Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the order for the consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to by the House previously be varied by considering the proposed expenditure for the Infrastructure and Transport Portfolio after the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Portfolio.

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

Is the suggestion of the minister agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Defence Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $24,003,348,000

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take this opportunity to make some introductory remarks about the Defence budget. The first priority of the Defence budget is to support our servicemen and servicewomen deployed overseas. It is important to reinforce this message at a time when the ADF is coming to terms with the loss of four of our brave service personnel in the space of just two weeks. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Defence and the member for Fadden in the House of Representatives today and I would like to extend my condolences to the family, friends and comrades of Sapper Rowan Robinson, as well as to those of Sergeant Brett Wood, Lance Corporal Andrew Jones and Lieutenant Marcus Sean Case.

The budget includes a total of $1.9 billion for ADF operations next year to fund our troops operating in Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands. It also continues the government's total investment of $1.6 billion in force protection measures for our troops in Afghanistan, with nearly half a billion to be spent in the next 12 months. This new equipment includes the new TBAS lighter combat armour that will go with the Third Mentoring Task Force, which is deploying at the moment. It also includes heavier calibre weapons and extra protective armour for our Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles, attaching of mine rollers to the front of those Bushmasters to roll ahead of the vehicle and take the impact of an IED explosion, as well as the delivery of the counter rocket, artillery and mortar early sense and warn system and new handheld mine detectors.

In addition to this, the Minister for Defence and I today announced that the government will contribute more than $9 million towards research for the protection of soldiers of the Australian Defence Force. Along with this government contribution, industry will provide around $11 million in cash-and-kind contributions. The project is a partnership between government, the defence industry and some prominent research organisations. The project aims to improve the protective equipment that our soldiers wear to combat a range of existing and evolving threats, including IEDs. It will develop, test and evaluate prototypes of new equipment in order to improve ballistic blast and flash protection, improve head, face and eye protection, decrease the weight and bulk of protective systems, reduce blunt trauma that can occur behind armour, reduce the risk of a soldier being detected and improve the protection from fire, chemical, biological and radiological threats.

The Defence Materials Technology Centre will lead the team, with the support of research organisations like the University of Wollongong and RMIT. Confirmed industry partners include Australian Defence Apparel, Ballistic and Mechanical Testing, Bruck Textiles, Tectonica, Pacific Engineering Systems International and the Victorian Centre for Advanced Materials Manufacturing. In addition to this, a number of other companies have expressed an interest in participating in the program. The research team will also work with Army's specialist team of soldiers who have recently returned from Afghanistan, called Diggerworks.

The government's first priority is to support our troops on operations. The budget also recognises that Defence needs to play its part in the government's overall fiscal strategy to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. This year Defence will return to government $1.6 billion in unspent funds for the budget bottom line. The 2010-11 underspend of $1.6 billion is a combination of slippage in major capital projects, savings in operating funds and a saving on the cost of the new C17 aircraft. In addition, Defence will deliver savings to government of $2.7 billion across the forward estimates. This includes savings of $1.3 billion from additional reforms and efficiencies such as increased shared services and other efficiency measures by reducing the growth of Defence's civilian staffing by 1,000. It also includes reprogramming of $1.3 billion in capital funding and $100 million savings from the cancellation of procurement of two additional C130J aircraft following the government's acquisition of a fifth C17 aircraft. (Extension of time granted) Some concerns have been raised about the impact of the budget on the defence industry, and I would like to make a few short points.

The first point I make is that most of the changes in the AMCIP are because a number of projects are behind schedule. This money is paid to companies when they meet certain milestones, and unfortunately some of those milestones have not been met yet. Examples of those are projects like the new air-to-air refuellers, the Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft and the replacement helicopter for our Blackhawks. These projects are behind schedule and, as a result, payments have not been made. That means that money is rolled over or deferred in the Defence budget into later years.

The second point is that over the course of the next decade we are going to spend more, not less, on defence here in Australia. Defence spending in Australia will go from about $5.5 billion to $7.5 billion per year by the end of the decade. The third important point to mention is that the majority of work that is done by Australia's defence industry is in sustaining our defence assets. Defence's maintenance budget is forecast to grow from $5.3 billion, as it is this financial year, to $5.6 billion next financial year, and it will grow to $6.1 billion in 2014-15. This means more work for Australian industry, because 70 to 75 per cent of that work is done by Australian companies.

Finally, I want to briefly address the issues that were raised on the Four Corners program last night. The allegations raised in that program are very concerning and will be investigated as part of the review of allegations of sexual and other abuse that are being undertaken by DLA Piper. The Secretary to the Department of Defence has engaged the independent legal firm DLA Piper to review each allegation raised to determine the most appropriate way for these complaints to be addressed and whether further independent action is required to deal with any such matters. It is important to note that anyone who wishes to raise concerns about sexual or other abuse should do that by contacting DLA Piper on the following number: 1800424991.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Minister for Defence Materiel for his agreement that we can be civilised about our affairs in the House. If I could refer the minister to page 6 of The cost of Defence: ASPI Defence budget brief 2011-2012, it states: 'Implementation of Force 2030 is on track but under pressure.' No such claim appears anywhere in this year's budget paraphernalia. Nor, however, is there any concession to the contrary. Indeed, Defence distributed a brief on budget night that said that the majority of adjustments to funding for Force 2030 projects in the budget involve projects commencing before the 2009 Defence white paper. Unless anyone be confused, they reiterate the same point four times on the one page, as if only the handful of projects commenced after the 2009 white paper count towards Force 2030.

They can change the goalposts all they want, but the fact remains that the implementation of Force 2030 has fallen steadily behind schedule. First pass approvals, the lead indicators of future activity, are most telling. Over the past 24 months a mere 10 projects have been given the nod, whereas more than three times that number were planned. And it is set to get worse. According to the latest revision of the public DCP, around 58 first pass approvals are going to be required over the next 25 months to meet the current schedule, as updated in this year's budget. The question, Minister, is: in the 2011-12 financial year, how many first pass approvals do you actually believe the government will see passed within the apparatus of government?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. It is a question that was raised in estimates by the shadow minister for defence, and I might refer the member to the answer that the Secretary of Defence gave in terms of Defence's commitment to increasing the number of projects, both first and second pass, that will be approved by the government, with the assistance of Defence, in the next financial year.

Can I say something generally about Force 2030. It is a big challenge. Implementing it is going to require the ongoing focus of government, Defence and the defence industry. The government remains committed to delivering Force 2030 as set out in the white paper and the DCP. It is important to note that since coming to office the government has approved projects worth over $8 billion and over the course of the next 12 to 18 months the government intends to approve projects worth over $6 billion, including the new naval combat helicopter as well as the new protected medium to heavy weight trucks for the Army. The government is focused on delivering the program that is set out in the white paper, but what is even more important is making sure that we get it right. I, like the Minister for Defence—and I am sure the shadow minister would agree with me here—believe that it is more important to take time and get these projects right than it is to have to fix them up afterwards.

A lot of work has been done over the last few years to improve defence procurement, but there is still a lot more work to do. One of the biggest challenges that Defence faces now and has faced in the past is that of delay. If we buy equipment off the shelf, more than likely it arrives on time and on budget. If we are buying equipment that needs to be modified, on average that equipment is about 23 per cent late. If we are buying equipment that is developmental, then on average that equipment is about 66 per cent late. Right across the suite of defence projects at the moment, on average projects are delivered about 20 per cent late. That is better than the United Kingdom does and it is better than the United States does, but that does not mean that it is good enough. It is vital that we provide the right equipment to our men and women of the Australian Defence Force and that we do it on time. We make big decisions that have strategic consequences and enormous financial implications, and the government will not apologise for taking the appropriate time to consider these important issues when investing billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. There is a lot more that we can do to make Defence more efficient and to improve defence procurement. The Minister for Defence and I announced the first stage of these reforms last month, including requiring Defence to do a cost-benefit analysis if they recommend government does not buy a piece of equipment off the shelf. It also includes an early warning system that is triggered if a project starts to fall behind schedule. The simple reason for this is that the earlier we get that information the earlier we can take action to fix the problem.

