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

Before the debate is resumed on the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2011-2012, I remind the House that pursuant to the resolution agreed to by the House on 10 May 2011, this order of the day will be debated concurrently with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012.

Debate resumed on the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

to which the following amendment was moved:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

  “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) condemns the government for incorporating in an annual appropriation bill provisions to increase the limit on government borrowings above the total of $200 billion;

(2) recognises that a special case must be made for such a significant increase in borrowing limits and that the government must explain any special circumstances that it believes justify such an increase; and

(3) demands that the parliament be given the opportunity to consider separately and vote on the proposed increases in borrowing limits set out in Part 5 of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2001-12."

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the small amount of time I had left before I was rudely interrupted last night, I recall that I wanted to summarise by saying that this budget is important for the people of Greenway because it delivers on three key areas and is responsive to the needs of my constituents. The first area is jobs. Over 3,000 apprentices in Greenway stand to benefit tremendously from this government's ongoing investment in their training, which ensures that the right incentives are provided to apprentices as well as to the businesses who conduct the training to keep them on. Older members of my community lament that investment in apprenticeships and vocational training generally has not featured prominently in the last few years. It is terrific to see that that has been turned around.

In the area of health, I would like to thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for her continuing interest in the health needs of the Greenway constituency, particularly the MRI licensing reform, which will be extremely beneficial. Finally, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services, who is in the chamber, for coming to Greenway last week for that fantastic funding announcement for the Riverstone neighbourhood centre.

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

In speaking to the appropriation bills, I intend to take advantage of the fact that one can speak on a wide range of subjects and, of course, one of those subjects is the carbon tax, which is conspicuously absent from the appropriation bills and, indeed, from the budget generally. One would have expected it to have been dealt with at least in the budget speech of the Treasurer. But as we saw today from his performance in this House, where he was shown to be someone who tells untruths and perpetually tells untruths, I guess I am not at all surprised that he omitted to leave any reference to the carbon tax out of his budget speech.

But I think it is important to know that the problem with this government is that it is not legitimate. It is a totally illegitimate government. It was not elected and the problem for the Prime Minister is that she was not a legitimately elected Prime Minister either. She came to office by being part of a Shakespearean plot where 'E tu, Brute' was active. A dagger was put in the back of Kevin Rudd in order that he could be disposed of and the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, put in his place. The fact of the matter is that she stitched up a nasty deal with trade union heavies in order to get this position. There were members of the Labor caucus who did not even know that the challenge was on. So she stitched up a deal and became the Prime Minister.

She then called an election and went to that election seeking a mandate to legitimise her position as Prime Minister and Labor as a legitimate government. She failed to secure a majority. In fact, the coalition scored a majority of primary votes and the net outcome is that the people believe that there was no outcome from this election at all. She was able to get a commission from the Governor-General to form a government because the Greens entered into a coalition alliance with the Labor Party and because the Independents in this House agreed that they would not support a no-confidence motion and therefore allowed her to gain a commission and form a government.

Just as once an election is called the entire economy seizes up—people do not make decisions, people do not spend; they are nervous about the outcome— that is exactly what we are seeing in the community as a whole right now. There is absolutely no confidence among the people in the electorate that they can in any way trust this government at all. In fact, they see it as simply a continuation of the campaigning that led up to the election day when no result came forth. Over the weekend I was standing for many hours collecting for charities and a number of people simply came up and asked when were we going to get an election, when were we going to get rid of this Prime Minister—some of them were more deprecating in their terminology than I am in what I am using here—and when could they get rid of this government, as they feel there is no possible progress that can be made in this country until such time as there is an election and the government is removed. I have no doubt that if there were an election we would go in with a solid position to put to the Australian people which would seek a legitimacy and mandate for this side of the House. When we look at the words of the Prime Minister six days before the election we note she said 'there will be no carbon tax under any government that I lead'.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And a day before.

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

And the day before as well; you are quite right. There is no way in the world that anybody could have been confused or misunderstood what she meant when she said it. She was making an undertaking to the Australian people that they did not have to worry, that that there would be no carbon tax if she were the Prime Minister. Immediately the deal is stitched up—she becomes the Prime Minister because she is able to get a commission because she has stitched up another deal—she says there is going to be a carbon tax. That is a reflection on her. The people know that they were lied to. They people know that deliberate untruth was told in order that she could mislead the people and gain an extra vote. The fact that she was not elected makes it worse. When you put together the manner in which she came to power—the knifing of the existing Prime Minister and then lying to the Australian people in order to gain another vote and then stitching up a deal—

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

I remind the member for Mackellar that I do not mind a wide-ranging debate. But this is in no way relevant to the appropriation bills. I would ask the member for Mackellar—

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

But this is the whole point.

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

I am speaking. Member for Mackellar, I would ask you to deal with the appropriations. I have made my ruling.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, the reason we have maiden speeches given on the appropriations is because it is the one time you do not have to relate your speech to the bills.

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

I am asking the member for Mackellar to deal with the appropriations.

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

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but perhaps you could seek advice from the clerks because this is the one time, as I made quite clear at the beginning of my speech, that we do not have to relate our material to the bills before the House—and the clerks will advise you accordingly.

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

Member for Mackellar, the reason I am speaking to you now—if you would have the courtesy to listen to me—

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

You have interrupted me—

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

I am asking you to listen to what I am saying. I believe your speech is reflecting on the Prime Minister—unnecessarily so and repetitively so—and I am asking you to deal with appropriations, please.

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

I do not have to deal with the appropriations, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would ask you to consult the clerks. I will return to my speech.

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

I have made my determination, thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The fact of the matter is this is why we have maiden speeches in this period, because you do not have to relate them to the appropriation bills.

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

I am mentioning to you that I believe you are unnecessarily reflecting—

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

You can mention it all you like, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am referring to my speech.

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

and I would ask you to remember it.

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

I am making the point that this Prime Minister has no legitimacy. It is a point I am entitled to make because the people were misled by her telling a deliberate lie with a promise before the election and breaking it after the election.

I go to the next point—that they say there is to be a carbon tax. The government chooses from time to time to make an analogy between the carbon tax and the GST that was introduced by the coalition government under Prime Minister Howard. The difference is this. When John Howard changed his mind about the need for a GST to be introduced, he took it to an election and the Australian people voted upon it. Not only did he properly take it to an election, he also abolished the wholesale sales tax and other taxes so that the GST was a replacement tax. It is also a value added tax, whereby when the tax is paid at each level it is also refunded so that only the final consumer pays the tax; it is not compounded at every level. That is the distinction between that and the carbon tax, which is a cascading tax. It compounds at every level because at every level the tax is paid. A clear example, which has been made quite public and backed up by authorities, is a tax on bricks that are used in building houses. The tax on those bricks will then be cascaded all the way down to the house itself. The Housing Industry Association has indicated that it believes the price of the house will increase by $6,000 and a mortgage repayment will rise by around $43 a month. So, when we say the carbon tax is a tax on everything, it will get into every nook and cranny of everything that is done.

The Labor Party says, 'We are going to offer compensation to the lowest paid'—that is, people who are probably on a total pension without other income—and some compensation for the so-called middle class and none for anybody else,' using again family tax benefit part A as the test. That is the benefit from which the government has just taken away $2 billion and then spent around $1.7 billion on boat people. So we penalise our own Australian families to try to pay for the messed-up, disastrous policy of boat people coming to this country. The Labor Party will be using that same test to decide who shall get compensation.

We have to be very careful here because the compensation that will be paid will be a one-off measure but the tax will be there permanently. The tax is something that will eat into every saving, every payment, but most of all it will eat into the disposable income that people have, and that income is depended upon by the retail sector and the manufacturing sector to survive.

Let us look at why that is so. There are certain things that people have to have in a civilised society as an absolute necessity. Electricity is one of those things. Electricity marks civilisation from non-civilised behaviour. We have at every turn a need for electricity: you cannot have a sewerage system without electricity, you cannot have clean water without electricity and you cannot have safe streets without electricity. Ninety per cent of electricity on the eastern seaboard is generated from coal-fired power stations. Eighty per cent across Australia comes from coal-fired power stations.

We have already seen that the cost of electricity has been rising at an enormous rate—50 per cent since this government came in. Part of the reason for that is a dictate that 20 per cent of all power has to be purchased by 2020 from renewables. There was an attempt by the government with that legislation to allow wind and solar to crowd out the market. I introduced a private member's bill that would allow some room to be left for tidal, thermal and other innovative sources of energy that might come on stream later on. The fact of the matter is that wind and solar are hugely expensive, as we are seeing in New South Wales with the enormous blowout in the cost of electricity generated by subsidised panels on roofs with a very high tariff feed-in. Pensioners are being forced to pay a subsidy to those people who have put those on the roof because it is so expensive.

The bottom line is that people will always have to pay for their electricity, and so that will take up a very fixed part of their available income. They will also have to pay for their gas, rates, mortgage, internet and phones, leaving less and less money to spend on things that are in retail outlets and those things that come into retail outlets from manufacturers. Fifty per cent of all electricity bought by the business sector is bought by manufacturers. They will be hit, and hit very hard. While the dollar is as strong as it is, they will be doubly hit.

We have a situation where we have a government which has no mandate, was not elected, has stitched up a deal and promised not to introduce a tax but which it is now going to impose on people without taking it to the Australian people for a mandate and punish the people and the economy—all in the name of trying to do something for the environment. What a laugh! It will do nothing for the environment at all. It will penalise and hurt families and individuals—and they know it. Boy, do they express their point of view. Whenever I am out and about they come and tell me, 'Get rid of that woman; get rid of that government.' That is how the Australian people are feeling.

The philosophy that guides this government is very simple. The government will always believe that it can spend the people's money better than individuals can. We on this side of the House believe that individuals will always spend their own money better than governments that take it compulsorily by way of taxation and then say, 'We will spend it on your behalf.' That is a fundamental difference between Labor and the Liberal coalition.

When we look at these appropriation bills we see the most important thing that is threatening the Australian people is the great big tax on everything—not even mentioned in the budget, not even factored in, although it is supposed to take effect on 1 July next year. What a joke. Here is a Treasurer who gave a speech and was shown in this parliament today to have misled the Australian people. He misled the parliament this afternoon when he said that the actions in Western Australia had come 'out of the blue' when he knew damned well—when he agreed to pay back to the miners what is paid in royalties—that the Western Australian Premier intended to lift the concession on fines. When I say that this is an illegitimate government, it is true in every sense of the word, both in the way they came to power and the way in which they are using it and abusing it.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: in the course of the contribution by the member for Mackellar, you made a ruling that the rules of relevance meant that the member for Mackellar must restrict the scope of her remarks. Just to assist you, Mr Deputy Speaker, given our good relationship, I point out that page 495 of the House of Representatives Practice points out the relevancy rule for debates and the exceptions to that rule. It stipulates—

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

Thank you very much for that.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you have not actually got the point—

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

I have got the point, and I do thank you—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It stipulates the main appropriation bills and the supply bills as exceptions to that rule.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker—

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat while I respond to the member for Casey.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to the point of order.

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat so I can respond to the member for Casey.

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

The member for Casey raised a point of order, and I wanted to speak to it.

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

Please sit down. I thank the member for Casey for his point of order. I was mainly commenting on the fact that I believed the member for Mackellar was going very close to reflecting on the Prime Minister and I asked the member for Mackellar to remain relevant to the appropriations and not reflect—I believe she was getting close to unfairly—on the Prime Minister. I would expect the member for Mackellar and others to be aware of what I would regard as that basic courtesy in this House for any member. I call the member for Mackellar on the point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My intention in rising on this point of order is that your intervention during my speech cost me time and affected my ability to deliver my speech. I would expect an apology from you because you were quite wrong. There is no censorship from the chair. A member may not reflect upon the chair, and I would not dream of doing that, but I may reflect on the Prime Minister all I wish. I would request that I get an apology.

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

I am sorry if the member for Mackellar felt that she was unfairly dealt with. I try to maintain common courtesies in this place, and I have an expectation that all members would adhere to that principle. I believe the member was getting very close to reflecting unfairly on the Prime Minister, and that was my ruling. If the member for Mackellar feels that that deserves an apology, I am sorry she feels that way—I was trying to maintain the courtesies and protocols of this House.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it would assist the House, given that clearly the member for Mackellar is entitled in her speech on the appropriations to speak on any subject at all—this is the clear exception in the standing orders—and is entitled, if she so chooses and as long as she does not use unparliamentary language, which you would be entitled to pull her up for, or behave in a disorderly fashion, which you would also be entitled to pull her up for, to reflect on the Prime Minister and the job the Prime Minister is doing, if you were to apologise to the member for Mackellar and then we can all move on.

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

I thank the member for Sturt. My ruling was that I believed the member was getting very close to reflecting unfairly and in an unparliamentary way—

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

But I am entitled to reflect—

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

Member for Mackellar, I am trying to give you an explanation as well and I am trying to do it in good faith. I apologise if my ruling does not follow the strict protocols—which I cannot rule on at this stage; I have to take advice on that—and I am just outlining what my intention was.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your explanation and for your apology to the member for Mackellar. The appropriations are an unrestricted debate. We accept that you were not aware of that until now, but by the very nature of the appropriations the debate is unrestricted subject to the constraints pointed out by the Manager of Opposition Business. Again, to assist you, that is why your good friend the former Leader of the Opposition and member for Werriwa was able to make the sorts of remarks he made on appropriation bills and in grievance debates and in adjournment debates. I certainly accept at face value that you were unaware of the unrestricted nature of the debate, and we thank you for your apology.

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

Yes I do thank you for your apology, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I congratulate you on your excellent speakership. I have been sitting through today's proceedings and your judgment has been impeccable. The member for Mackellar was in a very interesting position back in 1991 when there was a hung parliament in New South Wales. I did not hear the member for Mackellar, who was a prominent Liberal at the time, suggesting that the Greiner government was in some way illegitimate and that the choice I made at that time in that hung parliament was illegitimate. I take offence at some of the comments she made about the legitimacy of this parliament. The people voted how the people voted.

The issue of climate change seems to have upset some people. The member for Mackellar, who is now leaving the chamber—in disgrace!—would recognise that during my 2010 election campaign I actually ran on the issue of climate change. I was saying that something needed to be done about climate change. I do not think the government has explained its change of heart terribly well, but I do believe that, given the nature of the parliament, issues such as climate change do have some legitimacy. It is unreasonable for the member for Mackellar to claim that the parliament itself is illegitimate because of some words the Prime Minister may have used in a majority situation when she now finds herself in a minority situation where others have some effect on policy mix. One of the things I would like to congratulate the government on—again, the member for Mackellar raised the issue that she believes individuals can spend money better than governments—is that I am delighted that there are no tax cuts in this budget. In the previous eight years, under the previous Labor government and the Howard government before that, an enormous amount of money was going back to taxpayers in an attempt to buy votes with largesse. I surveyed my electorate on a number of occasions and I sensed that they would have much preferred that money to go into health, hospitals, schools et cetera, rather than going back through the taxation system. I am pleased that we have put a stop to these ongoing tax cuts which have become part of the budgetary process. I am also pleased that the middle-class welfare issue is being further addressed. We need to address it. Middle-class welfare has potential implications as great, if not greater, than people at the lower end of the system not working—people we commonly refer to as 'dole bludgers'.

Because of that eight-year period and a number of initiatives, including the baby bonus and others that were put in place over time, people on very reasonable incomes are now assuming that everybody deserves some sort of handout from government. That expectation needs to be nipped in the bud. We talk about generational welfare and generational work for the dole and we are trying to address those issues through various skills and educational programs, trying to break that particular nexus. If we allow the middle-class welfare issue to go too much longer, that will develop another subculture of expectation that government will provide.

The member for Mackellar raised the issue of giving people the money because they will spend it better than government—the final six years of the Howard government did exactly the reverse. They poured money into people's hands through tax cuts and other middle-class welfare to encourage them to vote for them. So the actions of the Howard government in those last years seem very contradictory—and the first years of the Rudd government as well, when that approach was perpetuated. One of the failings of the Rudd government occurred on the second day of the 2007 campaign. There was a very clever piece of electioneering by John Howard on the first day, when he announced $43 billion in tax cuts. Kevin Rudd at the time, obviously worried about the political ramifications of that degree of largesse, agreed that Labor would carry through with those tax cuts as well. Howard, knowing that he was going to lose the election anyway, was able to hogtie the incoming government. So $43 billion went back through the system—$43 billion which, in my view, could have been better spent on hospitals, education and a range of other community initiatives.

Here today we still have the debate about the National Broadband Network and the so-called enormous draw on the public purse. The reality is that it is about $26 billion; the balance will be obtained from the market. So it is potentially far less than the $43 billion that was given back to people in three years through tax cuts, and it is obviously far less when the $27 billion, or whatever the number ends up being, is over a 10-year period. So I do congratulate the government on starting to address what could become structural issues within our society if we maintain this expectation that there will be welfare for everybody. We have rethink that fairly quickly.

I am sure, Deputy Speaker Bird, that you will allow a wide-ranging discussion on a number of issues. I would like to raise briefly a couple of issues which are before this parliament. I think this parliament has the potential to do a lot of good things. There are some enormous issues before this particular parliament. Someone suggested that a hung parliament cannot deal with difficult issues. This hung parliament may well be able to come to a resolution in the climate change debate. That resolution is out there in the ether at the moment with respect to its structure, et cetera. Obviously it could not be in any budget arrangements because there is no structure—whether there will be a carbon tax or other mechanisms to deal the issue. The substantive issue is critical to this country.

I listened to the Climate Commission this morning. It is something that all of us should regard as substantive. We have to bypass some of the petty politics that are going on in this place and legitimately form a consensus on how we work through this problem. It is all very well to use fear tactics because of the short-term nature of each parliament, although I do not think the government has marketed their arrangements well either. But the substantive issue is one the general public wants addressed.

The Murray-Darling guide which the authority put out is a critical issue across six governments. The member for Braddon was the deputy chair of that committee and I thank him and other members of the committee who are looking at that crucial issue. If this parliament did nothing else other than resolve that substantive issue, that would be a significant legacy of this parliament.

The National Broadband Network is probably the most important infrastructure we will see this century, particularly in regional areas. We still have country members of parliament arguing that it is not a good idea, that we should not do it, that only the cities should have this technology and that country kids do not deserve it. The broadband network has tentacles that reach through a whole range of other sectors, including health, education, climate change and aged care, even through to the Murray Darling system. One of the key areas we have noticed from the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been the lack of adequate monitoring of the various river systems and catchments within the basin system. The National Broadband Network has the potential to save billions of dollars, yet we concentrate on costs and whether every house should have it.

