, or at least to achieve consideration of, the opposition’s youth allowance bill in the House of Representatives. At that point, the Leader of the House inveigled the member for Lyne to leave the chamber to go into the Chief Government Whip’s office to meet with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. He emerged only to vote against an amendment that he had already seconded and spoken in favour of in the debate in the previous two hours.

Clearly, as far as the member for Lyne was concerned, he had a deal with the government that satisfied him that inner regional students would be catered for. In fact, the Independents went out of the House—one of the Independents is in the House today—and indicated that they had had a breakthrough win. They indicated that they had a deal with the government that meant they did not have to vote to consider the opposition bill and did not have to vote to pass that bill because the government had heard their concerns and inner regional students were to be taken care of.

So you can imagine the shock in the opposition when the minister for tertiary education, Senator Evans, said in estimates on Thursday:

The answer isn’t as some people seem to think … from the 1 January next year inner regional students will get the same conditions as outer regional students and they will be the same ones as the ones that exist currently …

This quote makes it absolutely clear that what really happened last Monday was that the Independents—present company excepted—were duped into believing that they had a deal that would cover the concerns of inner regional students and the Independents voted in the House of Representatives—almost all of them—with the government to ensure that the government did not have to consider the Senate bill and therefore not vote on it. They did so on a false premise.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were conned.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were conned, as the member for Gippsland says, into believing something which, as Senator Evans confirmed on Thursday, was nothing more than another government ruse to avoid defeat on the floor of the House of Representatives. The deal that they had struck on Monday did not even last through to Thursday. Hopefully, they will not be humiliated, because they will reverse their previous position if they get the chance to do so—and I intend to give them that chance. I now move to Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2010-11 the following amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House call on the Government to bring forward its timetable for resolving the inequity it has created in independent youth allowance payments for inner regional students, and in particular ensure that:

(1)

the review is completed by 1 July 2011;

(2)

the current eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance for persons whose homes are located in Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia and Very Remote Australia according to the Remoteness Structure defined in  subsection 1067A(10F) of the Social Security Act 1991 also apply to those with homes in Inner Regional Australia from 1 July 2011;

(3)

all students who had a gap year in 2010 (ie, 2009 year 12 school-leavers) and who meet the relevant criteria qualify for the payment; and

(4)

this bill be appropriated with the necessary funds to pay for this measure.

This amendment ensures that the government cannot wriggle out of an agreement they made with the Independents that caused the Independents to vote a certain way in the House of Representatives last Monday. This amendment ensures that inner regional students can access the independent rate of youth allowance based on the same criteria as those for students in outer regional and remote and very remote areas. It puts to proof the government’s claim that they have fixed the problem to the satisfaction of the Independents. We will make sure this amendment is voted on in the House of Representatives this week to ensure that the Independents have a second opportunity over a nebulous deal on a shake of a hand with the government and actually force the government to abide by the will of the parliament. If we do not do this and if the House does not pass this amendment, that will mean that students who graduated from year 12 in 2009 will be in a cohort all of their own and will be in a bubble all of their own. Students before 2009 can access the old criteria and students from 2011 will be able to access the new criteria—from 1 January next year—but students who finished year 12 in 2009 will still be facing the prospect of not being able to access the independent rate of youth allowance despite the fact that they would have qualified under the new rules from 1 January 2012. We want to make sure that the promised review of youth allowance reports by the end of this financial year. If the review reports by 30 June—that is, before 1 July—it will give the government all the time it needs to ensure that the new guidelines for the independent rate of youth allowance will not leave out any particular kind of student.

I will give you one example of the kind of student I am talking about. The member for Paterson has provided me with a letter from a constituent whose daughter is in just this position. It reads:

Thanks for agreeing to take my case to attempt some fair and equitable treatment of our application for youth allowance for my daughter. She is a youth who has been seriously affected by the change of the goalposts mid year by the Labor government. Our daughter completed year 12 in 2009 and decided to take a gap year to enable her to earn over the cut off amount at the time which was $19532 in the next 18 months, and thereby qualify for youth allowance when she commenced her Arts/Law degree this year 2011. She worked as many hours as she could at her casual job at officeworks at Newcastle and all payslips and other information was kept by us to prove that she had earned this amount. She recommenced worked as soon as the HSC was over in October 2009. After the return to school rush at officeworks passed, my daughter’s powers were cut back, however, she was still optimistic about earning the $19532 in the 18 month period.

Then the government changed the goalposts half way through last year and the new rules say that she has had to work an average of 30 hours per week in that 18 mth period. This changing of the goalposts halfway through the year has meant that my daughter, despite earning over $19532 will not now qualify for the youth allowance.

This is not an esoteric debate about criteria, and it is not about the opposition winning or the government losing or the Independents striking a deal. The government’s changes have materially affected not only this constituent’s family but also the families of thousands like her who graduated in 2009 from year 12. There are thousands of students who, through the fault of nothing but the government’s intransigence, will miss out on the financial support they need to go on to tertiary education. As the government has admitted, these students have been materially affected, and that is why they have brought forward the review and why they say new rules will start from 1 January 2012. In spite of the admissions of the government and the Independents that this was the case, the government has said that it will not allow those students in 2009 to qualify under the new rules. Senator Evans confirmed that in estimates last Thursday, when he wanted to back-pedal and backslide out of the agreement that he had made with the Independents.

I am saying to the House—and we will have a vote on it this week—that if it actually wants to put inner regional students in the same position as all the other regional and rural students it should vote for this amendment. Any other arrangement with the government is not worth the paper that it was not written on. The only way the government will be forced to effect a change giving students who graduated in 2009 the same access to the youth allowance as every other rural and regional student is if this amendment is passed. I have moved the amendment, and I absolutely commend it to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Sturt has moved an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011, I will focus on population, migration and foreign policy—including the proposal of the opposition to cut out Australian Indonesian education partnership—as well as a number of other areas. In the coming decades, the proportion of Australia’s population aged 65 and over is expected to more than double. As a result, our pension and health care costs will rise massively while the working age population shrinks. Australia’s hitherto bipartisan skilled migration policy plays a significantly positive role in addressing this. Last year, Access Economics modelling done on behalf of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship—and it is on my website so people can have a look at the figures—showed that in 2008-09, for instance, immigration intakes had a net benefit to the Commonwealth budget of $380 million in the first year. That includes all the humanitarian and family reunion programs—people who were initially a cost to the budget bottom line—but overall, even in the first year, because of the overwhelmingly skilled nature of our immigration intake there was a net benefit of $380 million.

On these figures, in 20 years time the budget will enjoy a positive impact from this same year of immigrants of $1,770 million. So over the 20-year period, from that year of migration alone the Australian people have gained simply, if one looks at it in terms of economic benefit, $20 billion in net tax from that one year’s intake of immigration.

Last year the coalition sought to conflate the population issue in immigration with asylum seekers. I have spoken on this topic before but I feel that it deserves our attention again. In 2008-09 there were 171,318 permanent migrants—not, as the member for Cook suggested, over 300,000. He did not understand—or he deliberately did not understand—or he tried to exaggerate the numbers so people would be afraid of 300,000. During the global financial crisis, many Australian passport holders whom even the member for Cook cannot keep out of Australia returned to Australia because the economic prospects in this country were much better than they were in London, Boston, New York or wherever they were. Of course New Zealanders also have a different arrangement by which they come to Australia. This made up the scare figure of 300,000.

In 2007-08, it was 158,000; the previous year—the last full year of the Howard government—148,00. In 2005-06, it was 143,00. The increase has been driven by demand for skilled migrants. Throughout all that time, two-thirds of the permanent arrivals came here under the skilled migration category. The remainder came under family migration and a small proportion, 13½ thousand, under the special humanitarian program. The 300,000 figure he has got by counting temporary migrants such as temporary skilled migrants, overseas students and Australians returning home and then minusing temporary migrants and Australians who are leaving.

Access Economics estimated that in 2007-08 Australia’s international education industry was worth over $14 billion and provided 122,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Additionally, an Access Economics study of our immigration program showed that in 2008-09 the migration program had a net benefit to the federal budget of $830 million in the first year. In 20 years time the federal budget will be $1,760 million better off thanks to these immigrants who arrived in 2008-09.

In the 40 years between 1945 and 1985, Australia’s population grew from 7.4 million to 15.8 million—a 113 per cent increase. If the current rate of migration continues in the 40 years from now until 2050, Australia’s population will grow from 22 million to 36 million, only a 63 per cent increase. These figures put the population debate in perspective.

We should not forget that Australia is a sparsely populated country by world standards even if we consider the most closely settled areas. Victoria is the most densely populated state. Its population density is 23.87 per square kilometre. Australia as a whole has a population density of 2.8 people per square kilometre. To put that in context, the US has a population density of 32.11; Malaysia, 85.8; Germany, 229.3; and the Netherlands, 399.9 people per square kilometre.

In relation to the population debate, it is not the growth and urban population that is causing water problems but the waste of water in agriculture and the fact that we need to farm water in our cities and around our cities much more efficiently. The key policy is to buy back water rates from uneconomic irrigators. Obviously, that is not such an urgent issue now with the big floods we have had and the revival of the Murray-Darling Basin but it is an important economic and environmental issue in the future.

Australia now has some of the most water-efficient cities in the world, particularly Melbourne, thanks to the former minister for environment, John Thwaites, who was the member for Albert Park, one of the state seats in my electorate.