An important part of the reforms that were announced by the minister and me last month was the implementation of the Mortimer recommendations. By and large the recommendations set out in Malcolm Kinnaird's report from 2003 have been implemented and are having a major and positive impact on defence procurement. Some of the Mortimer recommendations have been implemented, but not all, and the government has made it very clear to Defence that it expects those to be implemented as a matter of priority. The key recommendations include the one I spoke of, the cost-benefit analysis for projects that are not off the shelf. They also include establishing project directives to provide clear direction to defence on decisions made by the government regarding defence capabilities. They also involve establishing an independent project performance office, regular accountability reporting to government from capability managers, and creating a more disciplined process for changing the scope of a project. In addition to that, we have also written to the Auditor-General asking that the Auditor-General conduct its planned audit of the implementation of the Mortimer report in the second half of this year. All of these things, plus the other reforms we announced on that day, are important parts of improving defence procurement because, as well as getting projects approved, it is important that we get them off to the right start, approve the right projects and identify where problems emerge early so that we can fix them more quickly.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in terms of project deferral, some commentators have mentioned that since Labor came to government the project deferrals have now topped about $14 billion worth of projects that have been pushed to the right. I ask the Minister for Defence Materiel to take on notice to provide to the parliament a list of every project that has been deferred, including its capital value and from when it was supposed to deliver to when it will deliver. I leave that on notice with the minister.

I will now look at some issues with respect to that. Considering that there is now a significant bubble of projects to achieve Force 2030 being pushed to the right, Minister, what extra percentage of work can DMO manage? Can it actually manage that bubble coming to the right? Also, what percentage can industry manage both locally and globally to deal with that impending bubble?

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

For the information of the member for Fadden and everybody else, we still go through the chair for this process. I know it sounds ridiculous, but could you speak through me; otherwise, Hansard finds it a bit—

Mr Robert interjecting—

No, it is all right; it is an easy mistake. In the setting it makes more sense to do what you have done, but the technicality of the standing orders requires something different.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of the shadow minister for defence science, technology and personnel, I will take that question on notice. With respect to the white paper, I mentioned in my comments in response to his previous question that I recognise that implementation of the white paper is a big challenge and it is going to require the focus and attention of both Defence and industry and, for that matter, the government. The work required is going to require an enormous amount of DMO, as it is of industry, and we will only be successful in its implementation if we work together.

An important part of that is the Capability Development Advisory Forum, sometimes referred to as CDAF. This is an important forum where Defence and industry can work together and look through the projects that are in the DCP to make sure that industry is capable of ramping up to meet the requirements of the projects set out in the DCP. My impression upon taking this office is that the CDAF has not been working as effectively as it should or as it could. I announced at the ADM conference in February that I want that organisation to be reinvigorated. Most particularly, I want to see the reinvigoration of the working groups that sit under it for land, sea and air. This should be a forum where industry is not just lectured to. It should be a forum where industry works cooperatively with Defence to make sure that it not only understands what the projects are in the forward plan for Defence but understands and can provide advice to Defence about how to smooth out the rollout of those projects and improve the pipeline of projects. I do not underestimate the challenge. It is a significant one. One of the ways to assist Defence and assist industry in the implementation of Force 2030 is by working together, and the CDAF is an important part of that.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, considering that in the last three years of the Howard government the number of first-pass project approvals through cabinet was something like 30 per annum, give or take, why has the average of your government been 10, and how can the parliament have confidence that you have the capacity to ramp it up going forward?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. He is very experienced in this area and so would know that defence acquisition is a cyclical or a chunky business. You have a lot of projects sometimes go to second pass, which can lead to a big ramp-up for industry, and then there is a gap and then there is another big increase in second pass projects. If you look at a number of projects approved by the Howard government in 2007, that is a good example of that. It is a challenge for industry worldwide. I know that the member for Fadden, like myself, is concerned about Australian industry. What is important to point out is that, unlike acquisition, which can be a chunky business, the sustainment of defence equipment is not as cyclical and is a lot smoother. As I said in my introductory comments, most of the Australian defence industry works in the area of sustainment. About 70 to 75 per cent of sustainment is done by the defence industry and about 75 per cent of Australian industry's work is in sustainment. That has continued to grow over the course of the forward estimates. From $5.3 billion this financial year it will grow to $5.6 billion in 2011-12. In the year 2014-15 that will grow again to $6.1 billion, which is a significant increase over time and will be of enormous assistance to the defence industry.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been much media commentary with respect to the impact on Force 2030. Indeed, General Molan only yesterday came out to say that in his view Force 2030 is almost unachievable now because of the level of deferment to the right. As the minister, what is your ministerial and indeed professional view on your government's capacity now to achieve Force 2030 considering that projects have been pushed to the right?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I have answered that question in my responses to previous questions. I made it quite clear that I believe this is a significant challenge but one that can be implemented with the focus of defence government and industry working together. You talked about projects moving to the right. There are a lot of reasons why money has been deferred in this budget, by and large because projects are running late. If you go to page 109 of the ASPI paper, ASPI makes the point that about 80 per cent of the movement of money to the right has to do with projects running late. When projects run late, industry responsible for those projects do not get paid and money rolls over to different financial years.

A good example of that is the air-to-air refuellers project, where there has been a deferral of $316 million for the acquisition of five air-to-air refuellers due to schedule delays, including in relation to deficiencies in the refuelling system, which recently suffered an in-flight failure. The multirole helicopters, the MRH90s, are another example where there has been a deferral of $93 million for the acquisition of 46 MRH90 helicopters. Technical issues there include engine and system reliability that have led to poor flying rates and the project being delayed. New facilities for the Army's 3rd Battalion involve the deferral of $43 million for facility construction and upgrades due to continued wet weather, site identification delays in Townsville and delays in the tender process. At Singleton new accommodation, working and security upgrades at RAAF Base Amberley involve the deferral of $23.3 million due to unexpected environmental and heritage assessment work and a dispute with the contractor. Some of the other materiel projects which are running behind schedule, and as a consequence money has been deferred, include the armed reconnaissance helicopter, where there has been a deferral of $17 million; the high-capacity communications satellite project, where there has been a deferral of $70 million; the Wedgetail project, otherwise known as the airborne early warning and control aircraft project, where there has been a deferral of $61 million; and the air warfare destroyer project, where there has been a deferral of $55 million. There has also been slippage about across 25 minor projects which total about $178 million. This is, I guess, the nub of the challenge. These are big projects listed in the DCP. Where delay occurs, industry does not get paid and money slips to future years. The challenge for us collectively is to improve schedule and reduce delay. As I said in my answer to a previous question, this is what focuses my attention. We do better than the United States and we do better than the United Kingdom when it comes to delay but I do not think that is good enough. The reforms that the government is focused on are all about trying to make sure that we get projects right when they are approved by the national security committee of the cabinet and where problems are identified that they are identified early. The earlier you identify them, the earlier they can be fixed.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have always wanted to ask you a question, Minister, regarding phase 1B of the AIR 7000 to see if you are across the 300 or 400 projects. Phase 1B is, of course, the multimission unmanned aerial vehicles, the strategic UAE capability. In 2006 the estimated year of decision for the unmanned aerials was 2007-08 and anticipated costs were $1 billion to $1.5 billion. The 2009 DCP now has the year of decision going out to 2019, a slippage of 11 years. Can the minister possibly explain the strategic rationale for a slippage of 11 years in terms of what is a high-end maritime surveillance capability?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. I presume you are talking about Global Hawk.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Heaven forbid the military situate the appreciation, Minister, in terms of what capability it should it be. It was simply a strategic UAE program, of which Global Hawk is one such system I am sure the government could look to acquire.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I mentioned Global Hawk because I understand that the opposition's election policy at the last election specified that as being potentially the piece of unmanned aircraft equipment that could fill this gap in the capability program. For the information of the member, I visited US Naval Air Command in Maryland and spoke to the US Navy about this project when I was in the United States in December. I also met with Northrop Grumman, who are the people who build Global Hawk, which is a potential piece of equipment to meet this capability. I discussed this with them while visiting their facility in Bethpage.