The New England electorate fared very well in the budget, which I think was a great one for regional Australia. The Hon. Simon Crean has mentioned a number of issues, but there was something like $4.3 billion in various programs in this budget that will accrue to regional Australia. I am proud of the part that I have played, as has the member for Lyne, in developing some of those processes. The Health and Hospitals Fund, for the first time in history, is being ring-fenced for regional hospitals. That is not to say that city hospitals should not receive their fair share, but normally country hospitals get about 20 per cent. There was a recognised inequity in the system, and $1.8 billion has been set aside in this budget to go to country hospitals and health services. That is an enormous breakthrough.

There will be a similar arrangement with the Education Investment Fund, where half a billion dollars will be ring-fenced for country universities to give them an extra boost to allow them to be competitive in the new tertiary education world. Tamworth Base Hospital was funded through that program—I am very pleased about that. I am delighted that the state government has put in $100 million as well. Something like 50 planners have been working on this process for the last two years, and I congratulate them on the work that they have done. The redeveloped Tamworth Base Hospital will be a significant piece of infrastructure not just for Tamworth and the region but for the relationship that that hospital has with the University of New England in Armidale, the University of Newcastle and the health services to assist in training our young doctors and allied professionals. The University of New England has received more funding as well for a number of programs that help feed off that capacity to teach young doctors and allied professionals in the country.

I am pleased that the Tenterfield area has been looked at in this budget. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was in the electorate only last week. Planning money has been allocated for the Tenterfield bypass and also for what is probably the last of the crucial deathtraps on the New England Highway—Bolivia Hill. It is a relative short section of road but a highly dangerous one. Many deaths have occurred there, so I am pleased to see that funding. I am also pleased to see that the Chaffey Dam expenditure has been recognised to ensure that the city of Tamworth has a water supply into the future.

I am delighted that more money for mental health has been included. That will go across a whole range of services. I think it is one of the key parts of this budget.

One of the critical issues that I flag to the government and the opposition—I know there are members of the opposition in particular who are very concerned about this issue—is that of the ad hoc development that is occurring with coal seam methane gas. If we are serious about the climate change debate, we must have a very serious look at current planning protocols. We had a fairly ordinary state government up until the last New South Wales election. I wish Barry O'Farrell and his government well. I know Barry quite well. He was one of the minders back in my last hung parliament along with the Hon. Joe Hockey, who used to deliver pieces of paper to me. The issue of coal seam methane gas has to be addressed not only at the state level. I think that if we in this place can show some leadership on the Murray-Darling—for obvious reasons it has failed on previous attempts—we should show some national leadership on some of the activities around coal seam methane gas and coal developments, particularly on floodplains that are underpinned by groundwater resources. There are other issues, but I will raise them on another occasion.

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

I am pleased to follow the member for New England in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and its cognate bills, particularly on the subject he finished with—the Murray-Darling Basin—which is important to him. He obviously has a key role with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan over the coming months. As a South Australian and a person who has had a longstanding interest in the Murray-Darling Basin and how it affects my state and my city, it is the first subject I want to touch on in my contribution to the appropriations debate.

Back in 2000, as a backbencher in the Howard government, I raised the issue of the Commonwealth taking over control of the Murray-Darling Basin from the states. I was regarded as something of a radical for making that suggestion, and I was told it would never happen. I note that, 11 years later, most people who study this area of government policy think that the Commonwealth should and must take a much greater role in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin and that it should not be left to the state governments, which have mismanaged it for the 110 years since Federation. I am disappointed that in this budget there is very little to give any comfort to South Australians, particularly to people in Adelaide, about the future management of the Murray-Darling Basin. Again, the government seems to have dragged its feet and squibbed the hard decisions with respect to the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the allocation of the necessary resources, or the bringing to book of the resources that have already been allocated, for the Murray-Darling Basin.

The delays in the implementation of the plan since December last year have been significant. Despite Mike Taylor, the former Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, stating in advice to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, that 'given the processes prescribed in the act, the proposed Basin Plan must be released in early 2011 at the very latest', the Prime Minister and the minister for water have delayed that release until well after the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia, which is being chaired by the member for New England, into water reform is due to report—until after May this year at least—and potentially later. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority said that finalisation of the draft plan could take in the order of 40 to 50 weeks if there is a reasonable level of agreement on the plan and much longer if there is significant disagreement at the ministerial council level. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority advised the Gillard government that current timelines cannot be met and yet, in spite of those comments from the authority and the obvious incapacity for those timelines to be met, Minister Tony Burke and the Prime Minister continue to insist that timelines will be met and are on track. For people in South Australia, Adelaide and the Lower Lakes and right through the Murray-Darling system it is vitally important that timelines are met and it is vitally important that the work is done. It is also vitally important that parochial state interests do not, once again, hamper a solution to the issue of marrying and balancing the different requirements of population, environment and industry in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The government has also failed in this budget to progress investment in water-saving infrastructure projects, despite many of these projects having the potential to assist in meeting water reductions required by the sustainable diversion limits. There still exists significant scope for infrastructure projects to improve efficiency within the Murray-Darling system and storages. These savings are wasted as the government, instead, focuses quite obsessively on buybacks rather than on ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is built in the Murray-Darling Basin.

In 2010, another deferral until 2015-16 of $450 million in infrastructure spending was announced, which is well beyond the forward estimates. This is a significant underspend of the almost $6 billion, the $5.9 billion, that was set aside by the Howard government for water efficiency upgrades. It contrasts with the government's massive overspend on buybacks, which highlights the complete neglect of the program of infrastructure that can deliver real win-win outcomes for communities and the environment. Labor has systemically underspent and ignored infrastructure upgrades but, at the same time, overspent on buybacks. This lopsided approach means the government is buying water out of regional Australia while refusing to invest in the future of regional communities through proper infrastructure projects.

The lack of a plan outlining where water needs to be bought from has seen a patchwork of water sales resulting in continuing higher costs for water users in the area. Targeted water buybacks could minimise costs for other users and deliver increased water savings. For a long time the government has been flying blind on purchasing water without knowing where it should be purchasing that water. In some cases water is actually being purchased where it does not even flow into the river system. I am, as a South Australian and a member for a marginal seat in Adelaide, disappointed that the budget, yet again, has not focused on the needs of the Murray-Darling Basin community in meeting the requirements for the future of that whole basin for the people, not just of South Australia, but everyone who lives in it including the member for New England, who is chairing that very important committee.

The budget also attacks people with private health insurance, again. The Labor Party has an ideological opposition to private health insurance and in this budget has decided to means test the rebate on private health insurance. This will further hurt families and drive up costs for people with private health insurance at a time when cost-of-living pressures in our community are enormous. People can ill-afford to see rising costs and rising bills in private health insurance, which families will do their best to hang onto because they regard it as important for them and for their children.

In my electorate of Sturt 72 per cent of people are covered by private health insurance. Means testing the private health insurance rebate is a direct attack on those 72 per cent of people who value private health insurance. I say to all of those people—since I received about 53.5 per cent of the vote in Sturt—that there are some people with private health insurance who are clearly voting for the Labor Party. What they need to understand is that, if the Labor Party gets its way on the private health insurance rebate, costs for those people will increase.

I also wish to comment on mental health. I was the parliamentary secretary in the Howard government with responsibility for mental health. As I was saying earlier, I think I was the longest serving parliamentary secretary in the Howard government. I did the job so well it was felt that I should stay in that role until the dying days of the Howard government in 2007. I was delighted to have the opportunity to be a parliamentary secretary, particularly with responsibility for mental health. In that time I founded headspace and appointed Pat McGorry to be the head of it. I put psychologists and social workers on Medicare in a $1.9 billion package of spending. To put that in context, the previous largest announcement of spending by a federal government on mental health was $110 million. So $1.9 billion was regarded as an enormous entry into mental health, which is essentially a state government responsibility by the federal government. Tony Abbott was the minister for health at the time. He had overall responsibility and I had responsibility as the parliamentary secretary. I think it was one of the best things the Howard government did.

Mental health is one of the most critical issues facing Australia. No member of this House would disagree that mental health has been the poor cousin in the health system for far, far too long. Everybody in this House would know of families, or individuals, or even their own family, extended family or friends who have been touched by mental health issues, which extend to drug, tobacco and alcohol use, all of which are essentially self-medication for people with mental health issues. Allowing psychologists and social workers to access Medicare meant that people who otherwise would not be able to afford to could continue to get the treatment they needed. The government's mental health announcement is welcome in terms of extra funds being spent on mental health but I hasten to add it is not the $2.2 billion claimed by the government. It is much more like $583 million of new net spending on mental health. We are grateful that there is more money to be spent on this important issue but it is only $583 million, not the $2.2 billion trumpeted by the government.

Even within that mental health envelope of spending, there is a tightening of the criteria for people to access psychologists and social workers to reduce the number of times that patients can see the person they need to see. I think this is retrograde step. I hope that members of the Labor Party in government and the Independents on the crossbenches who support them will lobby the minister and the Prime Minister to change that policy. It would be a very bad and retrograde step for people with a mental illness to not get the assistance they so desperately need for the times that they need it.

We know that when people with mental illness are not getting medication or assistance or the kind of support they need from professionals they are more than likely to become homeless and more than likely to break the law in order to survive. It is no surprise that an enormous percentage of people in Australia's prisons have a mental illness and an enormous number of people who are homeless have a mental illness. The last place there should be cuts found by any government, whether it be an incoming coalition government or the current government, is in mental health.

Specifically with respect to South Australia, I would like to comment on a number of other changes in the budget. I am very disappointed that the government has decided to scrap the extension of the O-Bahn track in my electorate and in South Australia generally. It was promised by Wayne Swan the Treasurer in 2009. It was meant to cost only $61 million. It was to extend the route down Hackney Road, up Rundle Road, along East Terrace, then through Grenfell Street and Currie Street to West Terrace. Construction was expected to start in 2009 and be finished in 2011 but a series of delays and excuses have meant this has not happened. The federal government has now announced that the O-Bahn trackway extension has been entirely scrapped and that is a disappointing outcome of this budget for the people of Adelaide and the people of South Australia. The acting transport minister at the time said that the state government would not find the necessary funds in order to meet that commitment which means that extension will now not go ahead. So South Australians are missing out.

I could go on with some of the more general changes that affect South Australians. In my electorate of Sturt the freezing of the family tax benefit part A and B supplements will affect 9,304 recipients and 6,779 recipients respectively at a time of rising cost-of-living pressures and real pressure being felt in households across my electorate. As a father with four small children I can tell you it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet. If it is so for us as members of parliament, imagine how hard it is for people who are not so fortunate. This is not the time to be cutting benefits for families; this is the time to be extending a hand to families who are in need and to be ensuring that they do not fall behind.

South Australians will be paying around $7.7 billion of the government's debt and deficit back to the people who we borrow the money from, the financiers from around the world and in Australia. South Australians will account for $7.7 billion of that $107 billion of debt that was announced in the budget. Other people in my electorate will be damaged by the government's fringe benefits tax changes, which will leave tradies and workers and ute men, as they are often called, $3,000 worse off in increased taxes. In my electorate there are 12,125 such businesses which will be affected as a result of these government changes to the fringe benefits tax.

Many commitments the coalition made before the last election in my electorate have not been funded in this budget but they will be funded under a coalition government. The Campbelltown Leisure Centre, black spots roads funding, the Burnside Hockey Club, the Blue Eagles Soccer Club, the solar school at Charles Campbell High School and St Francis of Assisi Primary School and the Campbelltown oval sports hub will all be funded under a coalition government. I look forward to that day.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While every federal budget is obviously important, this year's seems even more so coming as it does in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and a shocking series of natural disasters. Having been prepared by the first minority federal government in nearly 70 years makes it all the more remarkable.

On balance I think the budget is a satisfactory but somewhat pedestrian effort; probably sensibly so as far as the government's perceived political self-interest is concerned. It is pedestrian in that generally it gets the job done without dramatic initiatives and fanfare. It is sensible in that this point in time would be judged by the government to be the moment for the steadiest fiscal hand.

Where the budget greatly lets us down is the way in which it reflects the government's determination to announce a surplus in 2013 in order to serve its political self-interest at the expense of the public interest. Of course, governments must run a balanced budget over the long term. But that does not mean short-term deficits are bad, or even undesirable, especially at times like these when Australia is dealing with genuinely extraordinary economic circumstances. So I feel very strongly that the government should have refused to let its economic agenda be dictated by the opposition and instead run the deficit out another 12 months to beyond the 2013 federal election.

The government also seems to have judged it would not be well served by additional and potentially controversial initiatives at this point in time. While the National Broadband Network, a price on carbon, the minerals resource rent tax and poker machine reform promise to make this government a genuinely reformist administration, the agenda is presumably judged by the Prime Minister and her cabinet as being full for now. Madam Deputy Speaker, just think of the opportunities a commitment to running the deficit out another 12 months or so would have created. The flood levy could have been avoided and any number of new initiatives embraced. The government could have allowed itself to think and speak even bigger and to do even more to answer the calls of those on the front line in our community who know more needs to be done and done urgently. Indeed, as part of my maiden speech, I offered the observation that every parliament is an opportunity to discard political self-interest in favour of the public interest and that doing so is only limited by lack of vision.

A more courageous government budgetary agenda could have included funding, or at least tangible forewarning, of the sorts of nation-changing initiatives I trust this government or its successors will eventually bring to fruition—for instance, a national disability insurance scheme to finally bring certainty and equity to the enormous number of Australians living with disabilities, as well as their carers; a big federal cash injection to finally bring fair wages to community sector workers; genuinely deep reform of public dental care; and substantial increases to pensions and payments so that students and the elderly, for instance, could at least afford warm homes and balanced diets. Defence Force retirees in particular, would be better cared for if the unsatisfactory indexing of defence pensions were overturned in favour of a system that at least keeps up with the cost of living. Yes, I do have a financial stake in such a reform on account of being a recipient of a DFRDB pension, but that should not stop me speaking up for retired defence personnel who served their country in good faith but who now find themselves increasingly left behind financially. Of course, such initiatives would cost a lot of money. But this is one of the richest countries in the world, with the means to care properly for our young, our old and our sick, among others. It is simply a matter of priorities overlaid by an approach to fiscal planning based on the public interest, not party political self-interest.

In fairness to the government, though, the budget did go some way to realising my vision for Australia, perhaps most notably in the commendable revitalised mental health package which heralds a not insignificant injection of new funding across a broad range of mental health areas. One does not have to look very far to discover just how many people's lives are being destroyed by mental illness. Indeed, in the short time since being elected to parliament, I have become acutely aware of the fact that we have reached a mental health crisis point. Just last week, one of Hobart's most important community based service providers—Colony 47's Community Central, which is a mental health drop-in centre that has been running for some 30 years—announced that it will be forced to close its doors at the end of the month, unless my plea for additional federal assistance can be accommodated.

Moreover, I recently met with a company in Hobart who are enlisted by local job service providers to help determine the mental health needs of unemployed job seekers, many of whom are long-term unemployed. Over the past two years, they have conducted over 600 clinically based mental health assessments using mental health nurses or clinical psychologists. Those assessments identified a level of mental illness among assessed job seekers close to 10 times the assumed national average. Furthermore, they found that a staggering 80 per cent of the cases of mental illness were previously unrecognised by the job seeker themselves, the employment service provider or the broader social security system. There is clearly a serious mental health problem in this country and there is a compelling case for mental health services being accorded the same priority for funding as GP and hospital services. I would just like to say thank you to the former Australian of the Year, Professor Pat McGorry, for his tireless advocacy, which no doubt was in the mix when the government was putting this budget together.

Not unrelated is the government's welfare-to-work push, which was another significant element in this year's budget. In essence, I fully support measures aimed at removing barriers to work and increasing workforce participation. And I agree with the government that there is a need to encourage those that are fit and able to find work. But such measures must be based on a person's genuine capacity to work. Whether it is a long-term unemployed job seeker suffering from an undiagnosed mental health condition, or somebody who has suffered a physical impairment, the government has a clear responsibility to ensure it does everything in its power to determine their capacity genuinely. In other words, I am concerned that some of the measures contained in the welfare-to-work package could be unfair, particularly but not exclusively for recipients of the disability support pension. The government runs the risk here of frightening and demonising genuine recipients and potentially pulling the rug out from under some of the most vulnerable people in our community. To do this on account of a short-term political fix would be cruel.

On a brighter note, the budget did contain some very positive outcomes for the Denison electorate, for which I am grateful—for instance, the maintenance of funding and, in fact, a modest increase for the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is a vital source of funding for the Menzies Institute in Hobart. I was particularly delighted with this outcome, given that I had lobbied the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Minister for Health and Ageing as well as the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research for NHMRC funding to be maintained. Another significant win I had championed was the need for federal government funding for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and I was very happy to see $3.9 million allocated to prostate cancer support services over the next three years This is an unprecedented development as the foundation does not receive federal funding currently. Also on the health front, the budget confirmed full funding of the $340m for the Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment, as well as the inclusion in Medicare of a privately operated MRI scanner in Hobart. More broadly, the $20 million funding I negotiated for the continued operation of the CSIRO Information and Communications Technology Centre was also reflected in the budget.

The government has defied the sceptics and proven remarkably stable. This is as it should be, because an election outcome represents the democratic choice of the Australian people and it is up to the 150 men and women elected to get on and do all they can to stand up a workable and effective parliament. For my part, I remain comfortable with my decision to give certainty of supply and confidence to Julia Gillard, and I am happy to say that my pledge of limited support is unaltered. So I will be voting for the appropriation bills that reflect this budget and trying not to sabotage the budget when associated enabling legislation comes before the parliament. I will not like some of that legislation, because I do not like all aspects of this budget. But my promise to ensure supply, by implication, also means I will support the enabling legislation that underpins the government's broad economic agenda.

That is not to say that I will not seek to have amended any legislation warranting change. For example, the proposed changes to the taxation arrangements for minors seem to have shortfalls. While I am fine with the notion of stopping high-wage earners disbursing income to children in order to minimise personal income tax—something I have done myself through my own family trust—I do have a concern, for example, about the way the return on a young person's invested inheritance would be hammered with a 66 per cent tax rate. Nor am I obliged to support carte blanche items that are carried forward in the estimates as part of previous budgets, two of which I would like to briefly flag as I will have difficulty supporting them.

The first is the proposed excise on LPG as part of the government's alternative fuels legislation. This tax will have a patently disproportional effect on Tasmania, to the extent that I am very concerned that the market in Tasmania for auto LPG could collapse altogether. LPG is already as much as 20c a litre dearer in Hobart than it is in Melbourne or Sydney, and this excise will push the price of LPG so close to the price of petrol that it would scarcely be a viable alternative fuel.