In 1934, Melburnians used an average of 277 litres of water per day. Over the next 50 years that rose so that in 1981 the average Melburnian used 500 litres of water per day; however, recent decades have seen restrictions and, more importantly, cultural change in the way we use water.

In 2007, the rate of water usage had sunk back to 277 litres per person—the same rate it was in 1934. On a dry continent like Australia, the way people use massive amounts of water in metropolitan cities like Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or even here in Canberra is surely very important. However, in my view our problems regarding water usage are political, not demographic, in origin. On 25 July 2010, an article on coalition population policy by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, appeared in the Daily Telegraph. He claimed in the article that if population grew through immigration it should be immigration that makes us stronger, not weaker. He said:

Boat people are only a small percentage of our immigration but they powerfully reinforce perceptions that immigration is out of control because they are chosen by people smugglers, not by the Australian government.

Here we see the coalition confusing those seeking refuge with migration. The two are simply not related. He went on to say:

By stopping the boats, the Howard government could increase immigration …

This is the policy that they took to the last election. We have seen over the last week that some in the Liberal Party are not afraid to use concerns in the electorate regarding migration for political point-scoring. This is very much against the national interest, in my view. The non-partisan support we have had for our migration policy is something that is a massive benefit to us all around the country. We can see, literally in front of our eyes, how skilled migrants contribute. After the recent floods, the Queensland government and Queensland businesses said that they need skilled immigrants to help with some of the flood recovery up there. We know that in the mining areas in Western Australia and Queensland there is an insatiable demand for skilled migrants. They feed straight into the system. They are not educated in Australia so you do not have the costs of providing for them; therefore, we are great beneficiaries of their immigration to Australia—particularly since there are so many young and educated people amongst them.

Could I briefly turn to another area of concern of mine, and that is Australia’s foreign representation. I believe that consecutive governments of all stripes have underfunded the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. There are now about 20 per cent fewer DFAT employees in overseas posts than there were 20 years ago. In my view, this is really affecting the representation of a growing, important and confident country like Australia. I am thinking in particular of two areas of the world that I am very familiar with. The first is the area of the former Soviet Union south of Russia; that is, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan. They are represented by Australia from Moscow. The impossibility of adequately representing those important countries that have some antagonism with the government in Moscow is very manifest if you are there. Ukraine, for instance, is a country of over 50 million people. It is full of mining engineers—exactly the kinds of people who ought to be suitable for certain economic projects in Australia under skilled migration. They have to apply for a visa to get to Moscow before they can apply for a visa to get to Australia. So our representation in that part of the world could certainly be lifted.

The second area is the Arab Maghreb. The 100 million people who live in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco are very poorly represented by having just a trade office in Libya. Of course, that has been abandoned. We are represented in Morocco from Paris, of all places, and in many of those other places from Cairo. It is simply inadequate, and it is embarrassing that both Ukraine and Morocco have embassies here and there is no equivalent representation in their country. It is important as Australia grows that political leadership stands up to that sort of Hansonite element in Australia—or even that element in the Australian press which is constantly questioning the expenditure of federal governments—and says, ‘Yes, we do need serious representation overseas because we are a serious country.’

I turn to the Indonesian education project in my last few minutes. The Indonesian education partnership is a program that I am very familiar with. With an Australian parliamentary delegation I went to Aceh after the tsunami and saw that you could build a new school for 400 kids in Indonesia for $250,000. I cannot tell you the expressions of the teachers and the parents and what a great impression it made on all of us to see how Australian public money had been used in exactly the right way. Of course we need to spend money on pensioners, poor people, education and flood relief—all the kinds of worthy projects that we have in Australia—but this was the cutting edge of Australia’s national interest. If you were there and saw the alternatives that the Indonesians were faced with, you would understand why this is in the Australian national interest.

The prospect of cutting this program is so against Australia’s foreign policy interests and, indeed, national security interests. I want to elaborate. In places like Java and Aceh the alternative is a school perhaps funded by Saudi Arabia where there is rote learning of the Koran by poor Indonesian kids. When this is presented to them, what do the Australian people think is a better alternative: doing that and going on to be the graduates of Abu Bakar Bashir’s infamous madrasahs or learning computing science; English; their own language, Bahasa; and emerging with some economic hope for the future? Fortunately, the past Australian governments, including the Howard government, and this current Australian government have had a massive program of building schools. We have built 330,000 new school places and 2,000 junior secondary schools between 2005 and 2007. It is a program we can be very proud of and which under no circumstances should be cut.

There is probably no-one in this parliament who is more concerned with the effects of international terrorism than me. I defer to no-one on that issue. But this is an issue where the mutual benefit of the two countries is very clear. I think it is embarrassing that the idea of cutting the Indonesian program was made just after the Queensland flood, when the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Marty Natalegawa, came to Brisbane pledging $1 million from the poor people of Indonesia towards the Queensland Premier’s flood relief program. What kind of image of Australia does that send to the hundreds of millions of Indonesians?

Two weeks ago police in Indonesia arrested six teenagers, four of them enrolled at one of these extremist schools. If these teenagers had been enrolled at a school built by Australia where they had the opportunity to learn English, Bahasa and perhaps computing science, perhaps they would have had a different view of the world. I urge the opposition to rethink this kind of policy and have a broader vision of the Australian national interest.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having seconded the amendment moved by the member for Sturt on bringing forward some results as to youth allowance, I rise to speak in support of it. What I am speaking to support is a fair go for young people in my electorate and many thousands of others around Australia. I heard the previous speaker use the word ‘embarrassment’. In my view it is an embarrassment to this government that these students were not considered part of the youth allowance offering to grant equity of opportunity to these young people.

As this House is well aware, the Labor Party’s changes to youth allowance slashed the tertiary education opportunities for regional and rural students right across this nation, and the young people in my electorate were some of the worst hit. This government and the Independents have the opportunity to fix this for the year-2009-10 cohort, and what could be fairer than what we are proposing? Two houses of parliament have supported the changes that we are proposing to independent youth allowance. I encourage all members to support this particular amendment put by the member for Sturt.

We have seen arbitrary lines drawn on a map in relation to the youth allowance. It is a truly dreadful indictment of the government to draw arbitrary lines on a map to differentiate between great young people who are seeking higher education or training, often in the same school, in the same area and in the same town but who are unable to qualify. Unfortunately, this has made an absolute mockery of the government’s education revolution slogan. And unfortunately for the students in my part of the world and perhaps for 20,000 others, it is almost an education devolution because many of them will not be able to access their higher education or training as a result; and, if they do, it will come at great personal cost to their families. Both this House and the Senate have sent a clear message to the government that rural and regional students and their families should be given a fair go. This is all about a fair go for the great young people of this nation; it is a fair go for regional and rural students.

What students in inner regional areas such as those in my electorate of Forrest need is immediate action to give them certainty. Those young people who have done their gap year are at the cusp; they need immediate action. They need certainty. They need youth allowance to be available to them so that they can go on with their higher education dreams and whatever else they want to achieve, particularly, as I said, the year 2009-10 gap-year students. If, for some reason, the discrimination inflicted on regional and rural students through Labor’s legislation was an unintended consequence then Labor have had adequate time to fix it themselves. They have chosen not to, and that really disturbs me. That moves it from being an unintended consequence to one that was calculated, and our young people are the ones who are suffering as a result. The government have blocked every move made by the coalition to prevent this inequity, and that is why we have proposed an amendment. Our amendment aims to end the Labor government’s discrimination for these year 12 students of year 2009-10 and to allow them access to youth allowance at this time. They need access to youth allowance, and they need it now.

I want to briefly touch on the constitutional question that the government used erroneously to avoid ending the discrimination. The government claimed that the coalition bill was an appropriation bill, despite advice from the Clerk of the Senate that it was not. The bill before the House, though, is clearly an appropriation bill. At this moment, there can be absolutely no doubt that this legislation gives the government the opportunity to appropriate the funds for this purpose. It is in the title of the bill. In debate last week, both the Attorney-General and the Leader of the House referred to section 53 of the Constitution, which identifies that appropriation bills must originate in this House—and this bill did. Of course, Labor’s constitutional understanding did not reach the intent of the framers of its legislation to eliminate discrimination in Australia based on location. Members should note that section 51 of the Constitution talks about the Commonwealth having the power to make laws with regard to taxation, but part (ii) states:

… but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;

The coalition and I want to encourage and support the great young people who completed year 12 in 2009-10 when they need to move away to undertake their higher education or training. I receive stories about their situation on a daily basis. We heard the member for Sturt quote one of the emails he had received about this. I receive them on a daily basis. I also meet these people when I am out in the community. These great young people and their great families are being affected by this legislation. I receive emails and phone calls from them, and they are quite desperate. This is an opportunity to fix the legislation for this group. The inequity is a result of Labor policy and this is the opportunity for them to fix it, to address the equity for these young students. Rural and regional students deserve a fair go. This is what this amendment is about: it is about a fair go. At this moment, it is right to resolve this inequity for inner regional students, which is why I have seconded and strongly support the amendment moved by the member for Sturt.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to make a short contribution to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011. The bills provide additional funding of $29 million to the Human Services portfolio for the 2010-11 financial year. The new funding is important because it allows my portfolio to implement a range of important commitments that the government took to the election last year.