Their advice to me is that the current Global Hawk is not the right aircraft for what we need. That is because Global Hawk only has limited radar and sensors designed for surveillance in built-up areas and mountainous terrain. That is why the US Air Force use it mostly over land. It is why the US Navy is investing in developing a new version specifically for use over coastal areas and in open ocean patrols. Northrop Grumman is developing this new variant of Global Hawk, expected to be called Triton. That will have radars and sensors specifically designed for maritime use. It will have endurance to patrol thousands of kilometres at a time. Its sensors will give a 360-degree view of activity on the ocean surface. Once Triton is fully developed, and it is still in its development stage, we look forward to looking at the project carefully in the context of our commitments in the DCP to acquire an unmanned aircraft for maritime patrols. I think that probably covers it.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Minister, it does not make a difference how carefully you look at it, you have slipped it 11 years in the DCP. The question remains: what is the strategic rationale for slipping a high-end unmanned, high-altitude, low-endurance surveillance capability? What is the strategic rationale for slipping it 11 years?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. The strategic rationale is this: if it does not exist, you cannot buy it.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps, Minister, the government is just broke. But, let us move on, shall we? With respect to LAND 121 phase 3, being the light truck phase, and phase 4, being ostensibly the JLTV—let us call it—could you provide advice as to when decisions are being made on phase 3 and phase 4 of LAND 121?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to do that, plus provide a bit of additional information which the member for Fadden may be interested in. On 12 May the Minister for Defence and I announced the government had approved the purchase of 101 Bushmasters. The Bushmaster is an outstanding vehicle. It has saved dozens of Australian lives. The workers at the Bendigo factory that build the Bushmaster are doing a great job, and I have been down there, like the member for Fadden, to thank them for the work that they do. The purchase of an additional 101 Bushmasters provides for operational attrition. Thirty-one Bushmasters have been damaged beyond repair in recent years and their replacement with a further 70 vehicles will support current and future operations. This announcement obviously has flow-on effects for Thales and their workforce in Bendigo.

The member asked about the timing of LAND 121 phase 3. I can advise the member that Defence has now tested the vehicles supplied as part of the tender evaluation process and Defence will next make recommendations and put these to the government for consideration. This has not happened yet but is expected to take place in the coming months. The member also asked some questions in relation to phase 4. This is a program that has two parts to it: the JLTV program as well as the 'manufactured and supported in Australia' part of that program. The testing and analysis part of the program for this phase of 121 is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2011.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you referred to the 101 extra Bushmasters, but the question is: are they the enhanced Bushmaster? As you are aware, the Brits requested a range of up-armouring, especially under the leg platforms, where drivers and co-drivers sit. Are those 101 Bushmasters getting the level of enhancement that the Brits are getting with their order?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. The best way to answer this question is to at first direct the member to the press release that Minister Smith and I issued, which indicates that we are doing some work with Thales and the team at Bendigo for the potential to do additional work on the Bushmaster which will take it to an extra STANAG level. That work is being done with Thales. If we are confident that the work can be done and it will be effective, then we will enter into an agreement with Thales. That is work that is currently being done between DMO and Thales.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to LAND 121 phase 4, the government initially, to their great shame, put $40 million into development as part of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program with the US looking at, I believe, nine prototypes of vehicles. Considering none of those prototypes are actually going forward into the final JLTV bill with the US, can the minister explain what exact value the Commonwealth got for its $40 million worth of expenditure?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. The JLTV program is a United States Army led multiservice initiative to develop a family of future light tactical vehicles. The program aims to deliver around 60,000 vehicles to the United States Army and Marine Corps. To date, as the member has said, Australia has been participating in the technology development phase of the program as part of LAND 121 phase 4. LAND 121 phase 4 will provide the Australian Defence Force with a light, protected mobility vehicle which will serve as the platform for specialist roles such as reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and command and control. Our participation in the JLTV program commenced in January 2009. The cost to date of that participation is around $40 million. Participation in the technology development phase has not committed Australia to a particular way forward for the project, and that decision will be a matter for government. The technology development phase is now complete. Defence is now negotiating with the US government to determine the potential benefits and costs of Australian participation in the next phase, the engineering development phase, of the JLTV program. This consideration will include the compatibility of potential JLTV solutions with Australian requirements and the schedule implications of participating in the program. Part of this consideration as well would include exploring avenues for Australian industry participation in the overall JLTV program.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, last month when you came to South Australia as part of the community cabinet you heard from Chris Burns from the Defence Teaming Centre in South Australia. Chris represents, I believe, about 130 organisations that have a very keen interest in the defence sector in South Australia. In fact, in South Australia the defence sector is one of the key employer groups, as you would quite rightly understand. It is very significant to the northern region of Adelaide, part of which I represent. In conjunction with the Royal Australian Air Force base that is out there—and now the relocation of the 7RAA battalion to the defence base—and the DSTO, there are considerable employment opportunities in that sector broadly, and that is further enhanced by some of the organisations that are now based in Technology Park in Mawson Lakes. I am also aware that General Dynamics is located in the Mawson Lakes precinct and has also been a major contributor to the defence employment sector in South Australia.

I know that there had been some concerns expressed by some of the defence related industries in South Australia with respect to some of the ongoing work that has originated from the many contracts that South Australia has been able to secure. I know that, as part of your visit to South Australia, you had intended to speak with Chris Burns, to perhaps give him an update as to how some of those contracts were going and in particular to provide him with information, which I believe you did, about the security of some of those contracts and the ongoing employment that they provide for South Australians.

I was wondering if you would be able to update the House on your discussion with Chris Burns and in particular some of the important defence contracts that South Australia is currently engaged in. While you are at it perhaps you could also update the House with respect to the bid by General Dynamics to also win one of those contracts, which I know they have been seeking to do for some time and which I know was critical to their ongoing operations in the Mawson Lakes precinct. I have visited General Dynamics in the past. I know that they have been involved in providing defence equipment for the government for several years now, but I know that there was also a recent contract that would have been very crucial to their ongoing operations.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. It was only recently that I was in the member for Makin's electorate as part of the community cabinet. He rightly points out that I had a good opportunity to have a discussion with Chris Burns. I met Chris on a previous occasion, when I went down to South Australia to talk about the defence issues specific to South Australia. South Australia is sometimes referred to as the 'defence state', and with good reason: there are a great number of defence projects in South Australia, including the sustainment of the Collins submarine fleet and the construction of a large number of blocks for the AWD project, as well as their eventual consolidation. We did talk about the General Dynamics through-life support contract for the maintenance of our LAVs and our Abrams tanks, and I am pleased to advise the member that that contract has now been entered into by Defence and GD. It was entered into late last month. That is an important contract not only for GD but for the people of South Australia. It will employ dozens of South Australians as well as people in the Northern Territory and in other parts of the country.

The other point that I made to Chris in my conversation with him at the community cabinet—it is one that I have made to the member for Fadden in our discussion here this afternoon—was about growth in the sustainment budget. Most Australian defence companies work in sustainment, or the maintenance of our defence equipment. The sustainment budget is growing, from $5.3 billion this financial year to $5.6 billion next financial year, and up to $6.1 billion in 2014-15. Seventy to 75 per cent of what the defence industry in Australia does is in this space, so that growth in the maintenance budget means good things for South Australia and good things for the defence industry.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With reference to Land 121 phase 3, as you are aware, Minister, the decision was initially due in October last year, and it was then pushed to after Christmas. You have made the statement that it will be delivered in the second half of this year. As you would be aware, before the announcement of the 101 extra Bushmasters, there would have been no work for the 300-odd men and women at Thales by August this year. The announcement of the extra Bushmasters has thrown them a lifeline, until the end of the year. If Thales do not win the contract, they have only a number of months to find other work before, again, 300 people in Bendigo are put out of work. My question to you is a simple one, Minister: why has there been literally a 12-month delay on the appointment of the winning tenderer for Land 121 phase 3?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. He talks about whether Thales might win that contract. I cannot talk to that as it is a tender that is still to be determined by government. He talks about delays. It is true that there have been delays. This project was originally tendered by the former government back in 2005. At that time the tender was won by BAE.