The effect on the Tasmanian taxi industry in particular would be catastrophic. The Tasmanian state government incompetently flogs off taxi licences every time it needs some cash, to the extent that the taxi fleet in greater Hobart is now seriously bloated and the drivers must work ridiculous hours. So I cannot, in all conscience, come into this place and support a tax that will reduce their meagre earnings even more.

Another measure from past budgets I would like to briefly mention here is the proposal to apply a means test to the private health insurance rebate. My instinct is to support measures that promise better public health care, even if doing so is at the expense of high-wage earners such as me. So, at first blush, I may be expected to support the introduction of a means test for the rebate. But I am also concerned that this means test will result in people forsaking private health insurance for the already stretched public system. And I am worried that health insurance premiums will rise significantly, forcing even more people into public hospitals and onto waiting lists. Not insignificant too is that governments of all persuasions have effectively forced us into greater reliance on private health insurance on terms including the rebate.

In short, we have to be careful we get the balance right and, while I remain open-minded, I am yet to be convinced by the government that means testing the health insurance rebate is the most sensible thing to do right now.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget is indeed a record budget. The Treasurer has devised a 2011-2012 budget that delivers record growth in real spending, a record level of net debt, a record number of public servants and record spending on cleaning up the mess of this government's previously failed programs—programs which have not only failed to deliver for Australians but cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

After the tragic outcomes of the home insulation scheme, I hoped we had seen the last of this disastrously delivered program. However, here it is yet again in this latest budget— another $110 million to continue to clean up the mess it has left.

Before 10 May the Treasurer spun this budget as 'getting tough'. Plain and simple, this did not happen. Instead of getting tough, this Labor government has stuck with its tradition of poor and reckless financial management, talking surplus but delivering deficits—talking budget cuts but, once again, increasing its spending.

Indeed, increasing its spending so much that this bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, is seeking to raise the government's gross debt ceiling, from $200 billion to $250 billion.

I remember when the former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, originally put through amendments to increase borrowing capacity to $200 billion, ostensibly for the stimulus package, up from just $75 billion. At least at the time they could argue that the global financial crisis threw out proposed budgeting plans. However, these days the Treasurer continuously repeats that Australia is in the best position of any OECD country and that others should be envious of our finances.

Why then do we need to further increase our borrowing capacity? Where has the money gone? It is real money that has to be paid back, but how will the government achieve this? Can we expect yet another tax or levy?

I am sure other countries are indeed envious of this Treasurer's position, being the only OECD country to enter the global financial crisis with a surplus, a surplus that was a legacy of financial discipline of successive Howard-Costello budgets. They were budgets that produced surpluses through responsible financial management, a concept alien to this Prime Minister and a concept wilfully ignored by this failed Treasurer.

The Treasurer never seems to mention to the public that Australia has the highest interest rates and highest home mortgage rates, when compared to those of OECD countries.

He also does not like to admit that a large portion of so-called government saving comes simply from freezing indexation, hurting families and the business and industry sectors in real terms. This makes a real difference to a family's bottom line. Freezing indexation of the childcare rebate alone could see over 72,000 families receive a lower subsidy by 2014.

It also particularly hurts sectors that rely on government funding to deliver real outcomes for Australians. I am talking of course of medical research, yet another example of how Labor closes their eyes to the real consequences of their decisions.

In the lead-up to this budget, it was leaked that medical research could take a hit of up to $400 million as part of Labor's attack on health. I remember hearing a statement by the Minister for Health and Ageing at the time, where she implied that as medical research had not faced cuts under last year's budget, why was the health sector complaining? I was shocked to hear how little regard she seemed to have for this sector.

World-leading research is being undertaken at University of Queensland. Indeed, researchers are on the cusp of many discoveries and innovations and they just need funding commitments for their projects, which will in turn realise health and economic benefits for the wider community. I can understand exactly why the research community reacted to the proposed cuts the way they did. This is a government that likes to make grand claims which then fall apart under proper scrutiny.

On the subject of poor and reckless financial management, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you need look no further than NBN Co., the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history at $47 billion—plus, plus. Everyone agrees as to the benefits of a national broadband network, but not at any cost. Smaller infrastructure projects require a cost-benefit analysis; why not this project? And why is the government repeating the errors of the past, basing the network on an out-of-date monopoly telco model from last century and in some areas building over existing fibre installations? If NBN is to achieve its potential it must provide open access. Even at the outrageous cost of $47 billion plus, it is alleged NBN Co. was unable to attract companies to build the project within budget. Their solution was to shoot the messenger. The employees who ran the tender process have now parted company with NBN Co. and the contracts are still well behind schedule. The government claims NBN Co. will change the lives of all Australians, and indeed it will: all Australians and their children and their children's children will be paying off the debt from this flawed, mismanaged project.

With the failure of the Treasurer on a national level, I held little hope for any projects in my electorate of Ryan, and regrettably this budget met my expectations. I have on many occasions called for the recognition of PLD, Primary Language Disorder, as a disability, and for funding for The Glenleighden School. I have made personal representations to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood, and Youth. Despite this, Glenleighden has again missed out under this budget. It is the only school of its kind, and families even relocate from other states to enrol because of the excellence and success of their program. This continued snub from the government is simply not good enough and demonstrates, yet again, that they are not serious about real outcomes.

Speaking of not good enough, I think back to the fight that Brisbane City Council had to have to ensure funding for vital Brisbane infrastructure after the floods. As I said in my maiden speech, I stand for the future of our cities, and it is imperative that the government support the infrastructure needed to manage growth in our cities not only in good times but also in bad times. The Gillard government was actually going to deny aid to Australia's third biggest city after it was hit with one of the worst natural disasters on record. This is an absolute disgrace, as is the fact that the only way they could fund rebuilding after these natural disasters was to impose a $1.7 billion tax on Australians. They had no surplus to fall back on, no savings from prudent government spending over the past four years. 'Just impose another tax' seems to be their only solution to their ongoing poor and reckless financial management. This government expects everybody else to pay for their mistakes. Even when it comes to taking real action for our environment, their solution still is to simply impose yet another tax. However, the much heralded carbon tax does not even appear in this budget, other than an expense item of $13.7 million for promoting this big new tax.

This is simply a bad budget. The government have failed to deliver positive change for Australians and they make a mockery of prudent financial management. Labor have once again shown their true colours. They are big spenders; they are mismanagers; they have no real grasp on the reality their governance has on Australians. How could a government waste hard-earned taxpayer dollars with so little regard or concern? If they were spending from their personal accounts, perhaps they would stop and reconsider their poor and reckless financial management.

We often speak in this place of the debt we owe our courageous servicemen and women, who have volunteered knowing that they put their lives at risk to ensure our safety. It is timely to remind the House of the coalition's commitment to ensure that their entitlements reflect the contributions and sacrifices they have made through the indexation of the DFRDB, the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, and the DFRB, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits scheme. Yet, in not matching the coalition's election promise of indexation for our servicemen and women, the government's words have not been matched by action in this budget.

In short, we have a government without morality, driven by focus groups, determined to build this house of cards, this charade, whatever the cost, well knowing that its track record of failed delivery with home insulation, BER bungles, cash for clunkers, the cost blow-out of computers in schools, the disaster that was the Green Loans Program and the now scrapped Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch is likely to occur once again elsewhere in this budget. We have a government that arrogantly ignores the damage its poll driven expenditure will cause. The trouble is that all this comes at a cost, not just in terms of today's budget but for generations in the future. Once again it will be a future coalition government that will have to put right the wrongs of this budget. Once again it will be a future coalition government that will have to put right the ill-conceived implementation of so many programs.

This budget represents a wasted opportunity. This budget is reminiscent of a drunken streaker at the Gabba, with the excuse: 'It seemed like a good idea at the time!' The people of Australia see through this government. They are not ready for a Bob Brown driven economy. They simply want sensible, rational decision making, careful planning and proper implementation. They want a budget that plans for the future. They want a budget that does not raise living costs for families, singles, seniors and business. They want a budget that does not borrow $135 million per day and does not accumulate $7 billion in interest payments every year. They want a budget that stops poor and reckless financial management. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, is that really too much to ask for?

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012. These appropriation bills deliver on Labor's key election commitments made last year and continue Labor's expansion of local projects and services not only in my electorate of Deakin but right across the country. In this debate I think it is very relevant to report on the outcomes of our previous budgets which have seen Labor deliver on major projects which have transformed local schools and local infrastructure—again, not only in my electorate of Deakin but across Australia.

Since the last budget, I have personally opened 11 Building the Education Revolution Primary Schools for the 21st Century projects in Deakin. For many of these schools this was the first major investment on infrastructure for decades—not just one or two decades but in some cases three or four decades. It is very satisfying to see the difference that new buildings have made to our local schools. Some of these schools are weatherboard and were put up in the 1950s, and I hate to say that some still have only one power point in the classroom, so to see new buildings replace what was there or at least help out is a great start. It really has made schools look better from the kerbside as well. Something that is often forgotten is that when parents are looking for schools for their children they quite often, even though they should not, look at the outside and judge by that rather than what is on the inside.

The schools that I have opened so far this year are: Blackburn Primary School, Burwood East Primary School, Burwood Heights Primary School, Eastwood Primary School, Marlborough Primary School, Old Orchard Primary School, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Primary School in Ringwood, St James Primary School in Vermont, St John the Evangelist Catholic Primary School in Mitcham, St Thomas the Apostle Primary School in Blackburn and Tintern Girls Grammar School Early Learning Centre in Ringwood East. These schools have all had huge benefits from the different types of buildings they have been able to choose and apply to their schools.

Of course, that goes across the range of sectors; it is not only the state government sector but also the Catholic and private sectors as well. They have all done very well with their choices and with the way they have been able to utilise the buildings. The buildings are of course modern and sometimes that shows up even more, I suppose, the difference in the ages of the infrastructure provided, but I think it is a great start for each and every one of them. When you compare some of the old classrooms—which, to be honest, look exactly like the classrooms I was taught in—with these new buildings and you see the open spaces and the new methods that can be used to teach, it really is a case of looking at two different worlds. I would like to relate just a few of the openings I have been to because I think they are all valid, especially for the schools. They were a really big event for schools that, in many cases, as I said, had seen no investment for such a long time.

On 22 October last year, I visited Blackburn Primary School for their official opening. They have a full-sized basketball hall there. Blackburn Primary are particularly noted for their music program and, as a primary school, they quite honestly have one of the best school bands and music programs you will find in Melbourne. They are a great feeder for Blackburn High School, which is just up the road and which also has a particularly good music program. With their new, full-sized hall, Blackburn primary can now stage concerts. They can have full school assemblies in one room without the parents having to stand outside and literally put their heads inside the windows to be able to hear what is going on, because the space was simply too small. So they have been able to make great use of their facility in school hours, and the facility is also used outside of school hours by the local basketball club to train on. That is a great outcome for the community.

On 30 November last year, I visited Our Lady of Perpetual Help Primary School in Ringwood to open their new BER P21 facility. They chose to build new classrooms. For a school that was built in the 1950s and which has never had a great source of funding to build new buildings it came at the perfect time. Indeed, when initial work was done, it was found that the buildings they proposed to add to were in fact structurally deficient and not that far from having to be taken down. So it worked out very well that they had chosen to build a two-story, purpose-built, six-classroom complex and IT centre. That has made the school bigger and they are now able to fit in more children, but it has also made it a modern school, which is something that it had not been up to that date. The school also used some of their funding to upgrade the entrance to their hall so that the children can go in and out from the quadrangle instead of going through the end of the hall, and that is a great benefit every day at the school.

Last year on 1 December I visited the Burwood East Primary School and opened their brand-new P21 building. They now have a hall where they can have an assembly. I have been to the school many times. In fact it was back in 2008, when I was doing the school awards at the end of the year, that we all got rained on—not only me but also the children, the teachers and the parents—and there was simply nowhere to go. They had no indoor facility whatsoever. They do now and it is a modern one with a movable stage, and each and every student and parent and everyone involved in the school can see the difference. It is a facility that of course gets used every day.

On 8 December in Blackburn I opened the Old Orchard Primary School BER project. Theirs was a large building that they specifically put aside for years and 5 and 6. It has two large open spaces, with break-out areas and linked classrooms. It is also directly connected to the rest of the school buildings so that it is not out in the middle of the paddock, so if the weather is inclement no-one need get wet.

On 10 December last year in Mitcham I officially opened the St John the Evangelist Primary School new buildings and refurbishments. For a school that is of a similar age to the others I have described, the funding has been a great boost. They now have brand-new and modern facilities in a mix of new buildings and refurbished old buildings. The school has also had to go to two storeys because they do not have much land there. They have also managed to enclose many of the exposed walkways they used to have and, therefore, have made larger teaching and learning spaces. On 25 February this year I opened the new multipurpose centre at St James Primary School in Vermont. It has new teaching spaces but, most importantly, it has a very large assembly space that the school, along with the entire school community, can use for the sorts of things that many schools take for granted—that is, have school assemblies inside and not outside in the weather. The project at St James also included the refurbishment of existing classrooms and a brand-new IT and library space.

On 9 March this year I visited Tintern Girls Grammar School in Ringwood East and opened their brand-new early learning centre for preschoolers. It was a very innovative project and is a quite striking building, most unlike others I have seen. I am sure it will stand the test of time for its quality finish both inside and out. The school also contributed money to supplement the BER funding and was able to get something larger than a straight-out government contribution would have got.

The Burwood Heights Primary School was also very privileged to open a brand-new multipurpose centre on 15 March. They are able to use it for extra classrooms while the school is being rebuilt under the state government's Building Futures program. Once they finish using it as classrooms, they will be able to use it as an open area, but already they are able to use it as an assembly area. This is yet another school in my electorate that had a hall that had no hope of holding all the students in it, let alone teachers and parents. I have attended many assemblies there in the past and they have had to be done two or three years at a time. They simply could not fit all the children in.

On 16 March this year I visited St Thomas the Apostle Primary School in Blackburn, also to open their new buildings. It is another school that has had to go to two storeys because of the lack of land, but they have been very smart and they put in an excellent IT centre—one of the best I have seen—but also blended it into the old school. The office and the facilities that the children use are seamless between one building and the other. Of note there was a great decision, in a two-storey school, to install a lift so there is disabled access now and in the future.

Last week, on 18 May, I opened the new early learning centre for prep to grade 2 at Marlborough Primary School in Heathmont. The building there has made a particular difference to the school. It is right at the front access, so it is one of these schools where that is the first thing that prospective parents see, rather than an old and faded school building. It has also meant that the school has been able to get rid of all of their portable buildings. I remember when I first saw Marlborough primary in 2008, when I was in this job, and the thing that stuck out in my mind was the rows of portable buildings. Not all of them were used but they certainly detracted from the look of the school. Many of them were in quite a run-down state. They are all gone now, each and every one of them, and I think that is a great result for Marlborough primary.

Also last week, on 18 May, I was privileged to officially open the Eastwood Primary School's new multipurpose hall. In particular, this is one that I think deserves a special comment because its design was not the standard state government template. Its design came about through a group of local principals and action from me and the local state education department to come up with something better for schools that did not quite qualify for the full $3 million allocation because of their size. Schools that qualified for the lesser amount in Victoria did not automatically qualify for a full-sized building. For instance, a school that had just under 400 students would not have got a full-sized building. In my area, we now have what is called the Maroondah template, named after the council area and also the network of schools. There are now 10 schools in Victoria that have this special design and have a full-sized building where they may not have. I think it is a great result. It is big enough to hold a basketball court, and many of them are already talking to teams or have already signed agreements with basketball or netball teams for training so that these buildings get used after hours as well as within school hours.

All these brand-new school projects were delivered for local school communities in agreed time frames and within budget. But there are many more schools in Deakin that are awaiting their official openings or finishing off their BER buildings. Mostly, I am happy to say, they are waiting for an appropriate time to do an official opening. Many of them have moved in and have been using their facilities for a number of months. That is great to see, because there is a big long list of them. Hopefully by the latter part of this year we will have each and every one of those done.

There are also a few schools where things have not gone so smoothly. One school in particular, Great Ryrie Primary School, has had issues with soil. Finally we have got over those and they have now started building. We also have Whitehorse Primary School, a school which was completely knocked over and is in the process of being rebuilt with both federal and state money. That came about in many ways because of the availability of BER funding. That is a great example of what can be done if governments put their minds to working with each other in the education space.

I look forward to the completion of the BER P21 program in Deakin in the near future. I know that students in every primary and special school in the electorate—and of course, as I said before, right across Australia—will have the benefit of this groundbreaking federal investment in education infrastructure. But it should never be forgotten that the Liberal Party and their partners, the Nationals, opposed these wonderful local projects and voted against the funding in this very place in 2009. If the Liberal and National parties had had their way then these buildings would never have been built and schools in Deakin would have been around about $80 million worse off in infrastructure. Children would still have been using 1950s facilities and the local community would have been left behind.

Of course, it is not only schools that have been part of the BER and the associated rollout in Deakin. There was also investment in many other facilities, whether they be TAFEs, local infrastructure at a council level or sporting facilities. There will be many more opportunities in this place to talk about such things in the future, and I most certainly will be doing that. On that note, I would like to commend these bills to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and cognate bills this evening because it gives me the opportunity to examine some of the impacts of these bills. I want to make it quite clear from the outset that when the budget was generally delivered in this House, particularly in the Howard years, it was exciting. In fact, in the budgets delivered by Peter Costello we were always trying to find out who the beneficiaries were and what tax cuts there would be. What we are doing now is saying: 'I wonder who is going to get hit? Who is going to get a negative impact from this budget?' In fact, the half life of this budget is such that it was an absolute fizzer that only lasted about 48 hours. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer had huge difficulty keeping any momentum on this bill past the weekend. Where we used to put out a newsletter explaining the benefits, the impact and the rollout of budgetary initiatives, if you were a government member you would not want to put out a newsletter on this because it was old news—it was fish-and-chips wrappings—by the end of the first week it was out there.

So much for a party that once used to champion the working families of Australia. Probably the most divisive and negative impact of this budget was on middle Australia and the families of middle Australia. Let's have a look. In this budget the government proposed a freeze on indexation to family tax benefit parts A and B for three years, past the next election, in the forward estimates. When we add up all of the savings on tax benefit parts A and B at the 2010 rate by fixing it until July 2014, what we see is that a freeze is actually a reduction over those forward estimates years.

The cost of living is going up for working families in this country. We know from the polling and from the feedback to my office that the biggest item for Australians, particularly Australian families, is the cost-of-living impacts. Grocery costs are up 14 per cent. Health costs are up 20 per cent. Education costs are up 24 per cent. Gas prices are up 30 per cent. Electricity prices are up 51 per cent. In my electorate of Canning there are roughly 38,731 families. They are going to get hit by this Labor budget. The Treasurer described it as a true Labor budget. It really is, because it rips the heart out of working families. Interestingly, you do not hear the Labor Party talking about working families in this place much anymore, because they know what they have done to them.