The first of those relates to the childcare rebate. In total, Centrelink will receive $15.2 million extra this financial year to implement changes that the government is making to the operation of the childcare rebate. The changes mean that for the first time families will be able to choose to have the childcare rebate paid at the time their childcare service submits their attendance data to the government. For some families that means a fortnightly payment, but for other families it can mean weekly payments. That is because, while childcare centres are required by the government to submit their attendance data fortnightly, many services choose to submit their data weekly. Families whose services submit their data weekly will be able to receive their rebate weekly. For those services that submit their data fortnightly, parents will be able to receive their rebate fortnightly. Families will also be able to choose to have their childcare rebate paid directly to their childcare service and receive an immediate reduction in their bills or to continue to receive that payment as a rebate. This will allow families to choose the payment arrangements that work best for them. The option of more regular childcare rebate payments will reduce the up-front costs of care and make it easier for parents to manage the family budget.

It is worth remembering that, in contrast, under the previous government families had to wait almost two years to see the childcare tax rebate, as it was then. In those days, families could claim only 30 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses to a maximum of around $4,300 per annum. Under the Labor government, those families can now claim half of their out-of-pocket expenses up to a maximum of $7½ thousand a year. That is a 75 per cent increase on the maximum amount payable, a terrific demonstration of Labor’s commitment to supporting working families with their childcare costs. Of course, Centrelink has an important role in delivering those payments.

I will turn now to paid parental leave, because these bills also provide additional resources to Centrelink to implement changes to paid parental leave that the Prime Minister announced prior to the election. The election commitment will provide financial support not just for mothers but for fathers and for other partners to spend time at home with their newborn or adopted child. The successful implementation of paid parental leave on 1 January this year was, of course, a major win for working families, who have been waiting decades for this very important change. The extension of the scheme to eligible fathers or other carers is a further win for young families with children. Also during last year’s election campaign, the government announced it would increase the rate of family tax benefit part A payable for children aged between 16 and 18 years who were studying. The change aligns the maximum rate payable for 16- to 18-year-olds with the rate payable for 13- to 15-year-olds. The bills provide Centrelink with $1.442 million in 2010-11 to implement this important change. Again it is worth pointing out that Centrelink has a role to play in a change that will make a big difference to families with children.

At the moment, parents with a child aged 15 who are eligible for the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A receive about $208.46 each fortnight, yet when that child turns 16 that payment drops by 75 per cent to $51.24 per fortnight, as though, magically, the cost of supporting a 17-year-old or a 16-year-old is lower. Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou is making a face because she knows what it is like when you have teenagers! Their costs certainly do not decrease as they grow into their later teens. The government recognises that the cost of supporting families with children does not drop by three-quarters overnight and so, from 1 January 2012, the 16- to 18-year-old rate will align with the 13- to 15-year-old rate for young people while they continue to study. It is not just a very important measure for helping families with the family budget; it is also a very important measure to keep young people in school, TAFE or further education, because we know that encouraging kids to stay in school longer or to get post-school qualifications absolutely helps them with their employment prospects in later years.

I want to talk briefly today about the age pension work bonus. These appropriation bills provide additional funding to Centrelink to implement changes to the age pension work bonus that were announced during last year’s election campaign. The program amends the work bonus to improve the incentive for age pensioners to participate in the workforce from 1 July 2011. Under the new rules, age pensioners will be able to earn up to $250 a fortnight without it being assessed as income under the income test. The government expects that these changes will benefit up to 30,000 pensioners each year. Allowing people to do a bit of casual or part-time work does not just help older Australians remain active and engaged; it also allows them to have a bit of extra spending money to improve their quality of life.

I also take the opportunity in this debate to make some comments about the work underway in my portfolio to transform the way the government delivers services to the Australian community. The service delivery reform initiative was introduced by the government in December 2009. The service delivery reform agenda continues a broader program of change that commenced in 2004 when the previous government created the Department of Human Services to place greater emphasis on the way government delivers services to Australians. In 2007 the department’s role was expanded to reflect responsibility for the development, delivery and coordination of government services and the development of service delivery policy. The continued reform of service delivery will create a better experience for the community and contribute to improved policy outcomes for government, particularly in areas such as economic and social participation, education, child care and health. These outcomes are in line with greater integration and cross-agency service provision initiatives within government.

Service delivery reform will significantly improve the way services are delivered by the Human Services portfolio. The progressive rollout of co-located offices, for example, will extend the portfolio’s reach by providing one-stop shops in many more places. Co-location allows people to do their face-to-face Medicare, Centrelink and Child Support Agency business under the one roof and will significantly improve the way those services are delivered in communities. For instance, the co-location program will double the number of shopfronts where Medicare services are available from 240 today to around 500. This is a big change for regional communities in particular. Many of them have never had a dedicated Medicare office in their town.

Increased self-service options will allow people to manage their own affairs, including through expanded online services from their home or workplace at a time that suits them. If you can book a plane ticket at 3 am from your lounge room, why can’t you update your address with Medicare, check your entitlement to childcare benefit or even apply for the age pension in the same way? The portfolio will use fewer resources servicing people who would rather do their business online. This will allow those resources to be redirected to helping those people who genuinely need face-to-face contact and prefer that face-to-face help and support. People facing significant disadvantage or multiple or complex challenges will be offered more intensive support through coordinated assistance with a case coordinator. That means better service for our clients who are homeless or long-term unemployed, clients who have a disability or literacy difficulties, or clients with, for example, drug or alcohol issues.

Effective and accessible service delivery is also an important element of the government’s efforts to build a more inclusive society. Service delivery reform will simplify people’s dealings with the government and provide better support to those most in need. A key element of the reform is the integration of the portfolio into a single department of state. Bringing together back office functions will drive efficiency, reduce the cost of service delivery for government and free up staff for more front-line customer service delivery.

This is important work. Service delivery reform will transform the delivery of services by the Human Services portfolio and will provide better outcomes for generations of Australians. It will put people first in the design and delivery of services and will ensure services are delivered more effectively and efficiently, especially to people who need more intensive support and to those with complex needs. By redirecting our effort, and expenditure, away from the back office and from servicing customers who do not really want our face-to-face help we can provide more assistance to those who really need it.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the Committee today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011. While I am deeply concerned with a number of elements in the government’s program, sadly, time limits prevent me from outlining them all. However, firstly I would like to raise the issue of the government reducing by 25 per cent the funds available to the Export Market Development Grants scheme—a scheme designed to assist small and medium size businesses with their export development. This is being reduced from $200 million down to just $150 million—a $50 million reduction.

Outside our mining industry, our small and medium size exporters are struggling. We have a dollar which is now above parity with the US dollar, and many of our major export markets are in meltdown. Further, our small and medium size businesses face a government whose policies have had the effect of making small business smaller, with over 300,000 small business job losses since they came to government. Now is the time that we should be assisting our small and medium size business, but instead this government are doing the opposite, by cutting the funding from this important scheme.

The government like to talk about certainty, but how can we have certainty when the government continually change the rules to the Export Market Development Grants scheme? This year, when exporters are applying for a grant, they will receive an upfront payment but further payments under the scheme will only be paid at a rate of somewhere between 45 to 65cents in the dollar. I call on the government to reverse the cutbacks to the Export Market Development Grants scheme and to give our small and medium size exporters the certainty they need, especially when they are venturing out into difficult international markets.

Secondly, I would like to take this opportunity to focus on the issue of trust. On 16 August 2010, just days out from the last federal election, the Prime Minister stated—and I quote those infamous 11 words for which this Prime Minister will forever be remembered:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

And let us not forget the Treasurer’s hand in this deception, with his equally infamous statement before the last election where he said: ‘What we reject is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.’

Following the government’s shameless backflip on the carbon tax, last Friday the email in my office went into meltdown, with constituents claiming to have been hoodwinked and deceived by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. People were saying that they had been conned and that they could no longer believe a word that comes out of the Prime Minister’s mouth. I would like to read out a letter that came from one constituent, and I quote:

Dear Mr Kelly,

I am sure you are being flooded by emails in relation to Ju-liar’s carbon tax. I would like to add my voice. I am appalled by her backflip, although not surprised. I am a single mother of two, one child with autism. This tax will simply add to the stress load of our household. This is a tax Australia cannot afford. The carers within our community are just holding their heads above water in coping with all the financial drains on their meagre allowances. This tax will add to their financial burden through increasing electricity prices, and many are already doing without heating and cooling just to cope. And the increase in petrol will definitely impact on their ability to take their son, daughter, husband or wife, mother or father to the many essential doctors’ appointments.

Ju-liar and her cohorts need to be held to account. The government must understand how this decision will impact on the average Aussie. The so-called rebate will not assist in any way, other than to put the country further into debt. To take from one hand and give a portion back with the other makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

People have asked me: ‘Why can’t some action be taken against the Prime Minister and the Treasurer against such misleading and deceptive conduct? Isn’t there a law against such a scam?’ We do have section 52 of the Trade Practices Act—now renamed in an act of window dressing to the Competition and Consumer Act. This act provides a prohibition against conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive, but only if the conduct is first found to be in trade or commerce.

While it is arguable that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are guilty of having engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive by tricking the public over the carbon tax, they do have a defence that the deception was not made in trade or commerce because it is clear that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer simply have not got a clue about what trade or commerce are.