When we came to government this project had to be retendered because of mistakes that were made in the original tender. The resubmission of tenders was due to increased technical cost and schedule risk as well as concerns about BAE's capability to deliver against the tendered offer. If this project had not been retendered at that time then the workers at Bendigo who make the Bushmasters would not even be in the race for this work now. The member for Fadden talks about delays and about work at the Bendigo factory—they would not even be in the race for this work, they would not even have the opportunity to win this tender, if we had not retendered it, because the former government gave the work to someone else.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you may or may not be able to answer my question. I refer you to the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh is currently doing some reconfiguration of the flight path zones in and around the base. I am also aware that the City of Salisbury has been looking to rezone some land adjacent to the base but, quite properly, cannot do so until the flight paths have been properly marked out and identified because of the noise exposure forecasts that are created by them. I ask you whether you are familiar with the current process. If you are, can you provide me with any advice as to when those noise exposure forecasts might be finalised by the air base so that the City of Salisbury can get on with the planning of the surrounding land?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Makin for his question. I am sorry; I do not have that information to hand at this time, but I can give you the undertaking that I will seek that information and provide it directly to you.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, going back to Land 121 phase 4, what is the current US estimate in price for a JLTV and what is the current Australian estimate in price for a manufacture in Australia option?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. I do not have those details to hand, but I am happy to take that question on notice.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can move to priority industry capabilities. Could you outline exactly how you think Australian industry has benefited from the PICs program? What industry specifically has benefited? How have they benefited? Can you give some tangible examples? And what funding have you provided into that?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. I believe the PICs are important, because they help to identify the key, critical capabilities that the Defence Force needs to keep in country. I said at the ADM conference that they need to be more than just a list. We need to make certain that these PICs are healthy. So I announced at the ADM conference a health check to be done on all the priority industry capabilities that the government has identified. That work is ongoing. The first of those health checks is reaching a conclusion and I will be in a position in the next few weeks to release the details of those checks. I think that is important. It is important to have more than just a list; you have to know whether the capabilities are healthy, whether they are thriving or not and whether more work is needed to make sure that what we have identified as priority capabilities exist. That is an important piece of work the government is doing, and I look forward to sharing the outcomes of that work with the member for Fadden in the next few weeks.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we are aware, figures reveal that PTSD is on the rise. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that our sustained combat operations in Afghanistan are having an effect. Could you provide an update on the status of the implementation of the Dunt review into mental health? Of the $83 million promised to improve health, how much is being spent and on what programs? And what is the status of the implementation of the review?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for this important question. Of the 52 recommendations made by the Dunt review, 49 were accepted unconditionally and three have been partially accepted. I am advised by Defence that implementation of the majority of these recommendations is now well underway, with enhancement of the mental health workforce being the main priority. At the local regional service delivery level, the remaining 24 of the 55 positions are to be established and recruited for the delivery of mental health services. Regional mental health teams have been created in Darwin, Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. Regional mental health team coordinators and alcohol, tobacco and other drug coordinators have been appointed to staff the teams. Three clinical psychologists have also been recruited in Darwin, Brisbane and Melbourne.

At the national level, recruitment has commenced for the staff of the ADF mental health centre. This centre will support delivery of treatment programs, tertiary-level mental health consultancy, development of an e-mental health capability and mental health training for service providers. At the strategic level, additional staff members have been recruited to establish and expand the mental health reform programs, including mental health strategy and service delivery framework; alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; post-traumatic mental health; operational mental health; and prevention and resilience. Stigma and barriers to care will be further broken down by the enhanced mental health workforce, which will ensure that members have greater access to mental health support.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you may or may not be aware that within the Edinburgh precinct there is a military vehicle museum. It is a very good museum that was relocated from another part of Adelaide several years ago when I was the Mayor of Salisbury and gave the museum some assistance in finding a new home. It is put together by volunteers, who put an incredible amount of work, time and effort into not only making it available for the public but restoring many of the vehicles so that those people who want to take the time to go and have a look at them can take pride in what they see there. The vehicles date right back to World War I memorabilia and the like. In speaking to the volunteers recently, I was told that they were after a disused army tank and that they had some regrets that they were not able to get one in the past. I wonder if you could explain to me, so that I could pass it on to them, what the process is for putting in an application so that if one should come up in the future they could, in turn, place it in their museum.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Makin for his question and his interest in the disposal of military assets. He will be disappointed to hear that the disposal of and allocation to various RSLs of last of the Leopard tanks has now concluded. He may be interested to know that more military equipment—not the wheeled variety but howitzers and the like—will be available and offered to RSLs and other organisations by tender over the course of the next few months. If the member writes to me I will be able to provide him with the detail about how the organisation can put its name on a list so that they can make sure that when certain parts or pieces of military equipment come up for tender they are aware of it and can tender for that military equipment.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for your press release of today, 'Government and defence industry work together on soldier protection', which is welcome. Could you explain how this will actually work on the ground? How will the money be spent? How will industry benefit? How will they work together?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his question. The money that the government will contribute is made up of two parts: one part from project 125 and the other part from the DSTO. As I mentioned in my introductory comments, the $11 million is in cash and in kind from the different research organisations and the industry bodies or companies that are involved in this project. It is a project which will go over five years. It involves the development and prototyping of different pieces of equipment and the testing of those pieces of equipment, the detail of which is outlined in dot points in the press release. I recognise and understand the member for Fadden's deep interest in this matter and I am very happy, if he likes, to organise for Defence to give him a detailed briefing on how this will work and how it will roll out to ensure that it achieves something very real and very beneficial for our men and women serving overseas.

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

Minister, I have concerns about a variety of our acquisitions. It is an issue of process that I am concerned about now, and I will use the Joint Strike Fighter as an indicator. Let's just put aside the issue of capability. At the moment the cost is probably at least double that which was originally suggested close to 10 years ago. It will arrive at least eight years late. Defence keeps on with platitudes that everything is fine with the program, yet we are having all sorts of opportunity costs that we have to meet, such as the Super Hornet. What processes and milestones are you putting in place to ensure that this is not a matter of an open chequebook, that this project does not just keep going on and on with prices increasing more and more and schedules slipping further and further to the right? As I said, this is an issue of process rather than necessarily specifically about the Joint Strike Fighter.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Tangney for his question and his long and sincere interest in this matter, in this particular project and in reform of defence procurement more generally. Perhaps I can provide you with some general information here and, if necessary, I am very happy to provide some more specific detail in answer to your question at a later time.

Australia has adopted a conservative approach to the cost estimates for the Joint Strike Fighter project. The advice from Defence is that it uses the official estimates provided by the United States Department of Defense as the basis for our own estimates. Defence also advises that contingency funding has always been included in our estimates. Australia is mitigating any cost increase for the early aircraft by buying the minimum aircraft necessary to meet our training commitments. This staged acquisition strategy, which commences with 14 aircraft, allows time for the refinement of and the reduction in costs. Based on currently available information, no changes to Australia's Joint Strike Fighter funding provisions are required at this stage. On current plans, our first two aircraft will be delivered in 2014, to commence initial pilot and maintainer training and to take part in operational test in the United States. The balance of our first 14 aircraft will be delivered over the 2015-17 time frame. With the program's extended test program it is likely that the United States Air Force will delay its in-service of the Australian variant from mid-2016 to 2017, possibly to early 2018.

The Australian Defence Force is making good progress with the United States Air Force in ensuring that information from the United States operational testing is available to Australia to mitigate pressures on Australia achieving its planned in-service date of late 2018.

The member for Tangney talked about processes. I said in my introductory comments and in my answers to the member for Fadden that one of the great challenges we have in defence is delay and that, more often than not, projects run over schedule and the nature of the project often determines how far it is over schedule. If you buy something off the shelf, on average, it is delivered on time and on budget. If you buy something that is modified, Australianised, customised, then, on average, it is about 23 per cent late or 23 per cent over schedule. Where you are purchasing something which is first of type or developmental, on average, it is late by about 66 per cent. Across all of our major defence projects, the delay is in the order of 20 per cent. As I have said, that figure is better than that of the United States with respect to its major capital acquisition program. It is better than the United Kingdom's figure, but it is not good enough. Many of the reforms that I announced last month go to ensuring that we get projects right at the very start. An example of that is ensuring that, where we do not purchase a piece of military equipment off the shelf, proper due diligence and a proper cost-benefit analysis is undertaken and incorporated into the cabinet papers for National Security Committee of Cabinet justifying why you would divert from an off-the-shelf option.