As I said, these thresholds are going to be frozen. In addition to that, the government have suddenly decided that the rich in this country are people who earn either an individual or a combined income of $150,000. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, that even in downtown Tasmania two school teachers on a normal salary for teachers who have been teaching for a number of years would combine to make $150,000. In fact, I was talking to a teacher at a local school of mine the other day and she is on $85,000. So a school teacher and nurse or a policeman with a schoolteacher wife would be on $150,000 and considered by this government to be rich. As a result, they are the ones who are going to have a whole lot of tax benefits and family entitlements gutted.

One of the interesting things about this budget is that the savings measures will be directed to spending on projects in other areas. So the $2 billion being stripped away from families is going to be directed to other areas. One of the things that I could not believe, which was almost a case of 'ripped out of here and put over there', was the $2 billion out of middle-income Australia or from working families and the almost $2 billion extra—not in total but extra—to the asylum seeker program.

Where do our priorities lie? Do our priorities lie with the people and families at home? Or do they lie these days with those, to use the Orwellian term, 'unauthorised arrivals', non-Australian citizens? That is what makes my electorate angry. When I go to Anzac Day or go around the electorate, people are coming up to me and saying, 'Mr Randall, you've got to do something about what is going on here—the free access to phones and all the sorts of rorts that are going on and the motels that they are staying in around my electorate.' Generally they are on Commonwealth land. Jandakot air base has a whole lot of asylum seekers housed there. Of my people, there are 20,000 seniors on a waiting list in Perth for housing for low-income earners. They cannot get it. Pensioners are trying to get help with their power bills and cannot get it. There are people wanting legal aid; they cannot get it. But we took $2 billion from working families and put almost $2 billion extra into the asylum seeker program because the size of the program has blown out from the government's anticipated 3,000-odd to what we know is more than 7,000.

I notice that there is $1.37 million for carbon tax advertising. As I said, imagine trying to tell constituents, mothers and fathers, who cannot pay their power bills that the expected savings from the indexation of their family tax supplements are being redirected into an advertising campaign to try to sell them a tax. Seriously, what are we doing talking about working families? The Prime Minister is saying: 'These families are wealthy. They do not need any extra assistance to help raise their dependent children. They do not suffer under the big rising cost of living. Let's make it even harder for working families.' That is the message that is out there, and that is why the poll on the budget was bad and why the poll on the Prime Minister and the Labor Party was bad.

There are other initiatives in the budget which have not materialised. In the area of aged care and high-level residential care, funding for residential care has been eroded and redirected. As much as we support aged-care packages in the community, there are some people who have to end up in nursing homes and institutional care.

The government has once again ignored the plight of grandparents acting as sole carers for their grandchildren, as evidenced in this latest budget. The government have said that they are going to put in $1.2 million over four years to establish 25 peer support groups across Australia for grandparents to meet and share information. Meeting and sharing information will not help pensioners pay the bills for their grandchildren whom they have been left with. Quite often, grandparents have ended up with their grandchildren because their children have either deceased in some manner or got into a lot of trouble such as being hopeless drug addicts. This is a disgrace and something I have raised in this House so many times.

With respect to the solar initiatives, what happened to the green government after a number of houses burnt down under the pink batts program and the green loans program and some of the other initiatives the government said they were going to be green about? They are actually reducing the subsidies for solar heating and photovoltaic cells. There is no extra government rebate for pensioners. Recently, I went to the house of one of my constituents in Pinjarra and she gladly showed me on her roof the eight photovoltaic cells which were feeding power back into her house. Not only was it good for her because she was receiving power from the sun but she was getting a dividend because it was being fed back into the grid and she was getting money from the state government to do so. Out of the window, it is being reduced.

During the election campaign many people were sold on the fact that we were going to help them towards solar power. For example, in the RAAFA village in Erskine in my electorate, under the proposed Solar Towns program 197 units were very keen to get a project going, but nothing has come from this government. In fact, this program is now totally off the drawing board and, even though the people from the RAAFA village have had a meeting with Synergy, Western Power and Perth Energy, they cannot meet the 30 June deadline when the solar credit multiplier reduces.

I am hearing also from those supplying solar panels that they have had an absolute rush. For example, the head of the Australian Solar Energy Society, John Grimes, has said:

Literally thousands of people will rush in to try to meet the deadline of July 1 and then after that all activity ceases, because you've brought forward all the sales for the next couple of years.

You can see what is going to happen here. We have got pink batts all over again. My office has talked to a contact in the area, Paul Hart from Solargain, one of Australia's leading solar suppliers. He said that he is unable to service a huge influx of people wanting to switch to solar because by the beginning of May his books were already filled to the end of September. Even if his paperwork is completed before 30 June this year, the installation will have to happen before 30 September this year, and he does not have the manpower to do this. So it is pink batts all over again. You currently have people out there trying to get on the back of this program and quickly fitting up solar panels everywhere—a whole lot of unqualified people doing potentially shonky work, accidents waiting to happen; and people potentially losing money. That is some of the collateral damage from this.

One of the things I want to raise in the last few moments I have is the fact that Western Australia has made application to this government—and I have also spoken privately to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen—for Perth to be classified as a region for the purposes of immigration. In Western Australia, we have a huge shortfall of skilled and unskilled workers. If you are from another state of Australia, you might find that unusual, because I am sure that you are not necessarily in the same boat. Everyone thinks this is in the mining areas, in the Pilbara, in the central west and in the Kimberley; it is not. The Western Australian Minister for Energy, Mr Collier, wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen. He put out a press release, which said:

Training and Workforce Development Minister Peter Collier has expressed his frustration that his calls for Perth to be recognised under the Regional Sponsorship Migration Scheme (RSMS) have been ignored by the Federal Government.

Some of the occupations not on the ASCO code nationally that we want in Perth are teachers aides; childcare workers; aged or disabled carers; dental assistants; hospital orderlies; nursing support workers; personal care assistants; therapy aides; bar attendants; hotel service manages; waiters; security officers; bookkeepers; property managers; plastic production machine operators; reinforced plastic and composite production workers; sewing machinists; sterilisation technicians—that is obviously for equipment in hospitals; shot firers—in other words, blasting; engineering production workers; railway signal operators; train controllers; waste water plant operators; agricultural and horticultural mobile plant operators; logging plant operators; earthmoving plant operators; excavation operators; taxi drivers; bus drivers; train drivers; and truck drivers generally.

They are the sort of people we are chasing for Western Australia—and do you think we can get recognised? Tasmania is obviously regional for the purposes of migration, as is Adelaide, yet Western Australia, which is screaming out for skilled and unskilled workers, is getting ignored. We want 200,000 workers in the next decade or so for projects worth billions and billions of dollars. When people say to us, 'Why are you sending the prefabrication of some of this mining equipment and general work to places like Korea and elsewhere?' we say that we have not got the skilled workers. We try and bring in the skilled workers from Korea and the Philippines et cetera, but we have the dickens of a problem because retrospectively this government has changed the rules on 457 visas and the English qualifications, so they cannot come. At the end of the day, the productivity of this country is going to get hurt because this government had an opportunity in this budget to do something about productivity through migration to the areas that need workers. It is a damp squib that failed. It has failed the Australian people. It is an irresponsible document which is going to put us in debt for many years. We need to see the end of it by going to an election as soon as possible and changing the government. (Time expired)

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

Before I commence my speech on the appropriation bills, I would like to inform the member for Canning that the proposed cut to the feed-in tariff is actually a proposal by the O'Farrell state government, not this government. There are many people in my electorate who also do not want to see a cut. He might like to join the chorus in New South Wales asking for it to be retained.

This is a good budget from my perspective. It delivers on jobs, with another 500,000 new jobs by 2013 and a reduction in national unemployment to 4.5 per cent, and that is on top of the 750,000 jobs created since Labor first won government in 2007. It delivers on much needed skills in our growing economy, with 130,000 more training places, mentoring for 10,000 apprentices to help them finish their training and $101 million to accelerate apprenticeships for workers with existing skills.

This budget delivers on mental health. There are many, many people in my electorate who have already contacted my office congratulating the government for acting on what is to them a very important area. The budget delivers $2.2 billion over five years, including funding for 30 new headspace centres, bringing the national total to 90. One of those headspace centres will be in Parramatta and it will open later this year. The budget provides up to 12 additional youth psychosis sites, 40 more family support services, 425 more personal helpers and mentors, $344 million for new support services for the severely mentally ill and a National Mental Health Commission. It also delivers one-stop shops for people with mental illness. My electorate of Parramatta has a rather large population that suffers from mental illness, perhaps because of the history of the area, its location next to the Cumberland Hospital and its character as a CBD which attracts a large number of people who are homeless. So we, as much as perhaps any other area in the country, would certainly welcome one of those one-stop shops in our community. This budget also delivers for families, with family tax benefit A increasing by up to $4,200 a year for families whose teenage children stay at school, an effective tax cut for single parents and new approaches to help teenage mums finish school and give their kids the best start.

But you cannot just judge a budget on what it delivers. Budgets are very much about the times in which they are crafted. They show a government's response to the circumstances of the time and they carry within them the priorities of a government. Since coming to government in 2007 we have delivered four budgets, and I think it is fair to say that the last three have been crafted in very interesting times indeed. Each of them have been well and truly budgets for their time. They have introduced spending when it has been necessary to compensate for a contraction in the private sector. They have cut when it has been necessary for a government to pull back and make space for the private sector to grow. There are those, particularly in the opposition, who question whether that is the appropriate strategy and who question whether we should spend when the private sector contracts, but the proof is well and truly in the outcome over the last three years and well and truly demonstrated in these budget figures.

In spite of the global financial crisis and then the Victorian bushfires, the Queensland floods, Cyclone Yasi, the Japanese and New Zealand earthquakes and now, in a different way, the high dollar, the economy is in exceptionally good shape and it is an economic performance that most economies in the world would love to have. In fact, I know from talking to a number of my colleagues overseas that they look at us with some level of wonder. We have created 700,000 new jobs through that time, while 30 million jobs were lost around the world. We have an unemployment rate with a four in front of it when most comparative economies around the world sit higher than 8 per cent. We are one of only three advanced economies that did not go into recession and we have a debt that is very small relative to other advanced economies. We are well and truly on track for a return to surplus. We will bring this budget back to the black by 2012-13. The majority position of most economic commentators is that essentially that is the right thing to do. There is some discussion about whether it can be a year later, but essentially it is seen as the right thing to do. Even though it is quite difficult in the circumstances to achieve that, we will be bringing it back into the black by 2012-13.

There are of course arguments against that. One argument in particular that comes from the opposition is that we should not have spent in the first place. To that I say this: the stimulus package in my electorate—the Building the Education Revolution program and the public housing build—created jobs that accounted for three per cent of my workforce. My community has a very large construction sector, which was essentially flat. Even now the part of the construction sector that is not working on Building the Education Revolution projects is down to three-day weeks. We created enough jobs to add three per cent to the workforce during the two years of the Building the Education Revolution program. I do not know what those people would have been doing if they had not been working on Building the Education Revolution projects, but I am told that the likelihood is that they would have been unemployed. We would have seen contractors selling their trucks and spending substantial periods of time out of the workforce. As far as I am concerned, that is what you would call waste and mismanagement. If you were to add another three per cent to unemployment to an area like mine, it would see carnage, really. It is not to be imagined. Instead we stepped in as a government, we filled a vacuum, we spent when it was necessary to do so and we left behind a legacy in our school halls, in upgrades to our schools and in improvements to public housing, including some wonderful new public housing developments in my electorate. We did a good thing by keeping people employed and we left a legacy.

There are others who say that we do not need to pay down the debt quite so quickly. There are others who say that we do not need to return the budget to black by 2012-13. To them I say this from my heart: for a government that has already seen a global financial crisis and several catastrophes in a row, I am not sure that I trust that there will not be another one. So, for me, one of the reasons is that governments have an obligation to put themselves in the strongest position they can to safeguard the economy and the community in the future. But we also need to pull back to provide space for the mining boom and the rebuilding in Queensland. The incredible expansion that we are expecting with both activities—the building that will go on in the mining boom and the rebuilding in Queensland—will take a great deal of capacity, and we need to pull back as a government to provide space for that. Coming back to surplus by 2012-13 is absolutely the right thing to do and we are well on track to do that.

There have been many challenges that we have had to respond to, and we have. As a government, we can be proud of that. Without the heat of the political argument, I think that people will look back and give the government the credit that is due for shepherding the country through what have been incredibly difficult and volatile times around the world. But, underneath that, in the budget you can also see the character of the government and the priorities that it has. They show not so much in the headline announcements as in the consistent work that you can see done over several budgets and reflected again in the priorities in this budget. I am going to talk about one that is dear to my heart, and that is education.

When I first became the candidate in Parramatta, back in 2004, I was really quite appalled—and that is not too strong a word—to discover that the enrolment rate in universities in Western Sydney was 3.2 per cent, compared to five per cent Sydney wide. So it was significantly lower, at slightly over half the Sydney-wide rate. Over the 12 years of the Howard government, the gap between Western Sydney and the whole of Sydney had widened; it had not shrunk. In spite of 12 years of serious boom, the kind of time when you can actually make a difference to the most disadvantaged communities, the gap had widened and the enrolment numbers for people from disadvantaged communities had fallen, not risen. This, for me, was quite appalling.

I spoke to a number of colleagues, including one from the other side who said to me, ' Perhaps they're all going and getting jobs in the mines.' That might have been true, but I still cannot understand why the people from Western Sydney should get jobs with the mines as cooks, cleaners and small vehicle drivers, while others get jobs as engineers and heavy vehicle mechanics. That gap is unacceptable. No government that is worth anything should accept that kind of gap between Western Sydney and the rest of Sydney or any other area of Australia.

Equality of opportunity is something that Australians pride themselves on, and it was not being demonstrated. We really had to do something about that, and we have started doing something. For a start, the Bradley review back in 2008 talked about enrolments generally being in the doldrums. In 1996, 16 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 34 were university graduates; by 2006, this had risen to 29 per cent. But that still had caused Australia to move down in the ranking of OECD nations. We were down to ninth, because other countries, including New Zealand, had improved and we had not improved as quickly. The government then set a target of having 40 per cent of our population with a university education by 2025. That would put us back at the high end—but still not at the top—of the OECD. That is a big ask and a big challenge in such a small period of time. But to extend the prosperity and the growth of Australia beyond the mining boom and in areas other than the mining boom requires us to substantially improve our skill base and our education base within our population. This is a very, very serious part of it.

The investment in education has been increased substantially. The most recent analysis shows that the Commonwealth expenditure on higher education through funding for teaching, learning and research is projected to increase to $13 billion in 2012. That is up $5 billion from $8 billion in 2007 and is over $3 billion more than the projection to 2012 of the coalition's funding trend. That is a substantial increase in funding. If you remember back to 2004, one of the things that members of the opposition, as we were at the time, kept saying over and over in this place was that, at that time, the Australian government's expenditure on education was actually going backwards relative to GDP. That was a significant failing of the last government and one that absolutely had to be turned around.

For the last couple of years we have been supporting programs that assist universities to attract and retain people from disadvantaged areas. This is particularly important in the University of Western Sydney, in my electorate. They have been working for quite a few years on this, but the additional investment has made a great deal of difference, and they have been getting out there and turning those numbers around. Last year nationwide we saw enrolments from disadvantaged students rise by eight per cent. That is a great achievement and one that we should be proud of, but it is just the beginning. If we achieve that 40 per cent by 2025, we need to be sure that that 40 per cent comes from the full range of Australian society—from regional Australia, from disadvantaged areas, from the general community and from people who arrived here as children speaking English as a second language. We need to make sure that that 40 per cent draws from the broadest possible range of Australians. It is an important goal.

Next year in this budget the government will provide $177.6 million in equity funding to assist universities to continue to attract, support and retain students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There was a program under the former coalition government that was worth $11 million. This is a commitment of $177 million for next year. As a consequence of this investment, more Australians, regardless of their background or where they live, will have the opportunity to gain a university education, and we will have more students in Parramatta graduating, with the parents proudly yelling out and behaving in a particularly Western Sydney way because their children are the first generation in their family to get a university education. I am particularly proud of this. I am particularly proud that it has been a strategy of the government for several years, and we see it yet again as a quiet achiever sitting in the pages of this budget. I am really proud to be part of a government that puts this as such a high priority.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the three budget appropriation bills that are being debated concurrently. They include Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, which is the primary budget bill to appropriate funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of government and related purposes. The total appropriation of this bill is $72.85 billion.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 has two key purposes: firstly, to allow the annual appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for services that are not the ordinary annual services of government, including payments through individual portfolios to states and territories; and, secondly, to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 to increase the limit on the face value of stock and securities that can be on issue under the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority. The total appropriation being sought in this appropriation bill is $4.7 billion. In addition, this bill seeks to increase the government's gross debt ceiling from $200 billion to $250 billion.

Finally, there is the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012. The key purpose of this bill is to appropriate funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for expenditure within the parliamentary departments—the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services. The total appropriation sought through this bill is $180.166 million. The appropriation breakdown is as follows: the Department of the Senate, $21.569 million; the Department of the House of Representatives, $23.253 million; and the Department of Parliamentary Services, $135.344 million.

To date we have heard from both sides of the House in this debate. We have heard somewhat emotional contributions that do little to speak to this budget but rather speak to the hypothesis and speculation of futuristic endeavours of a government that has spent more time alluding to a hypothetical fiscal position at some point in the future and receiving acclamation and joyful overtones from the fiscally illiterate backbenchers who will inevitably follow their leader to political oblivion on the issue of managing this nation's books—with the exception, however, of a few good members on the other side. I have heard allegations of mismanagement, fiscal indiscipline and shameful waste. I have heard quotes and references from the other side of the House to support their position of fiscal ineptitude, with little or no understanding of how to influence the trajectory of the debt curve and no comprehension of economic growth other than tax, tax and more taxes intertwined with spin, spin and more spin.

I debate this because I fear that the silent majority of our nation will just tune out. Who wants to sit and listen to a heap of politicians talk and argue about the economy? It is hardly riveting stuff. However, it is my intention to speak to the basic principles and fundamentals of this budget, and it would be wrong of me not to inform my electorate and the nation of its shortcomings.

This Labor budget delivered a $22.6 billion deficit. I do not want the people of my electorate and the nation to get deficit and debt mixed up. A deficit is like a loss on your profit-and-loss statement. It is when your expenditure is greater than your revenue. Often, when they talk about the promised land of a surplus in years to come, the government will spin and give the illusion about the increasing debt levels that we have that all of a sudden the debt will disappear. Well, it won't. When we get to a surplus—in the hypothetical situation of a three-point-something-billion-dollar surplus—that then becomes your equity with which you pay off your debt. So do not get them mixed up. All the government wants to do is talk about a surplus in the future, not next year but the year after that. We hear the Treasurer of the nation refer to this continually.