Some of my constituents are being a bit harsh on the Prime Minister by calling her ‘Ju-liar’. Let us have a close look at these infamous 11 words to see if we can come up with a defence for our Prime Minister:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

People could be mistaken for focusing on the first six words, ‘There will be no carbon tax’ but they should consider this statement in full:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

I emphasis the words, ‘under the government I lead.’ Personally, I am aware of no government that this Prime Minister has ever led. Before this election this government was not led by the Prime Minister; it was led by a cabal of faceless men working hand-in-hand with the Sussex Street death squad. Then after the election, this government is also not led by the Prime Minister; it is led by the Greens. Senator Milne let the cat out of the bag only last week when she said of the carbon tax:

… it’s because of Greens in the balance of power that we’ve got it.

The inmates have taken over the asylum. The Greens are only just warming up. Only last week the New South Wales Greens through their candidate for the state seat of Marrickville, someone who in less than one month is likely to be sitting in the New South Wales state parliament, announced yet another stupid and dangerous plan that would damage the economy. This time it was a trade boycott of China—our No.1 export market.

This is how members of the other side should defend the indefensible. When members of the public remind them of the Prime Minister’s statement—‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’—they can simply say there is no deception. The Prime Minister does not lead this government; this government is led by the Greens and the faceless men acting in concert.

However, we need to look at other statements by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. No matter how they seek to spin it and no matter how they try to disguise one lie with another, it is crystal clear that they promised before the election that they would not introduce a carbon tax during this term. Irrespective of the merits of a carbon tax, this backflip raises a serious question about our democracy. If we have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer making a solemn promise before the election that they will not introduce a new tax and then even before the ink has dried on the election results they announce that this new tax will go ahead, that is nothing other than election fraud that undermines our democratic process.

If the Prime Minister and Treasurer now wish to introduce a carbon tax they must call a fresh election and put their arguments to the voters for them to decide. By failing to do so, they destroy not only their own credibility but also the credibility of the entire parliament. This parliament cannot continue when the public can no longer trust a single word that comes out of the Prime Minister’s or the Treasurer’s mouth. In short, we have a situation where if the Prime Minister or the Treasurer told you it was raining you would want to go outside to check for yourself.

As for the carbon tax now being peddled by the Green and Labor alliance, let us first hope that they can be honest enough to call it what it is. The use of the words ‘carbon pollution’ subconsciously creates a false image of grit and black soot. What the carbon tax is really about is carbon dioxide—that clear and odourless gas that makes plants grow and makes up less than 0.0004 of one per cent of the volume of our atmosphere. Of that small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, only 2.75 per cent is of man-made origin. At least 97 per cent comes from other natural sources.

Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy, I believe in climate change. History shows us that climate change has been occurring for millions of years and it continues today. Even if we went back to living in mud huts and if we gave away everything we have in our modern society, there would still be climate change tomorrow. The rationale for this tax is to do something—to do something about climate change. It is based on the theory that increases in CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. If we accept this theory as truth, and if the government is going to introduce this new tax, a new tax on carbon dioxide, the government must clearly explain, firstly, what reduction in global temperature will be produced by Australia cutting its carbon dioxide emissions by 2050; and, secondly, what extra costs—such as increased electricity prices, increased transport costs and increased food prices—will be incurred annually by a typical Australian family of four.

In answering the first question, the scientists have done the calculations to determine what reduction in global temperature would be produced by Australia cutting its carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2050. A 20 per cent cut by 2050 is an average cut of 10 per cent between now and then. It is estimated that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere by 2050 will increase to 506 parts per million by volume. From that, we deduct today’s concentration of 390 parts. So humankind might add, in the next 40 years, 116 parts per million, for which Australia’s contribution would be 1.5 per cent. So the CO2 concentration increase forestalled by 40 years would be 10 per cent of 1.5 per cent of that 116 parts per million, which would be 0.174 parts per million. That is how much this carbon tax would save. The scientists have calculated—even being charitable and taking in the high end of the UN’s estimates of the dangers of global warming—that in 40 years time, by the year 2050, this carbon tax would have the effect of avoiding global warming of 0.001 degrees.

Now we need to look at the costs to get this minute saving in warming—which is probably too small even for our instruments to measure. This planned carbon tax is deliberately intended to hurt every Australian. It is a direct assault on the living standards of every Australian. The New South Wales government—the government for now, anyway—has admitted that a carbon tax will result in a 25 per cent increase in electricity prices. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal backs this admission, explaining that a carbon price will increase the cost of living by 26 per cent above the expected increase over the next three years. In the first year alone, the Labor-Greens carbon tax will add at least $300 to electricity bills across our communities. It will feed into the price of everything, forever, and it will go up every year. Not even fresh food or medical or hospital services will be exempt.

The other big lie about the carbon tax is that, unless we introduce it, Australia is at risk of falling behind the rest of the world. But, knowing that China, India and the USA are not going to implement a carbon tax, it is simply a destructive absurdity for Australia to introduce it. If we penalise ourselves with this absurd tax when it is not implemented in the other major economies around the world, it will simply burden our industries with higher costs, it will increase the costs of moving goods around the nation, and it will put us at a competitive disadvantage. In fact, we will be putting ourselves far behind the rest of the world. It will come at a great cost to the economy and a great cost to Australian jobs. The highly respected economist Terry McCrann has described this carbon tax as ‘a national suicide pledge’.

The Australian business community—indeed, the Australian people—need certainty about this carbon tax. They need to hear that the government will not introduce it. This destructive and utterly pointless tax should be abandoned as it has been elsewhere in the world. The Australian business community and the Australian people in general will have certainty only when this deceptive and misleading government is removed from office.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having listened to the contribution made by the previous speaker, it certainly reminded me a lot of the type of language that One Nation often used. I wonder if a lot of his speech notes were indeed prepared by One Nation or perhaps the Tea Party from the Republican Party in the United States. It was quite a contribution that was not based on science but on the need for a good scare campaign.

Today I rise to make my contribution to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-201. I want to particularly focus my contribution on the whole issue of education, schools and preschool funding, which is critically important to not only my electorate but many other electorates across the nation. This is about funding for the future of our country. It is about providing opportunities for our future citizens and providing a skills base for our economy.

I want to talk particularly about an area in my electorate that has gone through tremendous growth, and that is the Surf Coast. The Surf Coast is typical of many electorates throughout Australia in that rapid population growth has been taking place over the last decade or so. We need all levels of government to come together to provide funding and policy development to ensure that we get the outcomes right not only in managing the growth but in providing those educational opportunities for all citizens within that area.

I have particular pleasure in acknowledging a group of parents within my electorate, the Save Our Schools group, which has been campaigning for the need for investment in Torquay, Jan Juc and Bellbrae to ensure that we provide educational opportunities for our young ones who are the future of our nation.

It has become apparent to those communities, particularly those parents, that the school sites within Torquay, Jan Juc and Bellbrae are at capacity or will reach capacity next year. Over the next three or four years, without further investment in education for those students in Jan Juc, Torquay and Bellbrae, we will have a situation where perhaps 500 families will need to travel into Geelong, some 30 kilometres away, to place their kids in primary education. This is particularly worrying. The Save Our Schools committee with assistance from my office has looked at the ABS statistics, and those 500 families can be identified by the growth projections within those statistics. We are particularly concerned by that.

Through the Building the Education Revolution, the Commonwealth made a very substantial investment into those schools. The capacity of those schools to take additional students was dramatically increased through the provision of new learning areas, new libraries and the like to cater for that growth. With such rapid population growth taking place on the Surf Coast, more funding will be required.

The current capacity of the Torquay College, Bellbrae and St Therese Catholic School, is 1,566 students. That is what those schools are designed to cater for. I believe the Torquay College is at absolute capacity at 480 students. Bellbrae has a maximum capacity of 350 and State Therese has a maximum capacity of 450. If you add those figures together, it is obvious that investment will be required in those schools.

As I said earlier, the ABS statistics on this are very enlightening. They predict the annual growth rate of primary age kids to be about 5.9 per cent—that is, 5.9 per cent growth this year, 5.9 per cent growth on top of that next year, and so on. You can very quickly see the challenge that our community needs to respond to.

The equation becomes more complex when you look at long day care and kindergarten. The reality is that those kindergartens and long day centres are also at or very close to capacity, and again that is very worrying for many parents. Many parents now have to travel into Geelong to access those kindergarten educational opportunities for their three-year-olds. It is clear that again we need the three levels of government to come to the table and address these very substantial growth challenges.

Over the last few years the Gillard government has been pumping an additional $210 million into improving kindergarten services as a part of what is close to a billion-dollar COAG reform agenda. That $210 million should be matched by the Victorian state government to ensure that we do give young people the opportunities they need, particularly in areas of substantial population growth like we have seen on the Surf Coast. In some instances that might require $200,000 or $300,000 to build an additional room onto the kindergarten to cater to that growth. That might be about the extent of the funding that is required. But in other areas where there has been substantial population growth over a significant period—and that population growth is going to continue into the foreseeable future—we need to work in an innovative way to ensure that we do develop a children’s services hub type of model where we bring together kindergartens, long day care, maternal health nurses and the like. Perhaps also the private sector could be brought onto that one site. Such sites would provide an integrated service for our communities.

I know many here have contributed to the whole debate on growth corridors. As a federal member who has been engaged in these issues in my community for the last four years, I know it is true to say that we do need in those instances to come together, to bring the three levels of government together and to ensure that we do drive good outcomes for our kids. Growth corridors and areas like the Surf Coast very much need the three levels of government working together. We have put $210 million on the table as a part of our COAG reform of kindergartens, we have put hundreds of millions of dollars into each and every electorate across this nation through the Building the Education Revolution—building new classrooms, new libraries, new learning spaces—and we need the Victorian government now to match that investment to ensure that we do provide in these growth corridors every opportunity for our young Australians.