It is important that we make the right decisions at the start of a project. It is also very important that, where problems do occur in projects, as invariably they will, they are identified early so that we can take action. An early-warning system that we are now establishing in defence is a very important part of this. It includes hard triggers to make sure that, where a project is looking like it is going over schedule or over budget, reports are given to senior Defence officials, as well as to the Minister for Defence and me. With respect to schedule, which is an abiding concern of mine, those early-warning triggers are 10 per cent for off-the-shelf projects, 20 per cent for modified or Australianised projects and 30 per cent for developmental projects. Where those triggers go off, that will trigger me writing to those companies, saying, 'We have an issue here; I want you to help us address it.' If the issue is serious enough, then it can lead to a gate review, an independent diagnostic analysis of the project, to provide advice and recommendations to me as the Minister for Defence Materiel and to the Minister for Defence on what action should be taken to rectify the problems that appear to be emerging in that project.

Whilst not directly using the early-warning system, the action that we have taken with the air warfare destroyer is a good example. (Extension of time granted) That is a good example of a project where evidence exists that the project will go over schedule but, by taking action and modifying where blocks are built, it enables us to reduce the schedule slippage. That is an important thing to do.

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

I am a little bit concerned about this project specifically at the moment. There have been numerous warnings. I said beforehand that I put the capability issues to the side but there are very clear issues with this project and in fact there is some evidence that it may even be cancelled. I know that Lockheed Martin like putting the line that it is too big to fail and that there is no alternative. My concern is, from the Australian perspective, what contingencies we have in place if the program's collapse does eventuate.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Tangney for his question. He points to capability. It is important to mention the view of ASPI in its recent analysis of this project, where it believes that capability is coming along in a satisfactory way. It is also important to note what Secretary Gates said in January of this year, where he considered that the variant we are purchasing is progressing in a satisfactory manner.

In terms of the work that Defence is doing, I should mention in the context of the work ASPI has also been doing here that Defence has had some discussions with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the ASPI generally agrees, on the basis of the available information, that Australia has adequate cost and schedule contingency but it is reducing and needs to be watched. That is exactly what the government and Defence are doing. While the institute has suggested some options to address contingency, it agrees that there is no need for an alternative approach to Defence's planning at this stage. Defence continues to assess options to deal with all realistic JSF cost and schedule risks.

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

The debate on this portfolio is adjourned until a later hour in accordance with the agreed order of consideration of portfolios.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $508,053,000

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By way of opening address I will provide a short extract from a speech from Minister Ludwig that is relevant to the committee's proceedings. Before anybody accuses me of plagiarism, yes, this is his and it will match very closely.

The budget provides funding for a range of measures that support the government's ongoing productivity reform agenda within the agriculture portfolio. Along with the highlights of new measures, there are also fiscally responsible savings measures that support the government's commitment to returning the budget to surplus. I can point out some of the highlights of the budget for the portfolio. The 2011-12 budget provides more than $464 million in both new and continued support for a responsible and staged approach to biosecurity and quarantine and its reform. Within the investment the government is providing $425.4 million over the three years from 2012-13 for the continuation of the quarantine border security program for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and for Customs to support frontline biosecurity operations. This budget has allocated $13.7 million in a new spending initiative for the urgent capital works in post-entry quarantine facilities, allowing Australian primary producers to continue accessing the best genetic resources worldwide.

In addition to this $464 million for biosecurity, more funding has been allocated to purchase land and undertake initial scoping and design work to address the need for future post-entry quarantine facilities. This corrects a short-sighted budget decision from the Howard government to sell off post-entry quarantine facilities only to then lease them back. We now have a situation in which the leases are terminating, demonstrating that the policy was never fully considered by the Howard government.

The Gillard government is committed to reforming the biosecurity system in line with the Beale report and its operational recommendations. We will transform the system into one based on a risk management approach. This means allocating resources where the risk is at the border and across the biosecurity continuum. In this budget we have allocated $15.4 million in new money for the Commonwealth's contribution to cost-sharing arrangements for pest and disease management. This includes providing funding for the management of red imported fire ants, Asian honeybees, myrtle rust and Siam weed. The funding is for existing agreements only and does not prevent the government from entering into new commitments to combat other incursions, should they occur.

In the budget the Gillard government will be spending $44.1 million in new funding to extend the drought reform pilot in Western Australia. This is an important next step in the process of reforming the drought support system as well as helping farmers build their productive capacity and adapt to the challenges of climate variability. The $44.1 million in funding will extend the pilot until 30 June 2012 and expand the pilot region to cover the remaining south-west corner of Western Australia. This will allow time to properly test the effectiveness of new policy directions as we move from a crisis management to a risk management approach.

While we prepare for the future, the government will continue to support those farmers who are currently in need. There is an allocation of $21.8 million for exceptional circumstances relief and income subsidy payments for primary producers and small businesses in exceptional circumstances declared regions. In the budget the government has also provided $10.1 million to extend the funding of re-establishment assistance to provide exceptional circumstances exit grants to farmers who wish to sell their farm enterprises and leave the industry and $14.4 million to extend the Transitional Income Support Program, which provides short-term relief to farmers in financial hardship, including but not limited to those coming out of EC declarations. A Labor government established the rural financial counsellors program 25 years ago. This budget continues that Labor initiative.

Unfortunately, a wonderful speech by Senator Ludwig is going to be beaten by time. I will not be able to add anything further, because I know that people will want to ask questions. Given that we have departmental officials here, I hope that members will put on the table as many questions as they want to—jump in again and again—while I get the information that they require. (Time expired)

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Minister Burke, who is representing the minister for agriculture. He mentioned myrtle rust. As long ago as April last year we brought up the issue of myrtle rust with the government, and industry had done the same before then. My question is: why, despite evidence to the contrary, did the government not concede this was in fact guava rust, which is a far more serious disease with the ability to attack some 60 different species, including Australian eucalypts. The commercial industry, the nursery industry, had to get independent confirmation of what it was. Why was the federal government so determined not to concede that that was what it was? It was taken from the Central Coast of New South Wales to Queensland not by wind, as was first reported by government sources, but obviously by human intervention—no doubt accidentally. The commercial industry knew what it was. Why did the government refuse to come to terms with it? New South Wales did its best with only a small amount of money. It was said to be endemic rather than something that had to be dealt with, and it got up to Queensland. It has the ability to be enormously dangerous commercially, environmentally and in every other way.

Regarding the Asian honeybee, my question to Minister Burke, the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, is: why did the federal government not wish to continue the eradication program at a time when the area covered by the Asian honeybee in Northern Queensland was probably no bigger than the Sydney Basin and it was still very much an issue that it be eradicated and not turned? I am happy to leave it at that and come back.

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

I will take up a similar vein to that of the shadow minister, in relation to pest species. In particular, I note the minister's comments in relation to the productivity reform agenda. I also want to refer to the Australian Pest Animal Strategy, where it was estimated that 11 of Australia's pest animals in 2004 were costing Australian producers in the order of $720 million a year. We are talking about foxes, dogs, rabbits et cetera. The minister would be well and truly aware of the impact they are having. I note that pest animal management requires a coordinated approach of all levels of government in partnership with industry and, of course, land managers and volunteers. Some of the comments made in that strategy were:

The benefits of management should exceed the costs of implementing control.

And:

As part of an integrated pest animal management program, commercial harvesting may offset management costs.

Where I am leading to, Minister, is the Victorian government's commitment on bounties to be directed at foxes and wild dogs as part of their approach to the control of foxes and wild dogs.