In the commercial world, when we hear guys refer to stuff they are 'gunna' do, we refer to them as 'gunnas'. I saw them firsthand in my business when we underwent mergers and acquisitions with other businesses that may not have been as successful. When we went through and asked for information on their businesses, we were often met with responses along the lines of, 'Oh, we were gunna get to that.' Unfortunately they never did, and as a result they were taken over by probably more fiscally prudent operations.

Let us test the credentials of the government's forecasting models. Between the November 2010 MYEFO and May 2011, the budget underlying cash deficit in 2010-11 blew out by $8 billion and the deficit in 2011-12 blew out by $10 billion, so there was a variation of $18 billion in just six months. The point I am making is that the government are trying to say, 'In three years time we're going to deliver a surplus,' but, if we go back through the history books and have a look at their capacity to forecast, it is atrocious. Eighteen billion dollars in six months, gone. In November we were told that the net debt would peak at $94 billion. On budget night it was revealed that the figure was now at $107 billion—not a huge period of time but a significant difference. Not only that; the debt is set to stay at over $100 billion for at least the next four years. Also with reference to forecasting, the NBN, promised to be $7.4 billion, was replaced by a $43 billion project, and there is even now doubt as to whether that figure of $43 billion, with the current civil works underway, is going to be realistic or not.

You see, this budget is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong in its forecast, it is wrong in its revenue and it is wrong in its receipts, because it omits the revenue of the carbon tax, which will start at the same time as the resources tax—and that appears in the budget. Equally and fairly, those on the other side of the House will say, 'The Howard government said the same thing with reference to the GST.' However, we tested that with the voting public in 1998 and took it to an election, and then we went back and introduced that legislation. This comes down to an issue of trust. It is difficult to trust the government and the Prime Minister when only days before the last election we were told, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' There was great relief amongst the Australian public and there was a swing in support which fell in behind the Labor Party. That phrase will haunt this government for many, many years to come until the Australian people get their chance to go back to the polls and have their say.

I would now like to talk about the debt. There are many types of debt—gross debt, net debt, public debt, private debt and peak debt. Unless you are on top of all the types of debt, when you hear the word 'debt' it is easy to get lost. You can understand why mums and dads tune out when politicians start speaking about the economy. I will try and give you a bit of an understanding. To try and make the net debt figures sound better than they are, they are turned into a percentage—7.2 per cent of GDP. That does not sound like much. It does not sound like $200 billion gross debt—and they are asking for an extra $50 billion to go out to $250 billion, which the last part of this bill speaks to. That in itself is absurd because the government is asking for an extra $50 billion on top of the credit card limit to return three in two years time. Think about how you would equate that to your own family budget. If you have a credit card limit of, say, $10,000, you are virtually asking to take that out to $15,000 so that in three years time you have enough money to take the kids on a holiday.

With that 7.2 per cent of GDP, we are often told that we are the envy of the developed world. I have with me a paper by Dr Ken Rogoff, from the Harvard University Department of Economics. He is an esteemed economist. Early on he served as an economist at the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and later he served as chief economist and director of the research department at the IMF up until 2003. This paper he prepared has only just been brought to my attention and it speaks about the cumulative increase in real public debt since 2007 for countries around the world. He produced a graph which shows how quick our uptake of debt has been compared to other countries. I was flabbergasted to find that Australia had the third quickest accumulation of debt in the developed world—third to Iceland and, surprisingly even more spectacular, third to Ireland. Our uptake of debt from 2007 has been faster than the PIGS of Europe—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain—and the UK, Chile, Mexico, Thailand, Brazil and Belgium. This is a very concerning upward trend in our debt level and there is little comprehension of how we intend to pay it down.

Whilst our debt is spiralling out of control, in the Reserve Bank's annual report published in March, the Reserve Bank governor said, 'Australia continues to benefit from exceptional terms of trade, the likes of which we appear to experience once or twice in a century.' That means that this is the crackerjack time for Australia to be putting money into its pocket. Our terms of trade, through China and India's demand for our resources, are putting us in a fiscal environment that we can only expect to see once or twice a century, according to the Reserve Bank governor. Doesn't that make you think that this is the time we should be putting the coin away because we will not see this sort of environment too often?

I also want to talk about the opportunity costs. With the talk of Australia being the envy of the world, what do we forgo as a community by having that debt, even though 7.2 per cent sounds like a small amount? I can tell you what we forgo. We pay $5.5 billion in interest to service that debt—and as it creeps out that figure will go out to about $7 billion. But just working on the conservative figure of $5.5 billion, we forgo 183 schools at $30 million a school every single year, we forgo 5,500 kilometres of roads at $1 million per kilometre—which is roughly from Cairns to Melbourne and back about to Brisbane in road systems—and we also forgo seven hospitals at $800 million per hospital. And that $5.5 billion in interest is every year. In closing, I do support some measures in the budget that address mental health issues. However, given the government's capacity to deliver on basic programs, I will believe in the programs appearing when I see it. In principle, the government had a pocketful of cash and the best terms of trade in 140 years and all it has done is tax and all we have seen is tax, debt and deficits.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and other related bills. The passing of these bills will see the federal Labor government delivering on its commitment to the Australian people to strengthen the economy and invest in our most valuable asset, our human capital. That is why the Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan, delivered a budget for 2011-12 with a sharp focus on skills and education. With the unemployment rate forecast to fall to 4.5 per cent by mid-2013 and a recognised skills shortage in many sectors across the country, we as a society need to do more to deliver a skilled workforce. It is Labor governments that pride themselves on investing in skills and training. This federal Labor government continues that investment and fulfils its ongoing commitment in building the productive workforce our economy needs.

Through the budget the government is making that investment by implementing a new approach to training, one that puts industry at the heart of the $558 million National Workforce Development Fund, which will deliver 130,000 new training places over four years. The government will fund a national mentoring program to help 40,000 apprentices finish training. This $101 million investment will better meet the needs of industries and regions. The government will invest in more flexible training models so that apprentices can accelerate through their training at a pace which recognises their own ability to acquire the right skills. The government continues to invest in language, literacy and numeracy programs through this budget to ensure that potential workers have the essential skills for a job.

In recent times much more effort has been put in by governments, including the federal Labor government, to reinvest in apprenticeships and to promote a trade as a worthwhile career path. What we must now do, as well as continue our investment in new apprentices, is ensure that we get people, those individuals who commenced an apprenticeship but for whatever reason left that apprenticeship before it was completed, back into training. That is why the Gillard Labor government is investing $281 million in a support package for additional tax-free payments to encourage apprentices in critical trades to complete their qualifications. I have spoken much about significant investment in training and the funding allocation at a national level. Importantly though, what does this mean for my electorate? The great news is 1,750 apprentices in the electorate of Petrie may benefit from these investments.

I welcome these announcements by the Treasurer. I personally am a great supporter of education and training. By providing people with the skills needed by industries, we can better match the demand and supply of our workforce and provide greater opportunities for individuals. That is why it is essential to also ensure we are focusing on the need to invest in participation. In the 2011-12 budget, the Treasurer announced funding to get the very long-term unemployed into work. The Gillard Labor government will invest $233 million in new support programs and 35,000 targeted wage subsidies—encouraging employers to hire those who have not worked for more than two years. What this means for the 1,362 very long-term unemployed people in the electorate of Petrie is local support through local employment services to provide these 1,362 people with training and work experience. There will also be additional funds provided to grant a wage subsidy to support employers who give the very long-term unemployed a job. Getting people out of the cycle of long-term unemployment requires a multipronged approach to get real outcomes. That is why the government is tackling this issue from both the individual perspective and the business perspective.

It is not just the long-term unemployed who are being assisted through this budget. We will cut effective tax rates for 50,000 single parents by up to 20c in the dollar, invest $80 million in their skills, and transition more parents with high-school kids onto job search payments. We will remove incentives for young people to leave study for the dole queue by extending the earn or learn requirements to 21-year-olds and create new pathways to full-time employment for early school leavers.

I, like many members in this House, have areas of my electorate with a higher than average number of teenage parents. I watch these young parents do their best to provide for themselves and their young family. It is important that we as a Labor government address entrenched disadvantage by introducing participation plans for teen parents, with new requirements for jobless families and extended income management, and developing new place based programs to support local and regional employment.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out the terrific work being done by the Deception Bay Flexible Learning Centre through their parenting support. This centre allows young parents to bring their child to school while giving those parents the opportunity to continue gaining their educational qualifications. I also acknowledge the great work of the Deception Bay Community Youth Program. That also has a young mums program and is also doing work with young dads. The young mothers that I recently had the opportunity to meet showed incredible strength and were inspirational in their willingness to meet the adversities that life has thrown at them. These young ladies are all now working to help other young people realise the importance of making the right choices and the challenges that can be faced by being a parent at a young age.

As I have already stated many times in this House and throughout my community, my personal commitment is to education and training. I am extremely proud to be part of the Gillard Labor government, which is equally passionate and committed to investing in education and training. That is why it was of no surprise that the 2011-12 budget brought down by this Labor government would continue further investments in education. The Treasurer announced in this budget that $425 million will be provided to reward top-performing teachers. This will mean around one in 10 teachers will receive a bonus—about $8,100 for those with the most experience and around $5,400 for a teacher in the first few years of their career. The first bonuses will be based on performance in the 2013 school year and paid in early 2014. The Prime Minister, the Hon. Julia Gillard, when visiting the Turner Primary School in Canberra recently, said:

… this reward for our top teachers is another plank in the Gillard Governments’ commitment to ensure every child gets the best possible education no matter what their background or where they live.

She went on to say:

… nobody would deny that our teachers are vital to ensuring that our kids get a great start and that while few are in teaching for the money most people in our community would agree we should reward our best teachers.

I could not agree more with these statements.

Importantly, the method of assessing a teacher's performance, the Australian Teacher Performance Management Principles and Procedures, will be fair and equitable. Additional funding will be provided also to create new pathways into a teaching career through the Teach Next initiative.

Another funding commitment that I know is welcomed warmly in my electorate is the extended and expanded funding for the National School Chaplaincy program. Currently, 22 of the 36 schools in my electorate have school chaplains. It was a pleasure to have the Minister for School Education and Early Childhood, the Hon. Peter Garrett, at Bracken Ridge State School in the electorate of Petrie last Friday. We had the opportunity there to look around the school's facilities, including the new refurbished library and resource centre, and to view the amazing new multipurpose hall. We also had the pleasure of speaking with Rachael Bhatnagar, who is the school chaplain. I acknowledge the important work that Rachael and all of the other chaplains perform through the schools in Petrie.

It is not just investment in education and training that the government continues to deliver on. In the important areas of hospitals and health services, the government continues to make major investments. In the 2011-12 budget, the government has committed to over $3 billion in new initiatives over the forward estimates. This commitment includes $2.2 billion over five years to deliver on our commitment to make mental health a national priority and to take the first steps towards reform. The government is also investing $740 million over five years to give Australians affordable access to medicines and technologies. This includes $613 million for the latest medicines and immunisations and $104 million to expand access to magnetic resonance imaging services.

The government is also tackling the long-term challenges in dental health by introducing a voluntary dental internship year targeted at the public dental system. These commitments—and I have only mentioned a few—build on the government's national health reform, which has seen record investment in health since Labor came into government federally.

Last but not least, the federal government through the 2011-12 budget has continued to show its commitment to strengthen the Australian economy by investing in infrastructure across this country. Petrie has benefited from this investment, with the federal government announcing commitments in road and rail. Just last week the federal Treasurer and member for Lilley, the Hon. Wayne Swan, and I met with representatives from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads to get an update on the progress of the Gateway North upgrade. The Gillard Labor government is investing some $125 million in this project. This is an example of real funding getting real outcomes, with work commencing in 2012 to widen the road from two lanes into three on the northbound lane between Sandgate Road and the Deagon Deviation. This area is being targeted because during the afternoon peak hours traffic is affected all the way back to Nudgee. This section of the gateway is expected to be completed in 2013.

Another significant announcement in this budget for the people of Petrie is the decision to bring forward by three years funding for the Moreton Bay rail link. The Treasurer in the 2011-12 budget announced $133 million was being brought forward. This funding will allow the ramping up of preconstruction activities, including reallocation of public utilities as well as early works on road bridges. It will also open up the possibility that we will be able to go to the market earlier in search of a preferred builder. This highlights our determination to turn this rail line, first proposed more than a century ago, into a reality. I welcome this announcement to bring forward funding for the Moreton Bay rail link. This is another important step forward for this project and is a clear demonstration of the federal government's commitment to deliver the Moreton Bay rail link for our local communities.

It is also the first time in the history of the federal parliament that a federal budget has been handed down with funding being allocated for this important project. Many past members may have spoken about the need for a rail line from Petrie to Kippa-Ring, but it is this government, a Labor government, that not only committed to partnering with the state government and Moreton Bay Regional Council but, within less than 12 months from making that commitment, actually allocated government funds in the budget. We have waited over 100 years to see this happen, and I am certainly proud to be part of a Labor government that is making it a reality.

I have, in the time that has been allocated, spoken on just a few of the important initiatives that have been announced in this year's budget. It must be noted that it is this Labor government that has been able to hand down a budget that delivers investment in skills, participation in employment as well as education and health and continues to invest in infrastructure. The government is able to do this and ensure that we are on track to get the budget back to surplus by 2012-13.

What is the alternative to Labor's budget and commitment to get back into the black by 2012-13? Based on the Leader of the Opposition's budget response and responses by the shadow Treasurer, there is none. The opposition has no plan to get the budget back into surplus, no plans to invest in skills, training, education, health and infrastructure. The few glimpses of policy that have been released should concern the Australian public because the opposition is just ripping programs up and taking funding away. The negative approach of the Leader of the Opposition and the party that he leads is detrimental to our economy and our nation. Labor's budget is a strong budget based on sound fiscal policy that invests in our country's future and strengthens our economy. That is why I am pleased to commend these bills to the House.

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

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2011-2012. This budget is truly a reflection of the Gillard government and, more importantly, its performance to date—bitterly disappointing. It is bitterly disappointing because again we have a tired and terminal Labor government plunging this country into net government debt and deficit. The Gillard government has set a new record for net government debt, which will be an astonishing $107 billion in 2011-12 and is forecast to remain above $100 billion across the forward estimates. This amounts to more than $4,700 of debt for every Australian. Sadly, due to a handful of Independent members of parliament representing conservative electorates, the Australian people again are subjected to the staggering economic incompetence illustrated in this typical tax-and-spend Labor budget.

By omitting any reference to the already announced carbon tax or carbon credits in this budget, Australians can rightly ask how the government and Treasury are laying the foundations for a carbon taxed economy next year. Will the rollout of the carbon taxed economy be another rushed job? Small business, individuals and families across Australia have borne the brunt of the Rudd-Gillard government's stuff-ups from pink batt rorts to the school halls fiasco. Labor's form for project implementation over the past three years hardly inspires confidence that they can handle major structural reform of the economy. The government needed to come clean with its carbon tax and credits proposal in this budget. Despite the lack of detail common to nearly all Labor announcements, such as the one on the carbon tax, towns and landholders in my electorate of Hume are already suffering from a shift to the green economy. Crucial to this new green economy crusade is the transition away from cheap, efficient and clean coal power technology to inefficient and expensive alternative energy sources such as wind turbines, all advertised as a means of reducing Australia's comparatively small CO2 emissions.

I have two major issues with the push towards greater wind turbine development, particularly in the electorate of Hume—firstly, claims that wind turbines are efficient and reliable and, secondly, the impact inadequately regulated wind turbine construction in New South Wales is having on the property rights of landholders, not to mention the predatory and clandestine practices of wind turbine developers.

The claim that wind turbines are a viable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels is farcical. Wind turbine technology has proven to be neither cheap nor efficient when compared with our baseload coal technology. According to the Auditor-General in Victoria, this year the cost per megawatt hour for wind turbine technology was between 80c and $1.20, compared with brown coal which cost 35c—so it is nearly three times more expensive. Make no mistake: there is a direct link between the construction of expensive-to-run wind turbines and the increases you are seeing in your electricity bills every month.

There appears to be a hidden agenda on the part of wind turbine developers centred around the federal government's carbon tax. Wind turbine developers are saying they are going to supply electricity, including enough clean energy to power up to 180,000 homes a year and preventing up to one million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution entering the environment. That information came from a Rugby wind farm press release of 17 May this year. What the developers and operators cannot and will not tell you is how they are going to produce that kind of energy when it has been proven that wind turbines operate only 30 per cent of the year. Nor will they admit that the wind turbine's inherent inefficiency is why permission is being sought in several shires in my electorate for gas-fired peaking stations, such as the one proposed in Dalton, to be built to top up the shortfall left by wind generators. A concerned constituent wrote to me recently and put it another way:

If I went to the Minister for Transport and offered to sell him a fleet of buses or trains, telling him that they would work only 30% of the time, he couldn't use them in peak periods because we didn't know when they would work and also he may find that they work when he didn't want them to (late at night or early in the morning)—what do you think the Minister for Transport would say?

The transition to inefficient, unreliable and expensive wind turbine energy production is occurring throughout the shires of the Hume electorate at an alarming rate—a rate that is preventing landholders and communities from taking stock of the full implications these industrial wind turbine developments will have on their families, their neighbours and their communities. Due to inadequate regulation under the former New South Wales Labor government, wind turbine developers have been able to override the property rights of individual landholders and communities. I have had lobbyists for wind turbines inform me of allegedly 'extraordinarily high' support for wind turbine construction in the New South Wales-ACT border region. This is not the message I am getting. Through extensive research I have uncovered the analysis of data from the ERM survey which the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage and wind turbine developers rely upon to show community support for wind turbines. The survey they rely upon was conducted over just seven days, from 27 July to 2 August 2007—four years ago—well before local landowners and communities were aware of the full implications of wind turbine construction.

It is also interesting to note that that ERM document refers in annexure B6 to 11 studies in the UK between 1990 and 1996 which contain similar figures to the 90 per cent support for wind energy quoted by the Australian ERM survey. It would appear the figures are a direct lift from the UK study. Furthermore, there is no evidence as to the survey methodology. For example, was it undertaken by post; was it by push polling over the phone; was it by direct visitation to local residents; did all of the respondents to the alleged survey live in New South Wales or within the local government areas where wind turbines are to be located or indeed within the boundaries of the Hume electorate, where hundreds of wind turbines are programmed to be constructed; how many individual respondents and/or businesses were surveyed; and where precisely were these respondents domiciled?