As I mentioned earlier, the Torquay College community have come together and formed a community group called the Save Our School group. They are a group of women, predominantly, who have the best interests of their kids at heart. What they want to see is educational infrastructure capacity in Torquay dramatically increased over the next two or three years to ensure that kids are not going to school and being jammed in like sardines, which is very much where things are at the moment. They want certainty. They want the Victorian government to put on the table, in very clear and practical ways, what its plans are to deliver that certainty. They want a new primary school to service that growth corridor. They want a new children’s services hub to ensure that three- and four-year-olds can access kindergarten services and long day services. These are critical issues to the Torquay Surf Coast community.

Further to that, I would also like to commend the work of the City of Greater Geelong, who have undertaken a very innovative piece of work to look at their kindergarten services across their municipality. They have prioritised, as one, two or three, every service. They have done so to determine what needs to take place to meet growth within the zero to four age group, the kindergarten age group, within that community. What they have said is that there are some areas where a lot of investment will be required. They have been very clear about that. They have said that, in other areas, they will be able to meet demand through being flexible and creative and doing things such as perhaps providing kindergarten services on Saturdays. The nature of work has changed quite dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years and many parents now enjoy their weekends on a Monday and Tuesday. Perhaps the provision of kindergarten on a Saturday might be a flexible way to suit their lifestyles. There are areas where those sorts of things will be required and there are areas where the provision of $200,000 or $300,000 to build an additional space and engage an additional teacher will meet that demand.

I commit to working with the Save Our Schools community group. I commit to working for all parents across the Surf Coast to ensure that we do provide adequate infrastructure for kindergarten and for schools. I think these issues are very important and I look forward to working, over the years to come, to ensure that investment goes into that very substantial growth corridor.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity  to make my contribution to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2009-2010 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-201. It has been with great interest that I have listened to the various government speakers, including the contribution from the member for Corangamite, to try and justify the incompetence of their financial management over the past 3½ years. Since this government was elected in 2007, the budget position has spiralled out of control and down the drain. One of the consequences of this is that it is estimated that the government will spend approximately $45 billion on interest payments alone over the next four years because of the accumulated government debt. This government has wasted billions on ill-fated, poorly managed and poorly thought out green programs to deal with the great global warming swindle. This absurdity is now being compounded with the Prime Minister’s announcement last week of the introduction of a carbon tax from 1 July 2012. The announcement of the introduction of a carbon tax is a direct contradiction of the Prime Minister’s statement during the election campaign, in which she clearly said:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

The argument utilised to support this new tax is that it will allow us to keep pace with the rest of the world. The reality is that it will make us uncompetitive with the rest of the world because the rest of the world is not doing anything about introducing a carbon tax. We need look no further than the United States. Recently they decided, in their House of Representatives, to cease providing any funding to the IPCC.

In Europe, there is a more practical, painful example of the folly of pursuing this course of action. In Spain they have discovered, to their great detriment, that, on average, for every green job they created they lost a little over two jobs in the normal economy. In addition, each green job created required approximately $174,000 in various subsidies, leading to suffocating national debt and a double-digit unemployment rate.

Over the weekend I received an e-mail from a concerned local businessperson about this very issue. He explained that in the wood panel industry, in which he works, they have estimated that, as a result of the introduction of a carbon tax, industry costs will increase by approximately seven per cent. That might not sound like a huge increase, but the problem is that, in order to compete in the current market with Chinese suppliers, their profit margin is only four per cent. In other words, the introduction of a carbon tax has the potential to wipe out an entire industry, and for what—dealing with a problem that this tax will never resolve?

Some facts are probably appropriate at this point. Australia is responsible for approximately 1.2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. A price on carbon is intended to reduce Australia’s emissions by approximately 15 per cent. Global emissions are increasing at a rate of about three per cent per annum, mostly driven by China and India. Australia’s unilateral reduction in carbon emissions brought about by a price on carbon would be wiped out by the increases, from China and India predominantly, in the emissions of the rest of the world in a period of only 22 days. The question then becomes: what would Australian families and businesses get for those 22 days, other than the feel-good factor? They would get an increase in the price of electricity of at least $300 per annum, on top of other proposed increases. They would get an increase in the cost of petrol, if the Greens have their way. They would get an estimated $10 billion in direct cost to business—and guess what? These costs are passed on to the consumer—that is, you and me. Bob Brown needs a lesson in economics if he says that business will not pass that on. They also get increases in other costs of living and, potentially, up to 300,000 Australian manufacturing jobs exported to countries without a price on carbon.

This latest episode with the carbon tax is just another example of a record in government replete with examples of waste and mismanagement of the taxes that Australians are currently paying. The government seems to think that imposing taxes will get them out of their financial problems. It is not the job of the people of Australia to pay for government’s mismanagement of the funds that they first entrusted to it.

Take for example the pink batts scheme, which turned out to be a monumental waste of time and money. Not only was there enormous financial loss to all concerned, but there are still risks of fire and fraud and issues with safety and the quality of insulation. All of these were identified before the program began, yet no steps were taken to ensure compliance. The government spent $2.45 billion on the pink batts scheme which is likely to cost taxpayers in excess of half a billion dollars to fix. In addition to that, numerous small to medium businesses suffered significant losses and have, in some cases, gone out of business. These businesses are now stuck with pink batts they cannot use and cannot sell and no income to cover their debts to banks to save their mortgaged houses or to provide for their families—and that is just the business owners, let alone the staff. The number of jobs created was fewer than promised and the ones created did not last as long as they were promised to. A review in 2010 found that a third of the 14,000 properties surveyed appeared to have had faulty or dangerous installations, resulting in the loss of any potential environmental benefits. The Auditor-General found that for the $2.45 billion of taxpayers’ money spent, there were 4,000 potential cases of fraud and 207 home fires—not to forget the lives that were lost. The environmental benefits were not even evident, because much of the installation was faulty.

The National Broadband Network is proposed by the government to spend at least $36 billion. This project will take years to roll out and, given government’s project management failures over the past 3½ years, will certainly cost more than has been proposed. The plan of the government is to make this a Commonwealth owned monopoly telecommunications provider and provide fixed communications to every home and business in Australia. The coalition, like all Australians, is committed to the universal availability of fast broadband at an affordable price. However, the difference between the coalition and the government is that our concern is to ensure that the most cost-effective option is undertaken.

When Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, he and his Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tanner, stated that no major infrastructure project would be undertaken or funded by the government without the benefit of a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The government refuses to have a cost-benefit analysis undertaken and, as a consequence, you need to wonder what it is seeking to hide.

Another example of waste and mismanagement is the Building the Education Revolution program, which has seen cost blow-outs, inappropriate or poorly designed buildings and a lack of consultation. It is important to understand that the coalition is not against spending on school infrastructure. However, the spend should be reasonable and of good value. Similar to the Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools Program, we would like to see the money spent through the school communities rather than state bureaucracies.

Another example of how this government is wasting money in these appropriation bills is the seeking of an extra $290 million to be spent on asylum seeker management—an amount that eclipsed the total cost of the Howard government’s Pacific solution, which ran for almost six years. The Nauru and Manus Island centres cost $289 million to continue to run between September 2001 and June 2007.

The biggest issue for the constituents of the Forde electorate is cost of living. The current government’s spending both in its first term and on an ongoing basis continues to contribute to this. This constant borrowing by the government increases inflationary pressures and puts upward pressure on interest rates, which in turn are hurting family budgets. We have a government that is willing to further increase people’s cost of living by introducing a carbon tax. There also have to be questions about its management of the Murray-Darling Basin issue and the consequent security of our food production capacity.

The budget review document just released states that the proposed carbon emissions tax is underway. According to Treasury, the plans are to bring this tax in the 2012 budget. The government has grossly underestimated its new mining tax revenues, with reports that $100 billion will be spent over the next decade as opposed to previous reports of a $60 billion revenue shortfall under the revised MRRT. These original tax calculations show the dishonesty and incompetence of the government using a cheap trick to gain votes at the last election. The Prime Minister broke her promise to the people of Australia with the new carbon tax. We should not be surprised, as Labor consistently mismanages and wastes taxpayers’ money. With electricity prices rising, the Prime Minister’s carbon tax will only make Australians’ lives more difficult.

Small business is a core employer in my electorate and is finding it costly and difficult to access new capital to grow and expand or just get through present difficult trading conditions. This is reflected in part in the higher-than-average unemployment and underemployment rates in my electorate as employers seek to retain staff but reduce working hours. These issues are all directly related to the fact that capital is not available in the markets.

This results in a fall in national productivity, an issue which this government apparently wishes to improve. This is where the initial and subsequent stimulus packages were misdirected and show a lack of understanding by the government about the cause of recessions in Australia. Phil Ruthven from Access Economics noted in a presentation last year that the primary driver of recessions in Australia is not a fall in consumer spending but a direct result of the fact that businesses lost access to capital to continue to grow and develop. These issues arise out of the fact that the government continues to borrow at a rate of $100 million per day, which means there is $100 million per day less in the capital markets available for business. This capital would be far better allocated and utilised by business, as it will seek to utilise the capital productively to employ staff, manufacture goods and make a profit.