I do not think I need to labour the point too much. I am sure that the minister is aware both in his role as the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and as a former agriculture minister of the enormous social, economic and environmental impact that wild dogs in particular are having in the Gippsland region and also throughout the north-east. But, given the increased value of lamb at the moment, the economic impact has become even more of a concern for producers in my region. My question is quite open ended, Minister. I am just wondering what the government's view about a nationally consistent approach is, given that obviously these species do not respect state borders. We have the state government of Victoria heading in one direction with its suite of measures, those being the bounty and aerial baiting, trapping and shooting. I would be interested to know what the government's view is about its role at a national level and also the level of funding that it anticipates will be required to do its share of the heavy lifting in that particular area—and your view, perhaps, of how you see the federal government having more of a leadership role in coordinating the wild dog control aspect in particular.

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

I rise first and foremost to express my support to our government for its very strong commitment to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. I know that that portfolio is very important to most members in this chamber at the moment and most especially in my electorate. Through my years as a member of the House agriculture committee and more recently as a member of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia—which I share with the member for Makin, who is here as well—I know that, although it is difficult to bring up at the moment because of the recent floods, one area of concern in rural and regional Australia is drought policy and reform. I must say that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who is in the chamber at the moment, was, along with the current minister, very instrumental in piloting and pioneering in this area.

I know that Minister Ludwig is continuing to progress the government's drought reform agenda that you, Minister, initiated through the pilot of the new drought measures in Western Australia, which was mentioned in your opening address on behalf of the current Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Well may we have had floods and driving rain most recently, but, as the Dorothea Mackellar poem says, this is also a country of great drought. We still experience drought in parts of this country. Our drought policy and exceptional circumstances assistance are absolutely vital to rural and regional communities. So, Minister, on behalf of Minister Ludwig, could you update us on how the extension of the WA drought pilot in the budget will improve on the existing pilot, which you made mention of in your earlier statements, and how the government will look to expand this going forward? Secondly, could you also advise in more detail how the government is continuing to assist those farmers—again, you mentioned this earlier—in the communities currently in drought? Those are very, very important questions about drought assistance.

While I am on my feet, Minister, again on behalf of Minister Ludwig, would you give us an update on the agreed principles for forestry and for the forestry sector in Tasmania. As we well know, this is both a challenging and a worrisome time in Tasmania, although there has been good news recently with the purchase of the Triabunna mill by a consortium in Hobart, and I notice that Forestry Tasmania has given a very positive response to that. I know that you, Minister, as well as Minister Ludwig have played a significant role in listening to representatives and advocates of the agreed principles. So I would be very interested in an update on that, thank you.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions on edibles rather than growables. I will turn, firstly, to the meat trade. When the minister's representative was actually the minister himself, there was a commitment to have an independent study into the legitimate cost to government of AQIS inspections. The opposition and the industry are wondering what has happened to that examination of the legitimate cost to government of inspections. I also have a question on New Zealand apples. We were defeated in the WTO, however that does not mean that we simply have to accept whatever New Zealand wants to throw at us. From the draft report and from all indications, why are we willing to accept that the New Zealanders write their own protocols for the export of their apples to us when we are the only country, that I am aware of, that New Zealand exports to that does not have fire blight? They are sending apples to countries that do have it and are presuming to send apples using the same protocols to those countries that do not have fire blight.

In the last budget, there was an allocation of $281 million in additional funds to encourage trades apprentices to complete their qualifications. Why have agriculture and horticulture apprenticeships been removed from the National Skills Needs List, particularly at a time when those industries are absolutely crying out for skilled labour?

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I want to begin by endorsing the comments of the member for Braddon in respect of the government's commitment in this portfolio area. I say to the minister present, who is speaking on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, that even in metropolitan seats like Adelaide, which I represent, and Hindmarsh, which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, represent, fisheries, forestry and agriculture are very important.

I have a particular interest in the maintenance of Australia's strong biosecurity system and I know that you do too, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an area that I want to raise with the minister and ask a question of him. I know that Minister Ludwig and, before him, Minister Burke, who is here representing Minister Ludwig, have been busy working on improvements to Australia's complex and important biosecurity system. It is an area that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I have raised with ministers, and publicly on many occasions. Minister, I would be grateful if you could advise what is in the budget to continue the important reforms the government has embarked upon?

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand, Minister Burke, that you are going to answer these at a later time given your acting—

Mr Burke interjecting—

I would like to continue with the biosecurity questions. On page 64 of DAFF's budget statement it says, under program expenses, that for 2010-2011 there was $483,000,191 appropriated or available. This drops right down in 2014-2015 to $416 million; it drops from $483 million down to $416 million. Obviously that is of great concern to those of us who have rural constituencies who depend on biosecurity activity and expertise to keep our fruit and vegetables and meat products safe. Following up what the previous speaker said, we are most concerned that there is a cost-cutting exercise where it now seems that the protocols New Zealand has in place for their domestic market in apples and pears are going to be acceptable for fresh apple exports into Australia. Is this in fact a cost-cutting measure, given the incredible reduction in program expenses? It is listed on page 64, if you are looking for it.

We are concerned that the industry itself cannot get access to the document that is going to drive the domestic protocols for fresh apple inspections before they come to Australia. We are very hopeful that this is not simply a reflection of the cost cutting that is going on in the government in relation to program expenses, because we have only until 4 July before those domestic protocols in New Zealand are, apparently, going to be accepted by Australia as adequate for exporting fresh fruit to Australia. Could the minister please ask Minister Ludwig to explain how, with that substantial reduction in program expenses, we can even maintain our current levels of biosecurity protection, much less increase them, given the huge additional workload that fresh apples will add to biosecurity's activities?

I would also like to ask when the Western Australian climate change pilot—which is, we understand, to replace exceptional circumstances design and policy in Australia—might be completed and whether that is going to be tested in the southern states, where there is a very different seasonal scenario, especially in relation to irrigation districts. Where exceptional circumstances has ceased—in particular in my part of the world, in northern Victoria—and has been followed, unfortunately, by floods, the damage from which is still impacting on productivity, is there any interim measure? Does the budget have any provisions for this interim period between the end of exceptional circumstances support and the new program, which we understand will be called something like 'climate change adaptation'? The Western Australian pilot is the one I am referring to.

I am also very concerned about the RIRDC and the CAC Act bodies Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation resources statement. Again we see a substantial reduction in funding. We have to have ongoing research into greater efficiencies in Australian agriculture, whether it be water use efficiency or being able to grow more for less, being able to retain or keep costs down. Research and development funding seems to be less. I am referring to page 165, where we have, for example, actual available appropriation of $40,382,000. That seems to decline very substantially into the year 2011-2012. As you know, Australia is one of the countries that put the least amount of support into agriculture. When you compare us with Korea, Japan, the United States and most of our trading competitors and partners, the Australian government puts one of the smallest amounts of money in the world into agricultural support. We are suggesting that, if that amount is eroded even further, we are in for very serious times.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A number of issues have been raised. If I start to work through them, hopefully that will get us a fair way. There is some information that is still coming to me. As it comes I will be able to answer those issues as well.

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

Where's your iPad tonight?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have the iPad later tonight, when it is my area. I am reliant on paper here.

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

It's in his head.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To begin, the member for Calare asked questions regarding myrtle rust and the related issue of guava rust. The information I have is as follows: myrtle rust was first detected on the Central Coast of New South Wales in April 2010, as the member for Calare referred to in his question. It is not known and never has been known how it entered Australia. The rust fungi do produce spores which are carried by wind. They can be carried on people's clothing; they can also be carried on plants or goods that are shipped around the world. Myrtle rust does belong to a group known as the guava rust complex; it is part of that group. It is native to South America and is present in the United States and Mexico. Immediately after it was identified as myrtle rust the Commonwealth-state Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests developed a response plan to attempt to eradicate the fungus. I am advised that after several months of effort it was determined in December 2010 that it was not technically feasible to eradicate it. The member for Calare asked quite specifically how these decisions are made and why we make the judgment call that we do. It is on the best available scientific information that comes forward. I do believe that is the appropriate way for advice to be given to a minister.