Considering the volume of concerns from affected landholders flooding my office and the well-attended public meetings held throughout the electorate of Hume, I would be very interested to see if a similar survey would yield a 9/10 approval for wind turbines today. My judgment is that it would not. I would, however, suggest conducting the survey a little better by directly surveying respondents who are affected—landholders who would be living next to these monuments to a misguided green-left ideology—rather than so-called distant semi-urban communities in Goulburn, Yass and Canberra, whatever that means. No survey can give us a true indication of the trauma, despair and hopelessness local landholders affected by wind turbine developments are feeling. The daughter of one elderly couple wrote to me earlier this month and said this:

I contact you now with a heart filled with anxiety, worry, disbelief and concern for my parents' future, as they have received a 'letter of acquisition' over their home for the purpose of the Gullen Range Wind Farm development.

She goes on:

The proposed turbines of particular concern would be placed at distances of just 500m, 600m and 800m from our family home. Mum and Dad have worked the whole of their lives to save for 'their joint dream … a home on a bit of land outside of town in the peace and quiet to enjoy their retirement ...'. Now they are being forced to have to make an unbearable decision of having to sell their home or stay on and suffer the effects of the turbines appearing around them. Dad is 80 yrs and Mum 72. It is heartbreaking to see them reduced to tears with the very notion of what it is that is being proposed.

There is also the case of the young couple near Crookwell who, after years of planning, saving and finally finishing building their dream home, have just been served with a letter of acquisition. What has happened to the property rights of my constituents? When did we allow their property rights to be usurped by carbon-credit-hungry wind turbine developers? Or a government hell-bent on steamrolling an ideological environmental agenda over the democratic rights of landholders in order to desperately cling to power?

These landholders, young and old, have also been subjected to the not-so-well-known clandestine and predatory practices of wind turbine developers. Discussions between landholders and developers are followed with the signing of confidentiality agreements, preventing neighbours discussing with one another developments going on in their own backyards. Alarmingly, I am advised that, when landholders threaten to take action against their neighbours, wind turbine developers have told these neighbours they will provide legal assistance to them.

Those who, despite hearing about all the health, noise and flicker worries, choose to host wind turbines on their property absolutely have that right—especially after a desperate decade of drought—but it should not be at the expense of their neighbours. The same common sense would apply if they were planning to build a 165-metre building immediately adjacent to their neighbour's residence.

The aspect of this issue that I find most disturbing is the response my constituents have received from those who constantly harp that they represent rural and regional Australia. I am disappointed that local state members, who gave people the impression they were going to do something for them at the last state election, appear to have compromised those undertakings in exchange for keys to chauffeur driven white cars. I was distressed to hear from a farmer who will be affected by a wind turbines development that he approached the Nationals leader in New South Wales regarding the seriousness of the problems I have been outlining only to be told that he could not possibly get a meeting for three months. This indifferent treatment of the democratic rights of my constituents may be politically convenient for a new government but it will not be tolerated by me.

Given the apparent contamination of the approval processes and the role played by the New South Wales planning department and other New South Wales government agencies, on behalf of my constituents I have written to the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and the Minister for the Environment, phoned the Minister for Resources and Energy, and most recently forwarded a letter to Premier O'Farrell requesting an immediate moratorium on any further wind turbine development in New South Wales pending a possible public inquiry or indeed, following on from preliminary investigation, a possible royal commission into the industry as a whole. I am not holding my breath, as indifference and arrogance has already surfaced in the six-week-old New South Wales coalition government.

Wind power generation is touted as a proven technology by its proponents, who conveniently fail to mention it has become a globally abandoned technology with developers walking away from so-called wind farms when government subsidies are reduced or removed. Regrettably, by this time the damage has been done—all the more reason to introduce a moratorium on any further development. I give my pledge to the 15 families that are faced with losing their homes that I will aggressively pursue this matter on their behalf, regardless of the politics of the government of the day.

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

I wish to commend the Australian government on this budget, which continues our tradition of sound economic management. It stands in stark contrast to the opposition's troubling lack of insight on this core issue.

Peter Costello is on the record as saying that an opposition leader's responsibility consists of going through the budget saying what the opposition agrees with and what it does not agree with; putting forward alternative tax proposals and saying when they would start and how they would be paid for; and saying what the opposition would do if it were bringing down a budget. Peter Costello was scathing of any budget reply speech that was short on detail or full of motherhood statements and cliches, which he believed let the Australian public down. What, then, are we to make of the opposition's budget reply?

The opposition say they would bring the budget to surplus sooner than Labor, yet they oppose and run interference on all of our savings measures, they produce no savings measures of their own and they even come up with more spending measures. They are not serious. Family payments is a classic example. The government will maintain higher income thresholds for certain family payments at their current levels. When the government announced similar measures two years ago, the opposition leader said they were soft and wanted the government to go harder. Now he wants to talk about the 'forgotten families' on $150,000 or more!

Analysis by Commonwealth Securities suggests that, on an Australia-wide basis, families with incomes above $150,000 are among the better-off families in the country. The average male income is currently around $57,500, with the average female income just over $38,000. Only three per cent of all taxpayers have an income above $150,000. In 2012-13, the number of people who will cease to be eligible for family payments will be less than two per cent. You would think, based on the scare campaign of the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer, that the government is running an assault on all families' standard of living. As Tom Dusevic identified in his article of 14 May in the Weekend Australian on the coalition's position:

Abbott and Hockey have lost the plot on the basic tenet of Liberalism. Unlike Menzies, who saw government handouts as helping hands to the destitute, the Liberals became the chief advocates for unsustainable middle-class welfare, which grew out of the revenue boost from the first phase of the mining boom.

Absolutely right.

I would like to acknowledge the measures in the budget to boost workplace participation and expand the economy's productive capacity. I agree with the Prime Minister that we do not want to see a situation where the economy is booming but where we still have long-term unemployed people who do not have a job and people on the disability support pension who want to work, who do not have the opportunity of a job. And the Treasurer is right when he says, 'Our economy can't afford to waste a single pair of capable hands.' In my electorate of Wills there are at present 1,397 very-long-term unemployed people who have been without work for two years or more. To help them prepare for and find work, the Labor government has provided in the budget an additional $2.7 million over the period 2012 to 2015 to support local employment services in Wills. This will provide them with training and work experience. Additional funds have also been provided for a wage subsidy to support employers who give the very-long-term unemployed a job.

An investment of over $1.6 million for Australian Disability Enterprises in Wills is also welcome. It will support the work of the Brunswick Industries Association, North West Employment Group, the Trustee for The Salvation Army Victoria Property Trust, and Yooralla.

The budget initiative establishing the $558 million National Workforce Development Fund will assist in responding to the most critical emerging skills needs facing Australian industry. This will deliver 130,000 new training places over four years. The fund will be supported by the establishment of a new National Workforce and Productivity Agency, from 1 July next year, which will work closely with industry to identify critical skill needs and build a more skilled and capable workforce. The Labor government is improving support for Australians with a disability to help them into work where possible. I support these significant reforms to address the issue of workplace participation and skills shortages.

I do not, however, agree with raising the skilled migration target for the 2011-12 financial year to 125,850—a record level. I have seven objections to increasing skilled migration. The first is that it is the principal driver of Australia's rapid population growth. Only recently our population used to grow by 200,000 a year; now it is rising by a million every three years. The increase has not been driven by natural increase, refugees or family reunions. It has been driven by an increase in skilled migration from 24,000 in 1996 to over 100,000 now. This is the main reason net overseas migration is now 180,000 per annum and the main reason Treasury is using net overseas migration of 180,000 per annum to project that Australia's population will rise to 36 million by 2050. That is, it is giving us big Australia. I have set out in numerous speeches in the parliament and at public meetings my objections to big Australia: cost of living pressures and pressures on food, water, land and energy supplies, carbon emissions, housing affordability, traffic congestion, species extinction, loss of open space et cetera.

My second objection to increasing labour force migration is that there are people in Australia who want work and we should be getting them jobs. There are 500,000 people on Newstart allowance and 800,000 on disability support pension. These people should be our first priority. In the last decade the number of people receiving disability support pension grew around six per cent per annum in real terms. As Budget Paper No.1 outlines:

Past growth … reflects increases in the number of beneficiaries arising from population growth and changing composition of the population …

Population growth will continue to contribute to sustained real growth in the cost of this program.

As I mentioned earlier, I support the steps that seek to move people from these benefits to employment, but there needs to be jobs for them to go to. Cutting back workforce migration numbers will ensure there are jobs for them to go to.

Included among the people who are out of work and are deserving of our attention are quite a few skilled migrants already in Australia who are either not working at all or not employed in areas for which they are qualified. As reported by Michael Quin in the Melbourne Times Weekly, a local newspaper which circulates in my electorate, four out of five skilled migrants in Melbourne are unemployed or underemployed, according to a recent survey. The article outlined the case of Preston skilled migrant Natalia Garcia, who has applied for 17 engineering jobs in the past four months without getting an interview or feedback, despite speaking advanced English and holding an engineering degree and seven years industry experience in Colombia. Ms Garcia said:

We were told Australia was desperate for engineers and that we would find a job in a maximum of two months,

Ms Garcia is working as an office cleaner, and said most skilled migrants she knew were doing the same. It is highly revealing that a qualified engineer with seven years industry experience should be working in Australia as a cleaner. I suspect that quite a few of the business leaders who bang the drum incessantly about skilled migration know about this kind of outcome perfectly well. They are not so much interested in the skills of migrants as their potential to provide cheap labour in occupations such as cleaners and taxi drivers and in providing personal services like house cleaning and chauffeuring at cut price rates. So my third objection to the skilled migration increase is the treatment of, and outcomes for, many skilled migrants.

My fourth objection is that the skills shortage is overstated and is abused in ways which undermine the wages and conditions of Australian workers. National Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Dave Oliver, believes the skills shortage issue is overstated and that successive federal governments have failed to deliver an adequate labour market testing system, which means employers can exploit the system. The AMWU has launched a skills register to give skilled workers and young people seeking apprenticeships the opportunity to register for work before employers are allowed to bring in workers on 457 visas. As Dave Oliver has said:

We do not deny that skills shortages exist in some areas, but they are being exaggerated by employers seeking to use 457 visas to undermine local wages and conditions and avoid the cost of investing in apprenticeships.

With apprenticeship completion rates below 50%, the long term answer to our skills problems cannot be importing workers from other countries on a temporary basis.

Employers can't complain about skills shortages while they are dropping their investment in training.

I encourage people who have skills which are not being made use of to make contact with the AMWU to get their details put on the skills register.

The fifth objection I have to increasing skilled migration is that we have become addicted to it. We need to do more to educate and train our own young people. Going back two or three decades, governments and employers dropped the ball on training. Governments closed technical schools and cut back on technical education. Private employers lost interest in taking on apprentices. We started outsourcing our requirement for training. This has been an addictive, self-fulfilling circle and we need to break the habit. Those countries which do not run a big migration program put more effort into educating and training their young people, and they have better participation rates as a consequence. The sixth objection I have to increasing skilled migration goes to the claim that this is necessary to avoid capacity constraints and bottlenecks in the resources industry. The truth is that running the resources boom as fast as possible has a number of economic consequences, not all of which are positive. Using the resources boom as a reason to ramp up skilled migration and staking a lot of our economic prosperity on Australia's high terms of trade overlooks some of the negative ramifications of the two-speed or multispeed economy. For example, as reported in the Australian in early May, hundreds of fruit processing workers face the sack if Coca-Cola Amatil goes ahead with plans to close parts of its SPC Ardmona division and capitalise on the strong Australian dollar by importing food from Indonesia. CCA chief executive Terry Davis has said one or two of SPC's three plants in central Victoria could be closed due to the strong Australian dollar putting pressure on the business. He said that the current strength of the dollar severely limits the potential for SPC Ardmona's export business, which produces some of the country's best-known canned fruit brands.

The strong dollar has been cited by the Reserve Bank as impacting adversely on manufacturing and tourism. A report in 2006 by the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance on the previous mining boom used modelling to determine its impact on non-mining states and found that there were adverse consequences for Victorian exporting and import-competing firms. Their modelling results showed that the Victorian and New South Wales gross state products were about half a per cent lower. Most industries in these states contracted, apart from the mining industries.

I believe the relentless rise of the Australian dollar as a result of the resources boom presents a real challenge to the Australian economy. The current mining boom mark 2 represents the highest terms of trade in 140 years, so the pressure on manufacturing and other trade exposed industries not directly benefiting from higher commodity prices is severe. Retail, manufacturing, building and tourism are labouring under the weight of subdued sales, weak profits and low orders. We need to ensure that we do not become a one-trick economy and that the structural changes that occur as a result of this boom do not leave ordinary people behind. If the resources boom generates growth levels that cause the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates, then many Australian households and small businesses will suffer. As a nation, we need to be more sophisticated than simply trying to run the resources boom full throttle.

The seventh and final objection I have goes to the question of the morality of skilled migration. Last week I participated in a debate— (Quorum formed)(Time expired)

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the appropriation bills that are before the House to do with the most recent federal Labor budget. I must say, this is an extraordinary budget. It is extraordinary because it gives the lie to the idea that Labor knows how to manage Australia's economy. Day after day we hear members opposite, and in particular the member for Lilley, the Treasurer, speak about his brilliance when it comes to economic management and speak about how Australia is situated with one of the lowest net debts in the world as a percentage of GDP. He speaks about how unemployment is low and speaks about how in some way the Labor Party was able to provide us with a road map that steered us through the GFC. For those of us sitting on this side of the chamber, when we actually look at what the Labor Party has achieved in four short years, the proof is actually quite to the contrary, because the current position of the Australian economy has much less to do with Labor Party policy and much more to do with the way in which the coalition left the Australian economy when we lost office in 2007. The reality is that this is a government that has overseen one of the biggest explosions in our level of debt in our nation's history. This is a government that has overseen one of the largest budget deficits in our nation's history. This is a government that has turned what was a 33-year record low in unemployment into a skyrocketing level of unemployment because of its policies and economic incompetence.

In reality these bills that are currently before the chamber do a number of very historic things. One is to increase the debt ceiling. This is the debt ceiling that the Labor Party needed to raise previously to some $200 billion. The bills that are before the House now push this debt ceiling up to $250 billion. We were told in November last year that this recklessly spending government had debt under control. They told us that we would see debt blow out to $94 billion. That was in November last year, and here we are now, with the budget only a matter of weeks ago, seeing that in truth net debt under this government will reach $107 billion. I grow tired of moving around my electorate and other parts of the country and seeing Labor members opposite standing up, chests puffed out, spruiking about their great vision and how they have delivered this project or that project. That is the most shameful aspect of it all.

In particular, I just recently went along to a primary school where we saw the opening of yet another so-called Building the Education Revolution designed project, another one that the government have put out there and provided funding for. It was amazing because there was a letter spruiking the government's virtues and how much they have done for the children of Australia under their BER program. Standing there in that primary school, surrounded by several hundred primary school children, I thought to myself, 'I hope they get value out of it because those same primary school children will be paying that debt off for the next 20 or 30 years. Those same children will be forced to repay all the debt that this government incurred in four short years.'

We spent 12 years paying off $96 billion of debt—12 years of hard work, 12 years of difficult policy decisions and 12 years of saying no to the kind of largesse and reckless spending that Labor so embraces. We did it because we had the belief that we have a responsibility to hand this nation over to our children who follow us in a better condition than in which we received it. But that is not Labor's policy when it comes to economic management. They are very happy to take what they have and bastardise it. They are happy to leave our children with $107 billion of debt. They are happy to leave our children with a debt that will take decades to repay so that they can run around the countryside and spruik about what economic geniuses they are and what vision they have.

If that is vision, I do not want anything to do with it. Is it vision to waste $50 billion on the NBN and so-called nation-building projects like that when Telstra announced today that they are privately rolling out in four cities a 4G network that provides 100 megabits per second, the same maximum speed that you will get under the NBN? The government are spending $50 billion on a project that is still 12 years in the making and we have a private operator using shareholder and equity funds—and perhaps debt funds too—to roll out the same thing.

It is an indictment on the Labor Party, and these budget bills speak the truth about the Australian Labor Party. It is the same old Labor budget that we saw under Whitlam. It is the same old Labor budget that we saw under the Hawke and Keating governments. It is the same old Labor Party that basically comes down to a couple of key features, and that is that this is a Labor government that taxes big and that spends big. That is it. It is Labor DNA to tax and spend every step of the way.

Queensland in particular but also parts of Victoria just had an extraordinary amount of tumult over the summer season. We saw devastating floods and we saw the impact of Cyclone Yasi. We saw challenges across the length and breadth of the country but in particular in Queensland and Victoria with the flooding. This caused an incredible amount of damage. Families had to rebuild. Businesses had to rebuild. What we saw was that, out of a $300-odd billion budget, the Labor Party had to impose a new tax to raise $1.7 billion to help pay for it. Out of a $300 billion budget, this government are so useless that they could not actually find $1.7 billion to spend on reconstruction and they had to impose a new tax. They had the political cover of saying, 'We have to do this because it is part of every Australian putting their shoulder to the wheel to look after those less fortunate.'

I have a better idea, as does everyone in the coalition. How about this government tighten its belt? How about this government not waste billions upon billions of dollars on useless programs like Fuelwatch, GroceryWatch and its failed border protection policy. On every measure, this is a government that has let down the Australian people, and it shows as Australians turn their backs on this Labor Party because this Labor Party offers them nothing. Most importantly as well, they can see straight through this Prime Minister. They know that this Prime Minister will say and do anything if she thinks that there is a vote in it. They see straight through it, and that is why the Australian people are walking away from this Labor Party. It irks me, and I know it irks my constituents and everyone on this side of the chamber, that the Australian Labor Party will raise $1.7 billion in new taxes and in the same budget allocate an extra $1.7 billion for border protection because of its useless, failed border policies which have now seen a nearly $2 billion blowout in the budget to try to do something about our ballooning detention centres and the ballooning number of asylum seekers. This is from a government that would lecture the coalition about how insensitive we were and how much we lacked compassion when it came to asylum seekers. In 2007, there were something like six people in mandatory detention. We now have some 6½ thousand. We now have in excess of 220 boats and we have a government that slugs people who may have been affected by the floods themselves with a new tax to raise $1.7 billion out of a $300 billion budget. Then, to rub salt into that wound, this government goes and spends an extra $1.7 billion on so-called border protection because it has lost control.

This is the same government and the same Prime Minister who, only eight days out from election day in 2010, looked down the barrel of the camera and promised, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Then, with the puppeteer Bob Brown over her shoulder, this Prime Minister turns her back on that solemn promise only eight days out. She said it because she knew she had to to get elected but had every intention to change it once elected. This Prime Minister now just walks away from that promise, having completely fooled the Australian people. As the old saying goes, you can fool them once but not twice. I have no doubt that the Australian people recognise that this Labor government has done an incredible amount of damage in only four short years.