Australia’s labour force is lying untouched by the current government. For example, on the apprenticeship system, the 2011 expert panel report showed that the completion rate for apprenticeships was around 48 per cent. This means that the government has been paying out a lot of wage subsidies and other apprenticeship incentives but people are not even completing their training. This report also highlights that a lot of money is being spent on traineeships for companies such as McDonald’s, KFC and Woolworths, which begs the question of whether this offers real value for the money outlaid. The system is confusing for employers to navigate and makes it difficult for small business to take on apprentices.

This government must stop its reckless spending now to avoid putting further financial pressure on Australian families. It is time the government stopped turning a blind eye to the Reserve Bank’s leading economists and the opposition’s warnings and take the necessary steps to rein in the budget. The government’s refusal to cut back on its spending is putting pressure on interest rates, which will inevitably continue to rise. This rise in interest rates will put a further strain upon Australia as a direct result of the failure of the government to deliver on its promise to lower costs of living for working families.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be able to rise today in this House to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011, the combined funding for which comes to almost $2.4 billion. Both appropriations contain a wide range of important projects, which I will touch on in general terms. One of the first line items to catch my eye in these bills was the $120.7 million in funding for the Attorney General’s Department for flood relief. When we reflect on the events of this summer and the hardship that disasters have wrought across the country and on the other side of the Tasman, the cut and thrust that goes on here in our little bubble in Canberra pales into insignificance. While words fail in times like these, our actions as a government have been far from insignificant. The support we have marshalled has given sustained support to many in need.

When I checked the figures last week, we had paid out more than $442 million for 376,000 Australian government disaster recovery payments for those who had been affected by the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi. More than 50,000 claims were granted to the value of $22.5 million for the disaster income recovery subsidy. There is also a wide range of assistance available under the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements, which are in place in 62 local government areas. These arrangements offer a wide range of grants as well as facilities such as concessional interest rate loans to those trying to get back on their feet. Australians expect us to do this kind of work in government to support our fellow Australians in need.

Over the weekend, the government’s response continued with the Treasurer and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry announcing a $315 million Queensland local council package to be jointly funded by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. The aim of this package is to ensure that disaster affected communities have the basics—water and sewage facilities, transport infrastructure and employment support—because people need to get back on their feet as quickly as possible and people need to be able to get back into work.

I am enormously proud to belong to a government and a party that is rising to the challenge of the natural disasters over the past two months. I am especially proud to represent a region—the Central Coast of New South Wales and particularly the seat of Robertson—that continues to dig deep to help our fellow Australians in need. I have already expressed my deep disappointment in the House, and I am afraid to say that I believe it is a moral failure, for the Leader of the Opposition not to accord bipartisan support for the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. That bill is before the House, and I understand the Senate wants to take a closer look, as is its prerogative.

I think the government’s package is very well balanced, and I understand that in Queensland it has been particularly well received. We have made cuts to the budget where we could, but the levy is needed to rebuild flood affected regions. We believe this package is the right package. Sixty per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $1 per week. We are asking someone on $80,000 to sacrifice $2.88 per week, less than the cost of a cup of coffee and 10 times less than the tax cuts they have received over the last three years.

I think the opposition’s failure to support the levy rankles with me even more because the people from the Central Coast have themselves put in such a great effort to help with the flood recovery. My office has been in touch again today with the Central Coast Caravan of Angels, whose team of about 30 volunteers is on its way back from its second trip to Ipswich, where it has spent the last three days carrying out repairs on 20 houses. They are a great bunch of people, and they express the spirit of Australians. What they have given in cash and kind generously and without request as Australians is a phenomenal indicator of the support of Australians for one another.

Australians have given $200 million in donations. What a great accomplishment. But the work that lies ahead in recovering our infrastructure so that people can get on with their small businesses and get to their jobs and we can move those great resources that we have around our country requires 60 times the amount that has already been voluntarily committed by Australians out of their pockets and out of their businesses. We cannot go back to Australians 60 times and ask them for that amount, but we can responsibly levy those who are most capable of paying, and that is what these two appropriation bills will enable. These fundamental Labor values set us apart from the individualists and the opportunists in the Australian political sphere on show here in this parliament.

As I join the dots between the line items in these appropriation bills, I see Labor values implicit in them. For me, that is the golden thread that runs through these bills. A fundamental Labor value is opportunity for all. How will these appropriation bills allow that fundamental Labor value of opportunity for all to be played out? It comes out in programs such as the RLCIP, the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Under the RLCIP, more than $1 billion has been distributed to 565 local governments across Australia. This is in stark contrast to the pork-barrelling that went under the former Howard government in the guise of regional development. In those days, residents in Labor held seats could expect no quarter from a Liberal government in Canberra. But we in the Labor Party have broad shoulders and, thankfully, a broader mindset that encompasses all Australians right across the country. The RLCIP is a bona fide funding program for important local community projects. You do not have to be a Latin scholar to know that bona fide means ‘in good faith’. The RLCIP is about investing now in our local communities to provide jobs, infrastructure and elements that will enhance the opportunities of those communities in a wide range of ways.

The RLCIP projects that are funded are chosen by the councils themselves. The funds are used to build and modernise community facilities such as town halls, libraries, community centres, sports grounds and environmental infrastructure. The purpose of the RLCIP funding was to strengthen vulnerable communities and protect them from the global financial crisis through providing economic recovery and supporting local jobs. On top of the stimulus aspect, the RLCIP projects have added bonuses to communities so that they can enjoy the benefits of renewed local infrastructure for the long term—and, from personal experience, ‘enjoy’ is the operative word.

On 11 December last year I joined several hundred people at the gala opening of the Peninsula Recreation Precinct at Umina. I find it hard to imagine a happier civic occasion. When you see young families playing happily on community infrastructure that your government has funded, I do not think a job can get much better than that. That happiness is even greater when you consider that 220 construction jobs and 10 ongoing jobs were created through the project. Umina is not exactly a privileged area of the Central Coast. It is an area that has in the past had its fair share of law and order problems, but through the RLCIP, and more broadly through Labor’s commitment to regional Australia, we have given the people of Umina a recreation precinct that they can well be proud of.

I come back to the fundamental Labor values of fairness and equity. Just because you live on the Woy Woy Peninsula does not mean you should expect less than your counterparts who live in Sydney or Newcastle. Labor’s fundamental belief is that your postcode should not determine your destiny, and our commitment to regional Australia is real and abiding. Under the latest round of RLCIP, Gosford City Council has received $577,000 in funding. That is going to go to five local projects that will change and enhance the lives of Australians as well as supporting local businesses that have been engaged in the delivery of these projects.

At Frost Reserve I met the Kincumber Roos football club leaders. That is where the Kincumber football club do their training and sadly, with such a large commuter population, a lot of that training has to happen later in the evening. With incapacity to light parts of the field, lots of young people and older people who just want to stay fit were unable to train under lights. That situation will be rectified. It will be of massive benefit to the local health and wellbeing of our community. Woy Woy tennis courts are also going to get an upgrade, and the RLCIP will provide a new viewing platform at Rumbalara reserve. We live in such a uniquely beautiful part of the country, and a viewing platform will be a great enhancement not just for locals but also for the key tourism industry and people who come to experience our beautiful horizons across the sea. This is also the site of a fantastic walking track in East Gosford and gives people a tremendous view over the Brisbane Water.

Labor’s commitment to regional communities continues. As a matter of fact, these appropriations include $5.9 million for the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government to strengthen local engagement and improve whole-of-government coordination of policy.

I move to the project mentioned amongst these appropriations that has the potential to transform the lives of people in regional Australia for the better in a radical way. I am talking, of course, of the National Broadband Network. Part of the allocation in these bills is for funding to develop and implement arrangements for the establishment of a new agency to manage the universal service obligation. As a teacher for over three decades, I am thrilled at the educational prospects that the NBN will offer future generations. For regional areas it holds the potential to be a game-changing technology. Reliable superfast broadband has the potential to improve our lives on the Central Coast in so many ways by allowing our local businesspeople to compete on a global stage. Reducing the need for a commute from Sydney or to Newcastle for work, for education, or for health reasons, the NBN has the potential to open up a suite of previously unimagined e-health opportunities and solutions. I look forward to talking more about the crucial importance of the NBN to the Central Coast as key legislation is debated in the House over the coming days.

There is much else in these appropriation bills that speaks to Labor’s enduring values. There is $10.1 million for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to introduce the fair entitlements guarantee to protect employee entitlements when an employer enters liquidation—again, a reflection of the Labor value of looking after Australians who hit adversity. Twenty-one point six million dollars will go to the Australian Sports Commission. This is to continue the Active After-school Communities program until December 2011. I know that all the young people who participate in those Active After-school programs will be delighted that the things they currently enjoy will continue because of this commitment by Labor. There is $10.7 million for Centrelink to provide families with the additional option of receiving childcare rebate payments directly to their bank account on a fortnightly basis from 1 July. Anyone who is bringing up kids knows the pressures on a family budget. It will be fantastic to anticipate that every two weeks you will be able to access this benefit.

Labor’s commitment to being a good regional citizen is also apparent in these appropriation bills. The government proposes to provide AusAID with the following amounts: $202.6 million to maintain Australia’s share in the International Development Association, $10 million for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, $10 million for the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan Trust Fund and $12.2 million for the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines.