A similar question was asked by the member for Calare, the shadow minister, with respect to Asian honeybees. We do need to remember that when Asian honeybees were first found, in May 2007, the agriculture minister was Peter McGauran, a former member for Gippsland. No immediate action was taken by Minister McGauran. I should read directly from the notes of Minister Ludwig: 'In fact it took the Labor government under Minister Tony Burke to approve the funding to combat this pest.' But, in fairness to Peter McGauran, at that point you initially do your assessments, you work out whether to use containment or eradication, and you work out what might be possible. He did what I have just described as subsequent ministers doing, and that is to take the best available scientific advice that is in front of you. That is why the decision was taken on Asian honeybees. Subsequent decisions were similarly taken on the basis of scientific advice which came forward.

The member for Gippsland then asked about pest animals generally, with specific reference to wild dogs and other animals. The first answer to that is that, in working these issues through with the states, eradication jobs in the first instance do fall to state jurisdictions. They then come to a ministerial council where it is worked out whether a cooperative approach might be possible. The department does fund a number of surveillance programs from the Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer. We do work closely with state and territory governments but funding is also available through Landcare, the National Landcare Program, and through Caring for our Country. I will simply give an example which, while it is probably not of great concern to the Victorian end of the country, is one of the great examples of the extraordinary damage that is done by an invasive species, and that is the damage currently being caused across the north of Australia in the rangelands by camels. One of the biggest projects that Caring for our Country has ever undertaken was $19 million to deal with the problem of camels across the country. One of the challenges is that whenever we act we need to do it at the same time as the states are acting. (Extension of time granted) Otherwise, all you do is keep trimming the numbers rather than making a real impact. When it can be coordinated, and from time to time it is done, there is an opportunity to be able to have a very direct impact on invasive species. The member for Calare also asked about the Export Certification Reform Package and specific undertakings which were given by me at the time. I will try to get more information during the course of this session—or, if not, provide it subsequently—on the independent auditing. I do remember dealing with the issue at the time. I just want to make sure that my recollection matches the most up-to-date advice. If you can bear with me, I will seek further information on that; hopefully, we can get that information. The information I have deals with the implementation of a number of issues but not specifically the audit that the member for Calare referred to. I do not want to waste your time with the other parts of it.

The issue of New Zealand apples was also raised. I do not yet have information on that here, which is probably as you would want it. That will also arrive shortly. I will move to the issue of biosecurity reforms, which was raised by the member for Makin, but, firstly, I flag for the member for Calare that the issue of the National Skills Needs List would, I suspect, be better directed to a different section of the estimates process. I am not sure of the extent to which we will be able to get direct information on that tonight. I suspect that is a list maintained through a different portfolio and the question may well be best asked of that portfolio.

On the issue of apples, a science based review is being conducted by Biosecurity Australia of Australia's import policy for New Zealand apples. The question was asked in terms of why New Zealand is responsible for a lot of these decisions. The information that I have is that Biosecurity Australia is conducting the science based review of Australia's import policy for New Zealand apples. The review is being conducted because the World Trade Organisation found that our import policy for New Zealand apples was not supported by the science. We fought that in the international court, as growers and all Australians expected us to, but we now have to deal with the decision as it came down. As I say, it is Biosecurity Australia that is conducting that review on Australia's import policy as a result of that decision.

I now turn to the question from the member for Makin on biosecurity reforms generally. We need to remember where the biosecurity reform process came from. Members—fewer on the Victorian side of the border, I have to say, but everybody north of that—will very much remember the impact that equine influenza had across much of the east of Australia.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The biggest warmblood industry in Australia.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, but you actually did a little better in terms of avoiding equine influenza than elsewhere with the eradication programs that then had to be conducted and which were concluded after we came to government in 2007. That set the context for why it was necessary to have a look at the entire biosecurity system in Australia, which resulted in the Beale review, to which this budget has continued to respond.

The 2011-12 budget provides for a smarter approach to the management of biosecurity risks and reaffirms this government's commitment to reforming Australia's biosecurity system. It includes $425.4 million over four years for border operations at our airports and mail centres, including $205.6 million for the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; $15 million—there is a point in every one of these; I will skip the decimals—for continuing eradication programs for nationally significant agricultural and environmental animal and plant pests and diseases; and $4.2 million for improved information and communications technology systems across the biosecurity system. (Extension of time granted) It also includes $19 million for staged investment for post-entry quarantine arrangements with funding for urgent capital works.

The way to reform our biosecurity system is to focus on further developing a risk management approach, progressing risk based intervention initiatives across the organisation, drafting new legislation to facilitate reforms, developing a sustainable funding model for biosecurity and continuing to build a partnership approach to industry. We have the answer to the member for Calare's question regarding the Export Certification Reform Package. An independent review of the export certification fees and charges has been conducted by Ernst and Young as per the agreement that was made last term. The minister has undertaken to publish the review on the DAFF website. It finds that AQIS fees and charges are consistent with government cost recovery guidelines. Hopefully that provides some information in direct response to that.

If I can then go to questions raised by the member for Murray. First of all, in terms of page 64 of the papers and the profile of biosecurity funding. I want to refer to a couple of issues. The first is that a number of biosecurity programs have for many years now been budgeted as four-year programs. At the end of the four years they get announced again, as has continued to happen. But as you go across the forward estimates and get closer to the expiry, you see the profile going down. That has always been the case in biosecurity funding. It is the nature of so much of it happening through four-year programs.

There is an added issue on the figures that the member for Murray referred to, and it goes to some comments I made in the opening statement. That is, for some of the quarantine facilities that were previously leased, and that the government is now looking at entering back into a permanent situation of purchasing these properties, the dollars for those purchases currently under contract negotiation do not appear in the budget papers. There would be an obvious impact in the contract negotiations if midway through figures of what we thought we might end up paying on behalf of the Commonwealth at the conclusion of those negotiations suddenly appeared. Those two principles combined tell the story that had raised the concerns of the member for Murray.

The member for Murray also asked about the drought pilot, as did the member for Braddon. Both are in electorates which had experienced exceptional circumstances declarations and have alternately dealt with the devastation of lack of water and then the devastation of too much water at different points. One of the challenges of the drought reform pilot was to change from crisis management to risk management; that is, instead of waiting for the devastation before the Commonwealth would step in in any way, the Commonwealth would actually play a role in the preparation period so that farmers were better prepared to be able to deal with the inevitable crises that come on our continent, given the nature of our climate.

This would also avoid some of the division that has constantly been there within communities where assistance was very much driven by the extent to which an individual producer was in debt. It was thought it was worth looking to see if there were another way other than exceptional circumstances to be able to conduct this. At the time the decision for the pilot to be in Western Australia was taken for two reasons: first of all, the Western Australian agriculture minister, Terry Redman, a member of the National Party, came to us and suggested that a pilot of the new policy be conducted there in Western Australia. All ministers had been involved in the discussions about the new approach, but it was Western Australia that actually suggested that the pilot happen there. The second reason for doing it in Western Australia was that it eliminated the capacity of a fear campaign for people who were at that point in drought, because at the time no new areas were being designated for exceptional circumstances assistance. It created a situation where it was easier to pilot something gently with the communities there. (Extension of time granted). The government does not prejudge the outcome of the pilot, but we have now extended the pilot for another year. Extending the pilot in this way will ensure that farmers currently receiving assistance continue to do so while the review is under way and the government considers the next steps on national reforms to drought assistance. The extension of the pilot will also allow more time to properly test the measures and therefore assist the government in its consideration of drought reform. Reform of drought policy nationally will be considered in the light of the independent review of the pilot which is currently underway and discussions with state and territory agriculture ministers. The government intends to settle its new approach in the context of the 2012-13 budget. Hopefully that provides some of the information that was being sought by the member for Murray.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It leaves about 1,200 farmers in limbo.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The farmers who are in situations currently where there is not an exceptional circumstances declaration or a drought are in the identical situation they would be in if there was no pilot of a new system. They are experiencing better seasons than they were during drought. People know that that there are still individual hardships, and no-one is skating over that, but it is important to remember that, if the biggest challenge that we have is communities saying that the new way of approaching drought is not being rolled out quickly enough, that certainly is an endorsement of the approach the government has taken in going down the path of the pilot in the first place.