In my city, the Gold Coast, the damage is being felt profoundly. Because of this government's inability to appropriately manage taxpayers funds, we are now seeing the Australian dollar, due to upward pressure on interest rates and forecast interest rates to come, reach 106c to the US dollar—$1.06. It has been as high as $1.10. It is forecast to stay in the vicinity of $1.06 or $1.07. For a city like the Gold Coast—a city of 500,000 people that is built on services industries, that is built on tourism and that is built on construction—this government's policy settings could not be any worse. Because of this budget that is going through the chamber as we speak, we continue to see upward pressure on interest rates. Because of this government borrowing $135 million each and every day, we continue to see upward pressure on interest rates. Because of this government's reckless spending, because of $107 billion of net debt, we continue to see the crowding out of private operators in the debt market who are so desperately in need of finance. Each one of these directly goes to the economic viability of a city like the Gold Coast. Each one of these has a material impact on the ability of our city's developers to secure finance for their projects; on the confidence of consumers to be able to purchase, for example, apartments and to drive the second biggest industry in our city, which is the construction industry; and on the ability of Australians to choose to holiday in Australia rather than abroad because the Australian dollar is sitting at $1.06.

We reached this stage because of the rampant appreciation of the Australian dollar as a consequence of interest rate increases and forecast increases. There are now more Australians travelling abroad than there are international visitors coming to Australia. The impact on a city like the Gold Coast is that unemployment skyrockets. In my own constituency we see its impact. That the unemployment rate climbed to nearly eight per cent, and it still currently sits around that figure, is the consequence of Labor Party policy. We see the consequence in the small business sector, a sector that this government has turned its back on. This party preaches its concern for workers, but unfortunately this party only believes that workers are employees. This party is blind to the fact that employers are workers too, that employers drive wealth generation, that employers drive jobs and that employers drive economic activity. That is part of the reason why between 2007 and 2010, Labor's first term in government, we saw 695 small businesses close in my electorate. If every one of them employed only one person, between the owner and the employee you are talking close to 1,300 people all out of work as a direct result of this government's economic incompetence.

Most distressing is that the government have not learned anything. After the failed programs of GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, the pink batts disaster and the school halls disaster, you would think the government would start to get the message. Instead, they budget to spend $400 per pensioner for a set-top box for their TV when Harvey Norman can install and provide a set-top box for $168—less than half price. You can buy a new TV for less money than the Labor Party is budgeting. On every measure, this is a government that is completely blind to what makes the Australian economy tick. To all the children of Australia, to those children who are under 21 who will be paying off the debt as a consequence of the reckless spending and largess of this government: I am sorry that the government have had the power, as a consequence of their poor decision making, to put you some $5,000 or thereabouts in debt for the next couple of decades. It is a great shame.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on these appropriation bills because this year's federal budget is a strong nation-building budget that continues to build upon this government's commitment to deliver for all Australians. It is a budget that supports a strong economy for all Australians and it is getting us back to surplus on time and as planned. It is a budget that invests in training, gets more Australians in jobs and drives opportunities for all Australians. Whilst many countries around the world are still dealing with the impact of the GFC, Australia's economy is strong and unemployment is low.

This budget builds upon the previous Labor government budgets, when the government took decisive and immediate policy action to protect jobs from the impacts of the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. The centrepiece of this response, the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, helped support jobs and invested in future long-term economic growth. The fact is that we would not be in this position if it were not for the very decisive actions of the Labor government during the crisis—actions that saved Australia from the recession during the GFC. The $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan was designed to provide a boost to the economy at a time when the global economic outlook was rapidly deteriorating, as well as investing in Australia's future.

The plan made critical investments in rural, regional and urban infrastructure and made Australia one of the only advanced economies in the world to avoid economic recession. These actions had a major impact on jobs and infrastructure development in my electorate of Richmond. In fact, the Building the Education Revolution has delivered more than $115 million for over 200 projects in 90 local schools. In total for Richmond, the Gillard government has provided more than $133 million through this economic stimulus plan for 464 projects to support jobs and improve local infrastructure. This has made a massive difference to the north coast in keeping people in jobs and providing really important infrastructure right across the area. The fact is that more than 750,000 Australians are in jobs today than when the government took office, in stark contrast to the 30 million jobs that were lost across the globe during the aftermath of the GFC.

In fact the 2011-12 budget further builds on Australia's strong economic record, with a continued focus on jobs, skills and training, and with investments in health, education, infrastructure, roads and regional development. The budget recognises that training our bigger workforce is vital for the strength of our economy and the living standards within our community. I am very pleased that this budget includes new measures to help with the cost-of-living pressures, particularly for Australians on low incomes and families with kids at school. We are making very important changes to the family payments system to make them fairer, to make them simpler and of course to ensure long-term sustainability of the family payments system. This will have a major impact upon many families in Richmond, particularly increasing by up to $4,200 the annual rate of family tax benefit A. (Quorum formed)

I am pleased to continue to tell you about the great initiatives delivered by this government in this budget. There is so much to go through. I have mentioned family tax benefit A, under which payments will be increasing by up to $4,200 to help parents keep their teenagers in school or vocational training. That is vitally important. We are also extending the education tax refund and giving parents a choice to have their childcare rebate paid fortnightly, which will cut down on upfront costs. This budget also has a lot of focus on education and training. We know that investing in our productive capacity must include strengthening our skills base and education system. The budget recognises that. It will drive opportunities by these investments. The Australian government are providing an additional $1.2 billion to the Australian Apprenticeship Incentives Program to develop a more skilled Australian workforce.

This budget builds on the government's commitment to ensure all schools provide a quality education. It has delivered $876 million for initiatives that will help ensure that our kids continue to have access to a world-class education system. Those measures include providing $200 million in funding for the More Support for Students with Disabilities initiative, which will benefit students, teachers and their families through many new services. More schools will now have access to chaplains under the $222 million boost to the popular National School Chaplaincy Program. This is in addition to the 2,700 chaplains already operating in our schools. In fact, in the electorate of Richmond 14 schools already employ chaplains, who play a vital role in supporting our children. Another great initiative is the Teach Next program, which has received $18 million over four years to help create postgraduate training pathways for teachers, specifically targeting maths and science. This all builds on the Labor government's many commitments to improving our education system. As I mentioned, in my electorate the BER has delivered more than $115 million for over 200 projects in 90 schools, and I have seen firsthand the great impact this has upon our kids in terms of their being able to access 21st century education systems. We have taken this action because we are committed to providing every student with a world-class education.

The budget builds upon our support for seniors. In previous budgets, we have delivered pension increases for our seniors, and what a vital difference that makes to older Australians right across the country. This budget includes a new work bonus for pensioners, so they can now keep more of their pension whilst working part time. There is $30 million to help mature age workers formalise their trade skills, and there is continuing support for Broadband for Seniors, which is vitally important.

Rural and regional Australia is critical to the Australian economy, generating 60 per cent of our export income and driving Australia's resource and agricultural industries. This budget continues to provide record investment in rural and regional areas. Because we have such a strong commitment, we are delivering over $4.3 billion in new investments. We have further funding to Regional Development Australia to increase the great role they play. And the budget provides a further $20.3 million to strengthen our Regional Development Australia network over the next four years, in addition to our previous funding for RDAs.

I would also like to touch on the issue of roads funding. This government's actions to improve the Pacific Highway have greatly improved the lives of people on the North Coast. The vision of a better, safer and fully duplicated Pacific Highway is much closer to becoming a reality, with the Gillard government prepared to increase our investment in this road by $1 billion as part of this budget. This is vitally important. Our funding for the Pacific Highway needs to be matched by the New South Wales government. It is vitally important they liaise with us and match that funding to make sure we have a shared commitment to completing that highway.

The additional funding contained in the budget brings the total federal investment in the Pacific Highway under the Gillard government to a record $4.1 billion over seven years. This is compared to the former Howard government's record of just $1.3 billion over 12 years. When I look at my electorate, I can see firsthand the difference this has made, particularly the upgrade and realignment of the road at Banora Point, the Sexton Hill upgrade. The federal contribution is $347 million. That is due to be completed in 2012, and it will make a huge difference to be the local community.

Also, work will be starting on the duplication of the road between Tintenbar and Ewingsdale during the coming financial year. The federal contribution is $566 million. This will make a major difference to the North Coast, and it shows how committed the Labor government is to improving the Pacific Highway. As I say, we need to have that funding matched by the New South Wales government.

We are also making significant investments in health. (Quorum formed)

That is the second time the opposition have tried to shut me down while I have been speaking about what we have delivered in this budget—what we have delivered for regional Australia, what we have delivered for education, what we have delivered for health, what we have delivered for roads, what we have delivered right across this country and the difference it is making to families, to seniors and to all areas across Australia. Twice they did not want to hear it. They did not want to hear about the improvements that we are making in people's lives with our massive investments in all these vital areas. They are not interested, and twice they have tried to shut it down.

The fact is that this budget and previous Labor budgets have made a real difference and had a positive impact on the lives of Australians, and this budget builds upon that by providing economic security for all Australians across all areas. It is disgraceful, particularly when I was talking about regional development, that they tried to shut me down. They do not understand regions. They do not understand what is important. It is the Labor government that is investing in our regions, in infrastructure and roads, and providing for them. (Time expired.)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak tonight about the government's well-framed budget, brought down two weeks ago. I want to speak about the government's excellent management of the economy over the last 3½ years. And I want to speak about the impact of one aspect of that excellent economic management in my electorate, specifically the new school buildings which have been built under the Building the Education Revolution program. There have been a large number of buildings. I hear constantly from parents at these schools and I hear from people who have worked on the construction programs at each of these schools just how beneficial those buildings built under the Building the Education Revolution program have been for the schools and how beneficial they have been for employment in our local community.

Two weeks ago, the Treasurer brought down his fourth federal budget in this House. This year's budget was framed at a defining moment for our economy against a backdrop of natural disasters at home and overseas, softer economic conditions in the near term and a return to boom conditions that will stretch our economy's capacity over the coming years. In the face of these complexities, the government's focus with this budget has been clear: to bring the budget back to surplus, to invest in skills and training and to get more Australians into work. This budget lays out our path for returning to surplus in 2012-13 as we committed to do. It does so despite the large downgrades in revenue flowing from the global financial crisis and the natural disasters and as a consequence of our patchwork economy.

There has been an extraordinarily inadequate response from the opposition to the budget brought down by the Treasurer a couple of weeks back. The opposition front bench in fact can barely bring themselves to mention, for example, the global financial crisis. We had last week from the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer, the extraordinary description of the global financial crisis as a 'hiccup'. This 'hiccup' is something we might like to put in context. It is a financial event that saw global output fall for the first time since the 1930s. None of the events of the past seven decades had ever caused global GDP to fall—not World War II, the 1970s oil crisis, Black Monday in 1987 or the Asian financial crisis—but in 2009 the collective output of the world's economies went backwards. And in the shadow Treasurer's mind this constituted a 'hiccup'.

We faced in our country the sharpest, deepest, most synchronised global economic recession in 75 years. On some accounts, by the end of 2010, the loss in global output arising from the shock to global growth could be around US$4 trillion. The number of jobless people worldwide rose by more than 30 million in the past two years, and the destruction of wealth was unprecedented in peacetime. If the shadow Treasurer in this country believes this level of disaster to be a hiccup, I would hate to be around when anyone in the opposition burps. This demonstrates yet again what a risk the member for North Sydney and, I could add, what a risk the Leader of the Opposition would pose to our economy if they were ever to move to the government benches.

The global financial crisis, which the shadow Treasurer chooses to describe as a hiccup, made a $130 billion hit on Australian government revenues. Relative to other industrialised economies, Australia faced the global crisis from a position of considerable strength. We implemented timely and targeted fiscal stimulus packages at the height of the crisis to restore confidence, support investment and minimise job losses.

To speak of just one of those stimulus packages, one part of the government's timely and well-sized stimulus packages, I mention the $16.2 billion Building the Education Revolution program, which is still delivering 23,693 projects in 9,501 schools across Australia. It is a program that has already provided much-needed infrastructure to Australia's schools and to their communities and at the same time protected Australian jobs during the economic downturn. The vast majority of schools and the vast majority of communities in which those schools stand are overwhelmingly happy with the Building the Education Revolution program.

Just to make the point about the timeliness of this stimulus program, which of course has delivered all the time and is going to continue to deliver benefits to schools across Australia, as at 31 March 2011, 90 per cent of all BER projects had been completed. To date the Australian government has paid $15.4 billion in BER project funding to state, Catholic and independent education authorities. Of course, the government has been committed to providing BER funds to the education authorities with both bilateral agreements with state governments and funding agreements with block grants authorities, they being the non-government education authorities.

The Building the Education Revolution program has delivered vital infrastructure to school communities on an unprecedented scale. Indeed, it is a historic investment in the modernisation of Australian schools. Of course, there have been some criticisms. To deal with those criticisms, the government very properly commissioned Mr Brad Orgill and the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce, which delivered its first report on 13 December last year. I think it says it all just to quote the key conclusion expressed by the chairman of the task force, Mr Brad Orgill:

… the vast majority of BER projects across the country in the government and non-government systems are being appropriately and successfully delivered. This has resulted in quality and, from our observations, generally much-needed new school infrastructure, while achieving the primary goal of stimulating economic activity.

I turn now to what the results of the Building the Education Revolution program have been in my own electorate. I will just go through some of the wonderful new buildings that I have been able to open on behalf of the Commonwealth government in my electorate. I say very directly to those opposite that they should perhaps attend some of these openings and hear directly from the schools which are benefiting from this program just what they think of the value that has been given to the Australian community in general and the value that has been given to particular communities from this program. I will start with one of the earlier openings. I had the great privilege on 28 April 2010 of opening the new early learning centre at Mentone Girls Grammar School. A new foyer for the assembly was also part of that project. It is a wonderfully innovative early learning centre. These facilities will continue to serve that school for many years to come. Fran Reddan, the principal, spoke in one of our local papers about the federal government's contribution and said:

Of course we would not have been able to have these projects ready for 2010 without the incredible contribution of the Australian government.

Another early opening in my electorate was on 25 June 2010 when I opened a wonderful building known locally as the sports stadium and community centre at St Joachim's Catholic Primary in Carrum Downs. Desmond Noak, the principal, said that the school could never have afforded to fund these facilities and expressed his gratitude to the federal government for taking the initiative to invest funds in schools.

I go next to the Resurrection Primary School in Keysborough, which I opened on 27 June 2010. It involved almost a complete rebuild of the school but centred on a library and learning centre. The school community was so excited by the results that Steve Bellescini, the principal, produced a booklet on the success of the school's Building the Education Revolution project. Australia's education magazine, Teacher, the national education magazine, published an article on the success of this project. In October 2010, Steve said:

As you know our BER project was a great success thanks to your Government and other factors.

On 5 August 2010, I opened a facility at the Lighthouse Christian College in Keysborough. They received a learning resource centre and library. It is a school with both primary and secondary facilities. They obtained $2 million for their primary facility and were successful in obtaining a grant for the secondary school under the science and language components of the Building the Education Revolution program. Tim Rogers, the principal, said that the entire building project had been on schedule and to budget. He said this very proudly at the opening on 5 August. One of our local papers published a picture of the students at Lighthouse with the caption, 'Students at Lighthouse Christian College couldn't hide their delight when new buildings were opened at the Keysborough school last week. The structure was paid for by the federal government's Building the Education Revolution program.' I recall this opening very sharply because it was at this opening that one of the representatives of the construction companies involved in the project said words to the effect that the stimulus program had kept not only the building going but also his company afloat during the global financial crisis.

On 13 August, I had the pleasure of opening the Skye Primary School's new facility at the southern end of my electorate. People in the school community said to me at the opening and since just how greatly needed those improvements to the school were. (Quorum formed). Those opposite do not want to hear about the success of the Building the Education Revolution program.

The other schools that I have had the great privilege of opening new buildings for in the last several months are: Carrum Downs Primary School, St Anthony's Catholic Primary School, Patterson Lakes Primary School, St Louis De Montfort's Primary School, Rowellyn Park Primary School in Carrum Downs, Berry Street in Noble Park, Aspendale Gardens Primary School, Chelsea Heights Primary School, St John Vianney's Catholic Primary School in Parkdale, Dandenong South Primary, Chelsea Primary and, just last Friday, St Brigid's Primary School in Mordiallic. At every one of these schools parents, teachers, children and the whole of the school community expressed delight at the results of the Building the Education Revolution for their local community. I will end with the words of the chair of the school board at St Brigid's Mordiallic who, in his speech last Friday, said:

I would dread to think how many fundraisers the school would need to have had to raise the monies to actually do this building program and in all reality it would never have happened without the generous assistance of the Federal Government.

It has been a pleasure to be a part of a government, and I am proud to be part of a government, that has contributed in this way. (Time expired)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012, the amendments that have been put forward and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012. One hundred and seven billion dollars or $107,000 million—or about $5,000 for each member of the Australian population—is what the budget says the Australian government will owe on behalf of the Australian people in 12 months time. We are still borrowing $135 million a day. That $135 million a day means that we are going to pay $7 billion a year in interest. The government should really send a bill to the people of Australia so they understand the debt that they have run up on their behalf.

We remember well, when the Rudd Labor government was elected, the promise of surpluses; they were committed to surpluses—'we believe in surpluses'—but, as the member for Longman pointed out in this House the other day, it is, in fact, 21 years since a Labor government delivered a surplus. Now it appears as though the Treasurer knows that as well, even though it took him a day or so to catch up.

But it is worse than that. The NBN, on which the government says it will spend $36 billion, will, in fact, cost $50 billion they have not included the money for Telstra in that sum. The government will borrow $18 billion over the next four years, over the forward estimates, and it is off budget. I know this is technically correct but it is morally dishonest. That is why the government now seeks to lift the borrowing limits of government from $200 billion to $250 billion. Some experts believe that once the $50 billion NBN is completed it may be worth less than $20 billion. Worse still, there is a hole at the heart of the budget and that is the fact that the carbon tax has not been factored in. To propose you can levy an $11 billion tax on the Australian public and business and that it will have no effect is not believable.

One of the things my colleagues have raised is the price increases this will see right throughout the Australian community, the cascading effect of the tax. I am more concerned about the incentive to shop overseas. In fact, the only way to avoid this tax is to buy something that is not made in Australia. That is my chief concern. We are talking about carbon leakage on a grand scale. Paradoxically, the mining tax is in the budget but it is still not in legislation. So we have not seen the mining tax and we have not seen the carbon tax, but the mining tax has been put into the budget. We well remember that after the appointment of the Prime Minister by the Labor Party one of the very first things she did was claim victory in the mining tax negotiations. Here we are, some 11 months later, and still the tax is unsettled.