What I have spoken about today reflects the connection between our values and our work here in the parliament for Australians at home and in our role as international citizens attending to the reality that people out there in the world need our support in a range of financial and in-kind ways. I commend the bills to the House.

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

I want to talk about atrophy and apathy. I draw the House’s attention to the atrophy that is happening in the small business community and family enterprises right across Australia and the apathy of this government towards the plight of this engine room of our economy and the men and women who take risks, make great sacrifices, provide great opportunities to communities throughout the country and who deserve a government that supports them, not one that ignores them.

The atrophy is apparent in a number of ways. We saw it recently in the latest ACCI small business survey results, which provide a very revealing insight into what small business men and women are experiencing at the moment. It talks about the general trading conditions and about confidence continuing to deteriorate. It says that the interest rate hike in November and concerns around the financial crisis are adding to anxiety among consumers and making already difficult trading conditions even more challenging. It talks about a deterioration in the indicators for small business prosperity—business conditions, sales revenue, employment, selling prices, investment—which were all contractionary over the quarter, and the indicators looking forward are not much more encouraging.

It goes on to identify what is often talked about as a two-speed economy, but I think one needs to go a bit deeper than that. I have called on the Reserve Bank to make small business its business, to understand the experiences in the small business community when it is making decisions about interest rate settings. Others have talked about a patchwork economy in Australia, and again I would say that for many in the small business community their patch is threadbare. They are on very tight margins in difficult trading conditions, and the worrying thing is that the government just does not seem to care. It does not seem to care that the small business community is absorbing the inflationary impact that cost pressures are presenting as margins are squeezed. Day after day we see reports of higher energy and input prices, of wages costs and of the cost of the key consumables that go into providing goods and services—how there is upward pressure in almost every area. Cost of living becomes cost of inputs for the small business community. And a key reason those cost drivers have not translated into enormous cost blowouts and runaway inflation is that the small business community is sucking them up through reduced margins, because their consumers are very cost conscious at this time and are driving hard bargains.

The big end of town have deep pockets. They can go on cavalier discounting exercises that maintain their market share but deteriorate their own profitability over time. You would have heard Gerry Harvey and others in recent weeks describing how their results were not quite as buoyant as they had hoped. Keeping turnover was difficult and margins were under great pressure. If you have deep pockets you can possibly absorb that for a while but in a small business when you are confronted with heavy discounting it places even more pressure on the viability of your business.

So it came as no surprise to me that the most recent Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia and Telstra Back to business survey identified distinct dissatisfaction with this government amongst the small business community. It pointed to areas of new taxes being introduced—I will touch on that in a moment—and higher interest rates. They described a relentless red-tape burden that seems to know no end, and how these things are all combining to cause confidence to plummet and the prospects and optimism for the future to take a severe battering. That is the atrophy that the small business community is facing. I give maximum respect to those men and women who persevere regardless of the apathy and indifference of this government.

Extraordinarily, in that recent COSBOA-Telstra survey they were actually calling for action that mirrored the coalition’s small business policy that we took to the last election. They are ideas that are already developed, costed, refined, delivered to the Australian public and embraced by a vast majority of small business men and women at the last election. They are already there. They are on the shelf. They have been road-tested and ready to go. But can you find anyone in this government who gives a damn and is interested in the needs of the small business community? There are some who espouse some interest or experience, but when they get up here I do not know whether they are enchanted or seduced by the big end of town or the talking points they are dished up to parrot in this place, but one thing is certain—there is no decisive action to support the engine room of our economy, the small business sector.

I was not surprised to read observations about big business having access to elected officials through the lobbying that goes on and how decisions that adversely impact on small business are washed away as minor impacts. Minor or major impacts—they are additional impacts on time-scarce and cash-poor businesses struggling to stay afloat in this difficult environment. I say to all members in this House: become familiar with the experience of small business people because it is a glaring area of atrophy and apathy at the hands of an indifferent Labor government here in Canberra.

The interest rate rises supposedly contain inflationary bubbles in some sections of the economy but they hit hardest in the small business community. To a day, Russell Zimmerman continues to toil on behalf of retailers by pointing out what a deteriorating impact interest rate rises have on retail, where there is even greater cost-consciousness and greater sensitivity to the cost of living pressures. These rises put even more pressure on margins and eat into discretionary expenditure, which is an area where many small businesses pursue their enterprises and provide economic and employment opportunities.

Those are the survey accounts and they paint a grim picture. If you look at the hard data you get a sense of how vivid this atrophy is and how the apathy of this government cannot be tolerated. I am sure you would be interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the Howard government lost office 53 per cent of all Australians in the private sector were employed in small business. There were a little over five million Australians securing their livelihoods by employment in small business. Just a few years after the Rudd-Gillard Labor government took office that figure of 53 per cent of all people employed in the private sector had been reduced to 48 per cent. That five million plus went down to 4¾ million in the space of three short years. The most current ABS statistics show a decline of 300,000 in employment in small business in the private sector at a time when this government boasts about jobs growth that is occurring overwhelmingly in the big end of town.

They are the hard statistics, and they are real statistics. They represent the livelihoods of 300,000 people who are now no longer secured through small business. These are the small businesses that drive and energise the outer metropolitan, rural and regional economies. They are not all blessed with a major employer. They are not all blessed with a big end of town presence to provide those job opportunities. There are 300,000 fewer people working in small business. The survey talks about things like red tape flooding small business owners. Many describe to me the time they spend working for the government when they would really rather be working in and for their business. Those statistics are stark as well. I highlighted them during the election campaign. Within the first three years of the Rudd-Gillard government—after Labor had promised that for every new or amended regulation there would be one repealed—the stats were compelling. In that first period of Labor, there were 9,997 new or amended regulations. How many were repealed? Fifty-two. Maxwell Smart would say, ‘Missed by that much.’ There were nearly 10,000 new or amended regulations and 52 repealed—and that is a one in, one out basis.

Having highlighted that dismal performance, that breach of faith, another broken promise, I thought I would have a look to see whether things have improved. They have not improved. In 2010 alone, there were 3,437 new or amended regulations. How many were repealed? Four. It seems as though nothing has been learned, and it is clear why the small business community feel they are overwhelmed with regulatory imposts and compliance burdens when they would really rather be about creating jobs, wealth and opportunities in their communities.

Last week we had an opportunity to do something about relieving employers of a needless, pointless and completely unjustified imposition of the paid partial leave pay clerk burden—one that the Commonwealth wants to handpass away from its Family Assistance Office to employers right across Australia. When it came to that opportunity to do something constructive about compliance and red-tape burdens on small business, my bill went down—69 votes to 70. I wonder just where this supposed commitment is from the Labor government. It is another example of their complete indifference to the plight of small business.

That is a flood of regulation, but even in the most recent floods and natural disasters again this small business blindness emerges with this government. You see the Assistant Treasurer running around saying, ‘I’m going to beat up the insurance companies about the definition of floods.’ Okay, work needs to be done there, but do you ever hear him talking about business interruption insurance? This insurance can cost tens of thousands of dollars year on year for enterprises who know that, if they are not able to trade, it could have a very substantial and severe impact on their viability and opportunity to keep operating. Do you hear him talk about that? No. I will make sure that he does talk about those insurance companies declining business interruption insurance, which is what Impulse Entertainment in Brisbane is being subjected to. This could be the difference between them staying afloat and going under. I would like to see the Assistant Treasurer talk more about that.

But the latest talk is about a carbon tax. The last time a carbon tax emerged, it was in the form of a CPRS and everybody was out there with their hands out for compensation. Remember that? The big end of town was here, the mining companies were here and energy generators were here. Fantastic. Everyone was around. There was cash flowing around everywhere. It was the biggest merry-go-round, or cash-go-round, you have ever seen from the great big new tax that was proposed then. But do you know who was also keen to be factored into that conversation? Small business. Do you know what they were told? They were told by this Labor government: ‘Suck it up, guys and gals—suck it up.’ There was no compensation for small businesses. They should simply pass those cost increases on to consumers. Small business had already described the impact of a tight economy and the cost of living pressures on consumer behaviour and the inability to simply pass more costs on. We are back there again. We are back right where we were last time. Last time, you needed to consume twice the amount of electricity of our average small business to even get a look in—hang everybody else. This is even when reports around here were saying that the ability of small businesses to negotiate on their prices of electricity and other key inputs is very minimal and that they have experienced a far greater increase in the cost of their energy over recent years. That is in this AiG report.

Then we see statements about the need for small business to be factored in. Small business believed Julia Gillard when she said there would not be a carbon tax under a government which she led, and recent research has shown that 80 per cent of small businesses therefore have not factored that into their forward plans. The Commonwealth Bank-CCI Survey of Business Expectations revealed that three-quarters of those who responded were not planning for the introduction of a price on carbon—80 per cent had not factored carbon pricing into their business plans, because they believed the Prime Minister. It is another example of atrophy and apathy.

Small businesses in outer metropolitan and rural and regional areas also have higher network electricity charges, and even in 2008 a KPMG study commissioned by the City of Bendigo showed that the ability to pass on those extra costs is minimal as they compete with metro based locations. Now that point of difference is going to be made even bigger. ACCI Chief Executive Peter Anderson said in his recent assessment of the government’s carbon tax plan:

If anything like the 2009 CPRS proposal is repeated in 2011, the carve-outs combined with the failure to compensate SMEs for higher energy costs and their lack of market power in supply chains would make the gap between small and large business conditions even worse.

This is a constant message but there is no-one in this Labor government listening to hear it—no-one. If they wanted to do something about these issues, they could pick up the coalition’s small business policy. There are more than a dozen constructive, practical ideas that together represent a microeconomic reform agenda for the engine room of our economy. You do not have to take it from me. You can listen to the small business community, or you can even listen to the government’s own department. The blue book for the incoming Abbott government, had we been successful, gave an appraisal of these polices:

During the election campaign, you committed to numerous measures to support entrepreneurial activity and small business. These measures could provide an important boost to productivity.

This is a stunning endorsement from one of the government’s own departments. The atrophy in small business must stop in the national interest, and the apathy of this government needs to stop right away.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011. They contain appropriations both for ongoing work and for new measures of this government for the service of the Australian people and the national interest. A number of programs are funded through these bills, and I want to express some views from the electorate of Hindmarsh demonstrating support for these programs.

There are a few issues that have generated immediate, strong and apparently unanimous support within the electorate of Hindmarsh. One such issue is the new agreement between loggers, environmentalists, the Tasmanian government and the Commonwealth, which Deputy Speaker Adams would be in tune with and very aware of. The plight of the Tasmanian wilderness has been in the public’s consciousness since at least the mid- to late-1980s, and from that time a substantial portion, it seems, of the Australian public has had a love affair with the pristine wilderness—and rightly so—the temperate rainforest, the old growth pines and the open, scrubby regions of that most beautiful state that the Deputy Speaker comes from. So it is my pleasure to support that agreement on behalf of the many constituents of Hindmarsh who want our beautiful natural heritage preserved. The Commonwealth has committed $22.4 million to help this collective response to the issues and challenges facing the Tasmanian native forests and the industries that until now have exploited this all too fragile and irreplaceable treasure.

I also appreciate the opportunity to speak in support yet again of the strength of the government’s response to the global financial crisis and resulting worldwide recession. One of the vehicles used to deliver the economic stimulus which fuelled the economy and kept public confidence high was the Building the Education Revolution. There have been thousands of very successful, highly prized and economical building works undertaken in schools in all our electorates right across the nation.

The coalition’s irrational opposition to this program has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be hyperinflated and insubstantial. As I go to the openings of different BER projects in and around my electorate—and I am sure all the members on our side who have seen these projects firsthand would agree—I see the work that is being done and the need for wonderful buildings that will equip our students with the tools for better learning. But I also see another side to it: each and every one of these BER projects employs anything from 20 to 100 people. When you multiply those numbers by the thousands of BER projects that are being undertaken across the nation, you can see why our economy is the envy of countries abroad. You can see how easily we created nearly 300,000 jobs from the infrastructure projects that took place around the country. I see it firsthand. I make it a point to talk to the builders, the architects and the people who are working on these sites, and they all tell me that they had to employ extra people and take on apprentices. This, of course, is one of the reasons that today we are in the position that we are in with our economy and why we are the envy of other economies around the world. Yet the coalition opposed these programs and, as I said, their opposition has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be hyperinflated and insubstantial. Even if you totally ignore the very favourable audit reports, speaking with the people in the schools can only confirm that the BER was an inherently good program.

The people in the school communities in my electorate have given me direct feedback, and I am sure that this has also been the case with members in other electorates. This direct feedback consists of nothing but excitement, appreciation and pleasure at the investments of the Commonwealth in their school communities. Let us face it: most schools do not typically get new buildings. Under the previous Howard government, the majority of schools got new flag poles. They are great, but when it came to schools getting the learning tools that their students require to equip them for a better future we did not see too much when the opposition was in government. The previous government limited itself to investing in flag poles and the odd shade sail, and that was hardly enough to improve education outcomes. But we have built brand-new buildings—including brand-new libraries—that are equipped as learning centres of the future. Schools will have those substantial things for ever and a day. This government has built $2 million libraries, gymnasiums and state-of-the-art classrooms. The BER program was a two-point attack: (1) a better education system for Australia and the future of Australian students and (2) ensuring that we injected money into the economy to keep jobs and the economy going.

The difference between the opposition and the government could not be starker. As I said, the people I speak to—parents and school communities around my electorate—absolutely love the work that is being done, and I have heard nothing but praise for the BER program. While the opposition wants to try to kill off what remains of the BER program in the non-government school sector under the guise of using the BER funds to pay for the flood reconstruction—in other words, take the money away from it and use it for the flood reconstruction—I and this government are absolutely committed to honouring our commitments by paying for the remaining projects, so ensuring that we keep jobs going and that schools do receive the buildings that they deserve to be able to teach their students.

Within these appropriation bills, there is the provision of almost $70 million for the payment of non-government school facilities that have been completed earlier than expected. Also, the amount of $48 million is being brought forward from the last financial year for the payment of trade training centres in non-government schools. This is another suite of projects that is very strongly supported in the community, and this of course raises the ire of the opposition. It is remarkable that the opposition has moved so far to the right that it does not even support funding of private education anymore.

While we on this side ignore the opposition’s spite, I say well done to the schools, communities and those involved in the construction of these schools’ prized new assets. I am sure they will help give students an even better education for many years to come. For example, in my electorate Ascot Park Primary School had refurbishments of $125,000. The Building the Education Revolution multipurpose hall for Ascot Park Primary School cost $1.7 million. Cowandilla Primary School—my old primary school—received $150,000 for structures, fencing et cetera but also $630,000 for the Building the Education Revolution new construction of classrooms and $1.8 million for a multipurpose hall. It was fantastic to go to their Christmas show this year, where we did the official opening of the BER project for this particular hall and saw the Christmas pantomime that they put on.

The list goes on and on: Glenelg Primary School, Grange junior and primary school, Henley Beach Primary School, Lockleys North Primary School, Lockleys South Primary School, Our Lady of Grace Primary School, Immanuel College, St Mary’s Memorial School and St Peter’s Woodlands Grammar School. Every single school received some form of desperately needed facilities that the former government ignored for many years.

Other funds these bills allocate include $14.6 million to double the capacity of the Connecting People with Jobs relocation pilot project to 4,000 places, which will help unemployed people to relocate to Queensland in order to take up jobs in flood affected areas where the rebuilding will be taking place. It includes joint projects with the USA to reduce the cost of solar electricity technologies, which is a great area; helping the fight against obesity and other health problems; the continuation of the Active After-School Communities program for this calendar year; and funds towards the global fight against diseases, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, in our region and beyond.

There is also additional funding for the ongoing development of the most critical Murray-Darling Basin Plan. There is funding to meet the cost of establishing the National Broadband Network and, importantly, the establishment of new management of what used to be Telstra’s universal service obligation. One area that is really important is bringing forward funds from 2013-14 for the purchase of water licences from willing—I stress willing—sellers within the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a huge issue for South Australia. We are at the bottom of the river and we know that the opposition does not want this to happen. We know they oppose more water being sent down our stretch of the Murray River and we know they see their interests with upstream irrigators, not the communities of the Riverland, the Lower Lakes, the Coorong or the Murray mouth. I anticipate them voting against this measure here in this House of Representatives when it comes up. Labor is committed to restoring the health of our precious river system for the benefit of our economy and for the benefit of our communities and the water dependent environment.

Lastly, I would like to make mention of the appropriation of funds for the introduction of the fair entitlements guarantee to protect employee entitlements when an employer’s business enters into liquidation. This is not a problem limited to the old company or employees of John Howard’s brother, the man whose bankruptcy was the catalyst behind the current General Employee Entitlement and Redundancy Scheme setup. Constituents in my electorate are still trying to get a fair deal from the GEERS agency. They and workers yet to encounter such circumstances need something better. We need something much better. Companies that spend their employees’ legal entitlements, their superannuation and their accrued benefits are nothing but thieves. We cannot tolerate employees having their legal rights ignored and trampled on and their property taken against their will by companies with no conscience.

The Gillard Labor government’s protecting workers’ entitlements package will provide the strongest protection of employees’ entitlements that Australian workers have ever had. It consists of three elements. The fair entitlements guarantee will protect workers’ entitlements, including redundancy pay, annual long service leave and up to three months of unpaid wages. Compliance measures will be strengthened to secure the superannuation that should always have been in the bank. Deliberately fleecing fellow Australians of their super of all things really is unforgivable. Strenthening corporate and taxation law will give the Australian Securities and Investment Commission increased powers to hold rogue companies accountable.

In conclusion, friends I have been speaking to who returned from overseas—from England and Europe—in the new year have commented how people in those countries envied the way our economy rode out the global financial crisis as a result of the global recession, which I spoke about earlier. They recognise how incredible our economic management has been. Many people look at us as a model of how we endured that difficult time. This government’s stimulus—specifically in the case of these bills, the Building the Education Revolution and other stimulus packages—was an absolute, clear success both for the economy and the schools and schoolchildren who will use their new facilities for decades to come. This is a matter of history.

Our economy is strong and unemployment remains around five per cent. But we need to address the outrageous corporate theft of employee entitlements by companies going into liquidation. We need to ensure as best we can that the prosperity of our time is paid to those who earn it and we need to pay our due share. We will do this through paying for school building works completed ahead of schedule, paying for overdrawn water from our rivers and getting companies to pay the wages, conditions and superannuation they owe their employees by law. Each sector of our society must be encouraged to play its part and pay its share.

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

Order! It being approximately 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.