And the events of the last week would suggest that the tax is more unsettled than ever. When the Western Australians proposed a lift in the royalty rates, which will take $2 billion out of the government's mining tax—if, in fact, it is ever presented in the form they moot—this was so totally predictable. Not only was it telegraphed to the Treasurer but it was totally predictable. As soon as a government says to a state government, 'Look, you can levy whatever tax you like and we'll pick up the bill,' what would you expect to happen? But it was all based on trying to get a quick resolution to get the subject off the front page of the papers. Of course, that has been the modus operandi of the government: so often we have seen things announced before the detail has been worked out. The mining tax is just another example of it. We have seen it with the ETS and we have seen it with the NBN. Remember the $4½ billion model that was announced? That detail was not worked out. East Timor and Malaysia—more announcements with no understanding about how these policies would be implemented, so it was: 'Oh, that will all come later. We'll sort it out then.' Well, it is not easy to sort it out later because expectations are raised in the community and then you have to come back and disappoint someone.

The budget also fails to recognise the supply pressure in the economy. We already have the highest interest rates in the OECD and that supply pressure is goading the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates further, but still the government have borrowed an extra $50 billion in the last 12 months to pump into an economy already reaching capacity constraints. This year they will borrow another $22.6 billion to pump into an economy reaching capacity. As I said, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is daring the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates.

The government has failed on many programs. There has been rampant mismanagement. All have been listed again and again in this House and it takes some running through: the pink batts, the green cars, the cash for clunkers, the green loans, the school halls, the solar panels, the $900 cheques. Those $900 cheques are still recalled with absolute disbelief in the community. There are some other things happening in the budget over which I am starting to have great concern. Take Regional Development Australia—and it is good to see you here, Minister Crean. I am pleased you are here to hear what I have to say. I wrote an article 2½ months ago concerning about whether or not regional Australia will actually see the promised billions. There are 55 RDAs in Australia, as the minister knows, competing for what they thought was $10 billion. In fact, $4 billion of that has been allocated to hospitals, and I thank the Treasurer for the money invested in the Port Lincoln hospital.

So we are talking only about a figure of $6 billion. Of the $6 billion, Regional Development Australia boards have been told: 'We need a great list: I want you to prioritise all these things around Australia so that we can select the most worthy projects.' They have been out there feverishly beavering away, trying to bring some discipline to the situation. Many of them think most of these projects are going to be funded, but in fact we find that only $573 million is available for the RDAs to compete for. There are 55 RDAs in Australia and, incidentally, 11 of them have their headquarters in capital cities. In the budget we find—and I think it was pre-announced—that $480 million of that $573 million is going into Perth Airport. Perth Airport is undoubtedly a worthy project, but it is hardly regional. The minister seems to have signalled that metropolitan Australia is regional and should feel free to apply for these funds as well. There is a growing concern out there that the money promised is not actually going to materialise.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go back to the regional rorts, you reckon, under your government.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not here, the minister might realise.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd be ashamed of it.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was, of course, the $800 million regional priority fund that RDAs could also apply for, but $350 million of that was also lost in the wake of the floods in Queensland. Many people in the community on these RDAs who are giving of their time are expecting to see something better for the future, because that is what the government has promised them. I hope that materialises; I am not sure it will.

I said I would come back to the carbon tax because it is the biggest single threat to my electorate. As I mentioned it is not factored into the budget. I have three companies in my electorate that qualify as major emitters of carbon. One is a lead-zinc production platform in Port Pirie named Nyrstar, OneSteel has a steelmaking enterprise in Whyalla and Alinta runs a coal-fired power station in Port Augusta, producing 40 per cent of the state's capacity of electricity.

Taking Nyrstar first, I was looking at some figures the other day on zinc production and, in Australia, we produce about 50 per cent of the CO2 per tonne of zinc production compared with the Chinese average. If this company were to fail—and I can tell you there are some major investment decisions to be made there in the near future—and if it was to decide that it no longer saw Australia as a safe and profitable place to produce lead and zinc, there is no doubt that capacity will pop up in China or in a similar country. If that results in double the amount of CO2 being emitted it could not possibly be a good thing for the environment, for CO2 production around the world. What it will do is make sure that we have major areas of unemployment.

Regional unemployment is one of the most difficult problems to solve. I look at the OneSteel operation in Whyalla. For the information of the House, when steel is made around 80 per cent of the CO2 produced comes from the process of putting carbon in with the iron to turn it into steel. You simply cannot avoid it. It is a fact of life: if you want to make steel you have to put carbon in with the mix. Taxing this means that ramping up the cost our steel for absolutely no gain, because the process cannot be avoided. The only way you can avoid the tax is to take your industry somewhere else.

I mentioned the coal-fired power station at Port Augusta. There are some big decisions to be made there about opening up new coal pits for the future. It is all very well to talk of the production of CO2 from coal-fired power stations, and probably quite rightly, but the fact remains that that power station produces 40 per cent of the state's electricity. Even in Hindmarsh, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, we might find the lights going a bit dim if we pulled the plug on it, so there has to be a plan for the future.

On a local note concerning the budget, on 24 March this House of Representatives unanimously approved a motion that asked the government to intervene in the case of the Ardrossan, Keith and Moonta hospitals and restore some funding the state government had removed—by reducing the state's specific hospital grants—and paying it directly to the hospitals. Exactly the same motion was moved in the Senate on 12 May, but at this stage we have seen no action from the Minister for Health and Ageing.

I hoped that I might have seen something in the budget and, as there was nothing, I am beginning to wonder what the attitude of the Minister for Health and Ageing is to the will of the parliament. The motions were passed by 100 per cent of members—there was certainly no dissent from either House—and it would indicate to me that the members of this place feel quite strongly about this subject. I call on the minister once again to intervene in the situation. I have said repeatedly that I can understand if the minister would not want to do exactly as the House and the Senate proposed but, as the major provider of finance to the state, it is in the minister's power to pick up the phone to the state government and say, 'Fix the problem.' We are talking about a little over a million dollars a year. In the overall scheme of things, this is chicken feed.

In closing, this is a budget built on optimism. It is optimistic that China will continue to boom. It is optimistic that the European debt crisis will not lead to a lack of confidence around the world. Every day when we pick up the papers one would have to wonder what is going to happen next. A budgetary situation can deteriorate quite quickly because, remember, just six months ago we were expecting a deficit of $41.5 billion. Now it is $50 billion—a deterioration of $8½ billion or $47 million a day. This budget is based on an extreme dose of optimism. It will be lucky if it can face the test of the next four years. (Time expired)

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here today representing the people of Macarthur and raising their concerns about the budget and its impact upon their lives. These are serious concerns because they have been neglected for too long. The decent, hardworking people of Macarthur, the forgotten families of south-western Sydney, are really doing it tough and the government is not paying attention. Not only are these people reeling from cost-of-living pressures but also they see no relief in this budget from a government that has lost touch with everyday Australians. They are also frustrated at the lack of infrastructure being delivered, given the growth that is occurring in our region which will result in our population doubling in the next 20 years.

Next month I will be convening a meeting to discuss infrastructure funding for the region and identifying specific projects with newly elected members for the state seats of Campbelltown, Wollondilly and Camden along with all mayors and general managers for those local government areas. One can only hope that the new direct phone line that New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell has to the Prime Minister's office–the bat phone, bypassing the boy wonder of infrastructure—will deliver the appropriate infrastructure to sustain the growth that will occur in our region, because that appropriate infrastructure is something that is sadly lacking and not identified in this budget. Let us hope Infrastructure Australia and Infrastructure New South Wales are on the same wavelength and address my community's needs.

Everywhere across this nation, hardworking Australians are feeling the pinch as they try to keep up with increasing cost-of-living pressures and with tax increases in the form of the compulsory flood levy and the looming carbon tax. With the budget as it is, families in Macarthur will feel the pinch even more as family tax benefits are frozen and tight thresholds are introduced. Increases to the fringe benefits tax will also hit the hip pocket of workers and tradespeople in Macarthur as the government continues its systematic crackdown on honest, hardworking Australians.

The Treasurer would like us all to believe that this budget is a responsible reduction in government spending. However, in reality under this budget we will still be borrowing at least $135 million each and every day. The hardworking families of Macarthur, and indeed Australia, are already facing substantial cost-of-living pressures at the current level of interest rates. The increased upward pressure on wages, the sustained high value of our dollar and the excessive amount of government expenditure that has characterised this government is forcing the Reserve Bank to consider raising interest rates in the coming months. This will be detrimental to the wellbeing and quality of life of many families in my electorate if this occurs. Many families in my electorate are already in mortgage poverty and face losing their homes if there are further interest rate hikes. There have been seven interest rate rises in a row, which has increased average mortgage repayments by more than $500 per month. How much more pain is this Greens-Gillard government going to inflict on hardworking Australians?

This budget does not go far enough in reducing wasteful government expenditure to relieve this pressure on interest rates. For example, the government has allowed a budget blow-out of $1.75 billion to deal with the illegal boat people crisis and detention centres, and there is a $21 million advertising campaign for a carbon tax, yet that tax does not even rate a mention in the budget. Such continued wasteful expenditure by this government will only place pressure on interest rates to rise further, placing even more strain on the families of Australia.

The people of Australia are making the tough decisions to tighten their spending in the face of higher costs of living, so why can't this government do the same? In respect of taxes, has the Treasurer considered the huge financial burden that a $26 per tonne carbon tax would add to the already stretched budgets of average Australian families? Most people in Macarthur are conscious of their environmental footprint and want to ensure that there is sensible and practical action taken to minimise our impact on the environment. But I cannot honestly say that there are many people in the electorate of Macarthur who believe any good will come out of this carbon tax. As the Hon. Tony Abbott recently said:

The smart way to improve the environment is not to impose a new tax on the way every Australian lives and works but to reduce emissions via common sense environmental improvements that everyone can support.

This carbon tax is starting to echo past failed policies shamefully pushed to the back of the Treasurer's sock drawer—policies like the bungled home insulation scheme, the massive BER rip-off, Australia's border protection and detention centre crisis, the mining resource rent tax, the computers in schools blow-out, the Green Loans program, cash for clunkers and now the embarrassing set-top box fiasco, just to name a few.

The Prime Minister has thrown around the idea of compensation for low-income families but what compensation is there for a dad who's just lost his job because his manufacturing plant cannot compete with cheap imports from cutthroat overseas competitors? What compensation is there for communities that may lose their main source of employment in mining areas such as the Wollondilly Shire or manufacturing hubs such as Narellan, Smeaton Grange and Williamson Road in the Macarthur region?

While I do welcome initiatives to help welfare-dependent teenage mothers get back to school, along with the support to help long-term welfare recipients get back into the workforce, I believe it is a shame that the government is only trialling these measures, as they could potentially bring positive change to so many struggling families within the Macarthur region. For too long the people of Macarthur have been stereotyped and it is a shame that the pilot program for teenage mums will not be trialled in my electorate even though it was announced in Ambarvale by the Prime Minister. The tough love announcement was not very well received by community leaders. Why announce it in the Macarthur region and then not trial it there? Just using the people of Macarthur as tools to promote policy and then not spend a cent to assist them is beyond comprehension. The Benevolent Society, although welcoming the Prime Minister's announcement, also criticised the removal of payments to parents supporting young children as not helpful under any circumstances.

While I would welcome any money for mental health in the Macarthur region, in reality the government is only providing $47.3 million in new funding for mental health in 2011-12 while cutting $62.8 million from existing programs. The government's policy is heavily back-ended in relation to mental health funding, with 74 per cent—which is $481 million—to be spent in the last two years of the five-year program. The coalition has announced that it will spend $1.9 billion on mental health. This is real money and offers targeted, strategic and real reform.

The Australian Medical Association is concerned that a big slice of the new funding for the mental health package has been cut from existing general practice mental health services and related psychological services. These services are evidence based and were recently positively reviewed, but the money has been reallocated to other programs which are less evidence based. The association would prefer that the funds were reallocated from less critical areas such as the GP superclinic program and the untested Medicare Locals program or the set-top box program than from GP services which help the neediest patients. I agree with the Australian Medical Association that mental health is an area which requires additional investment, not reallocation of funds. It is too simplistic an approach to shift funding from one needy group of patients to another. This is a stealing from Peter to pay Paul policy. Small businesses are the foundation of our economy and need to be supported by the government. Now more than ever they need our support. Small businesses provide a substantial amount of employment and economic activity in Macarthur and I am proud to say that the coalition is committed to annual reductions in red tape for small business as well as lowering the costly burden of regulation. This red tape costs industry more than $1 billion each year.

The coalition is, and always has been, a strong supporter of small business. In Macarthur, small businesses provide the bulk of employment and nationally 95.6 per cent of all businesses are small businesses . B e they farmers, sole traders, cafes, manufacturers, hairdressers, retailers or financial service providers , small businesses are vitally important to Macarthur's success as a region and Australia's su ccess as a nation. In 2008- 09 , small businesses employed roughly 4.8 million people, accounting for 48 per cent of private sector employment .

I would like to digress for a moment and tell this House what a number of small businesses in the Macarthur region have done w orking hand in hand with a group of passionate , dedicated and extremely hard working mums in my electorate. I ha ve spoken about th ese exceptional ladies before. T hey are the mums of The Right Start Foundation and they are working towards building Australia's first Down Syndrome specific centre in the Macarthur region . Glenda Graban , Darien Gray and an army of mothers have banded together with Steve Wisbey from My Gateway , Pro Corp , Ray Hadley from 2GB, Macarthur Credit Union and more than 30 local busin esses to build a beautiful four- bedroom home at the new Oran Park Estate. This house was recently sold for $521,000 and will see $100,000 profit go towards building this much needed Down Syndrome c entre in the Macarthur region . I am very proud to be a supporter of T he Right Start Foundation. My community finds it extremely alarming that groups with special needs such as The Right Start Foundation struggle to obtain funding, but this government sees fit to allocate $10 million to the unions to establish a website in this budget. It is very hard to explain to my community.

I would like to convey a message I received from a constituent in response to the proposed changes to the fringe benefits tax thresholds. He proposed that , instead of punishing tradies , shift workers and commuters who have to drive more than 120 kilometres a day to get to and from work , the government should target investment towards creating productivity centres in and around major population centres.

In my electorate, Campbelltown City Council just held an employment land review to create employment opportunities for people to live and wor k in their own community. It is anticipated that the south-w est sub region of Sydney will need to create 141,000 new full- time jobs by 2036. Federal investment is needed to create these employment lands.

It is vitally important for the Macarthur region to align job growth to population growth and to grow and develop our local skills base to provide more opportunities for growing advanced services such as business and technology parks. A vast majority of employed people in Macarthur have to commute out of the area for work. By investing in local productivity centre s, be they commercial business parks or scientific and high- tech manufacturing hubs, we could not only ease congestion on our major arterial routes but also give many workers a better work- life balance with less time spent on the road reducing their rising petrol bills.

Unfortunately for my constituents , the people of Macarthur have been saddled with a big - spending government that likes to talk the talk but will not walk the walk of responsible fiscal policy. If this government were serious about giving hard working Australian taxpayers real value for money from their taxes , they would no t be throwing away $350 for a set- top bo x which Harvey Norman can supply and install for nearly half the price. What a ridiculous policy.

If this government w ere serious about addressing environmental issues , they would no t be spruiking expensive and untested pet projects s uch as the carbon tax without fully exploring what benefits it will reap for the environment. If it were serious , it would take the time to understand what implications a great big new tax like this has for the Australian economy.

If the government w ere serious about helping Australia's forgotten families , they would not be cutting and freezing muc h needed family payments, n o r would they be treating tradies and workers who live in outer suburban areas like tax cheats and increasing the fringe benefit ta x rate for people driving more than 45,000 k ilometres a year.

If the government were serious about protecting our borders , we would no t be facing a $1.75 billion blow-out in costs for managing detention centres. And now the government has decided that swapping the boats is easier than stopping the boats and is preparing to foot a $70,000 per person bill for illegal immigrant boat people under their new Malaysia scheme. Imagine the good work a number of our local charities could do if they were given that kind of funding. Sadly , I do no t believe that this government is serious about getting Australia back on track. This budget represents a failed government that is leading Australians down a very dark garden path and placing Australia's economic prosperity in peril .

This is a budget hand crafted by a government that has no scruples about openly lying to the Australian people , introducing crippling carbon taxes for which they have no mandate. It i s time that the Australian people had a government that is competent, responsible and effective , a government that Tony Abbott and the coalition can and will deliver.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our budget is about opportunity. As Treasurer Swan said in this place on 10 May, this budget is built on our firmest convictions. Our plan begins with a new approach to training. In my opinion, this is long overdue. We are putting industry at the heart of a $558 million National Workforce Development Fund that will deliver 130,000 new training places over four years. For businesses in my electorate, as well as for kids who are hoping to gain apprenticeships when they leave school, I am sure this is welcome news.

We are also better meeting the needs of industries in regions with a $101 million national mentoring program to help 40,000 apprentices finish training. We know that at the moment only half of those who start an apprenticeship actually finish it, so this move is very important. We are also accelerating apprenticeships, letting apprentices progress as they acquire the right skills, by investing $100 million in more flexible training models. People learn at different paces, so this is a solid move. We are investing $1.75 billion in addition to our existing $7 billion investment to leverage ambitious reforms to the vocational education and training system.

I am pleased to note that we are also funding 30,000 more places in language, literacy and numeracy programs to provide the basic skills essential for a job. We believe our economy cannot afford to waste a single pair of capable hands. All Australians should be afforded the dignity of work. In my electorate of Bass, there are at present 1,793 very-long-term unemployed people who have not worked for two years or more. This budget offers opportunity for these individuals and their families. Our strong economy is boosting incomes and creating jobs.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I need to draw your attention to the state of the House.

The bells being rung—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the view of the government that if the opposition do not wish parliament to continue then that is their decision. If they want to shut down the parliament, that is a decision they can wear. There is no intention on the part of the government to continue the parliamentary sitting this evening if that is the view of the opposition.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not the intention of the opposition to shut down the parliament. The intention is to abide by the standing orders, and the standing orders say that if at any time attention is drawn to the level of a quorum—

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

Order! The member for Paterson will resume his seat. A quorum has been called. When there is no quorum in the House we can call a quorum. I inform members that, once you have entered the House to form a quorum, you should not leave the House.

(Quorum formed)

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

Under standing order 32(a), I move that:

The House do now adjourn.

Question put.

The House divided. [9.32 pm]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.

House adjourned at 21:40