The member for Braddon also asked me to deal with some of the issues as to where we were up to with negotiations regarding forestry in Tasmania. The member for Braddon has a very deep concern, representing a large number of timber workers—both people working for contractors and also people working for mills, with jobs in haulage or other areas—within the seat of Braddon. For many years the debate on forestry in Tasmania has been characterised by conflict. It has always been a situation of governments of one colour or the other, in a political circumstance, doing their best to arbitrate on who would win in a battle between conservation and forestry.

About a year ago, a whole lot of people who had never been at the same table before sat around the table. Environmental groups, the union—the CFMEU—and industry all sat around the same table for the first time. I remember at the time the key issue that people were talking about was not whether or not they could reach agreement but whether or not they could cope being at the same table. The level of passion after years of conflict was extremely high.

That resulted, in the second half of last year, in a high-level statement of principles. The government took the view, together with the Tasmanian government, that we needed to know whether the statement of principles could in fact be turned into a formalised agreement. That was why the government took the view that the appointment of Bill Kelty as a negotiator to work with the parties and see if it could get to an agreement was something worth doing.

There is a level of concern in many communities, knowing that Gunns have made the decision to get out of native forestry. There are many people facing very high degrees of uncertainty at the moment, including businesses, in the wake of what has happened with markets—initially buyers in Japan insisting for the first time on FSC certification of timber, combined with the devastation that occurred in Japan, added to the impact of the high dollar, which of itself has caused significant challenges for industry. When you put that against the backdrop of the decisions being made by Gunns, there are very high degrees of uncertainty.

It is still the preference of the government, though, for the parties to reach their agreement and for us to look at what they bring to the table. There is still a high level of opportunity here for an agreement to be put together the likes of which we have not seen in Australia—indeed, what we have always seen has been starkly the opposite. Each time I talk to the parties—and I talk to them often—they are closer than they were the day before. They are not there yet. I know that Bill Kelty is again working on the issue tomorrow. (Extension of time granted). I am hopeful that there will be an agreement soon that both the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian governments can deal with directly. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation is the only issue of the ones that were put forward that I have not yet touched on, and that was discussed by the member for Murray. In response to that, I can offer the information that I have. When you look at the funding for any of the research and development corporations, we need to remember that most of their funding—and RIRDC is a little bit different from the others—is through matched government levies. So the government money goes up and down depending on projections as to what happens with the various industries. For many research and development corporations it is relatively simple to forecast where they think things are going. For the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, which has many, many small levies for small, growing industries, it is more complex. The actual revenue from government will increase over the next financial year for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Revenue from levies will also increase in 2011-12. However, the corporation has spent some of their reserves, so their opening balance in 2011-12 has gone down for that reason. Hopefully that provides some insight into the budget figures that the member for Murray was referring to.

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

First of all, I would like to say that I support the government's commitment to this particular portfolio. Many times I have rung the minister's office with a range of issues; as the member for Makin said earlier, I do have a keen interest in this area. I know that Minister Burke and Minister Ludwig have worked very hard to improve this area, which is very complex, especially biosecurity. I would be grateful if the minister could answer my question, or get back to me, in order to set the record straight. Recently in the media there were some reports about pork being imported into Australia—it was a huge issue in the media in South Australia—and we received many phone calls from concerned constituents, and I had discussions with the member for Makin, who received many calls as well. When I did speak with the minister's office, I was very pleased that they could assure me that there has been no importation of pork. A media release was put out very quickly as those discussions were taking place, but I was sad to hear that there is still that misconception out there. For the record, Minister, either today or at another time, would you be able to put that record straight? And why is that misconception out there?

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the minister agrees, I will call the member for Gippsland for his question and they can be answered together.

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

Just to complete the set, Minister, we will go to fisheries. I know you are quite familiar with the area of Lakes Entrance; you were an active campaigner there in 2007, I believe, in the lead-up to the federal election.

The seafood industry in Gippsland is a very important one, particularly in Lakes Entrance, but on the issue of importations I take up the theme of the previous question. There is a growing concern within the seafood industry in relation to the country of origin of seafood, particularly at the end user stage. There is a concern, particularly in our restaurants and clubs, that there are products being sold as the 'fish of the day', and people are under the misapprehension that they may be buying a fish that was caught locally, when in fact it is an imported product. I have raised this issue before with the government, and I do it again now in the context of food security and food safety. People are becoming more and more aware of where their food comes from, particularly, as we have seen in recent days, with the E. coli outbreak in Europe. It is important that people can be confident in the source of their food, and the deceptive conduct which is currently underway in some of our clubs and restaurants to suggest that some of the products are coming from Australian waters is unfair to local product. The seafood industry has no problem with the fact that we are going to have imported product in the market place—they have no problem with that whatsoever. But in the interests of industry and consumer fairness, it is an issue that the government is going to have to deal with sooner rather than later by providing clear labelling so that consumers can be confident in the country of origin of the product they are eating.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( Minister, when I asked about exceptional circumstances and the pilot in Western Australia and particularly in Victoria, I was referring to EC category D, which is for those affected by devastating floods. We have two problems. Firstly, we have a tale of lack of financial viability still existing because of the drought. After the first rains, unfortunately, your productivity does not instantly return and your bank account does not instantly return to being in the black. What is the status for the EC category D now in Victoria? We understood there were some announcements, but I am wondering: when is the cash going to flow and what is the process for affected farmers to access that funding?

The other matter was in relation to Biosecurity Australia and the New Zealand fresh apple protocols. You said in your answer that Biosecurity Australia was simply doing a review in the wake of the WTO decision. We understand why and how the rejections of our previous protocols occurred. The problem is that the Australian apple and pear industry—and 80 per cent of all pear growers are in the electorate of Murray—have been told that the New Zealand pip fruit industry's domestic protocols are to be adopted and used for the Australian export protocols and that these domestic pip fruit industry measures will be supervised by MAF, the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. MAF was, as we all know, implicated in the fire blight contamination of a cotoneaster all those years ago at the Melbourne Royal Botanic Gardens. There is not great trust when it comes to depending on another country's ministry to inspect product. We need to know if it is the case in New Zealand that fire blight is a notifiable disease—it seems to be difficult to find that out—because that makes it much more difficult for us to accept a domestic protocol if a region cannot be shown to have had fire blight in recent times.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( I will deal with those in reverse order, if that is okay. First of all, the member for Murray has referred to 'exceptional circumstances category D'. I think that is actually a reference to the NDRRA category D, which is not administered by the department of agriculture; it is administered through the Attorney-General's Department. They deal with that, and Agriculture deals with drought relief. So I am not in a position to be able to provide that information today. I am not sure if the Attorney-General's Department have already gone through or if they are later tonight or when they are. I am sure the Attorney-General would be able to provide some assistance on the information that was sought.

The second question goes to the issue of apples. First of all, I think it is important, given the allegations that were just made regarding the New Zealand department of agriculture, to point out that the view reflected there does not represent the position of the Commonwealth. I do have some further information which I will provide. There is a draft report—which, I think, is the report that the member for Murray is referring to—in terms of what the proposed quarantine measures might be. That is, as I say, a draft. It is available on the department's website. It will be available for public comment for a total of 60 days.

Despite some of the scare campaigns that have been about, there are some important facts worth setting out here. First of all, it is a draft report. It does not represent government policy, nor does a draft report change in any way the current restrictions which apply to the importation of New Zealand apples. Secondly, Australia is committed to the operation of a transparent, science-based system of biosecurity. If the opposition, the industry or any other stakeholder can put forward scientific evidence which would support restrictions that are stronger than those proposed in the draft review, they should put that forward. Thirdly, where scientific evidence is put forward during the review, it will be considered prior to the consideration of a final report. Stakeholders with a perspective on the conclusions in the draft can make a submission to the department's biosecurity services group. But just as for any other product, no trade in New Zealand apples may occur unless quarantine measures that appropriately protect Australia and our agricultural producers have been fully complied with.

I will go to the member for Hindmarsh who asked questions concerning importation of pork. Hopefully this will provide some clarity on the record to back up what the member for Hindmarsh had already received directly from the minister. Australia is fortunate to be free from many of the serious pests and diseases that exist in many other countries, and we make no apology about wanting to keep it that way. If New Zealand imports fresh pig meat from other countries for consumption in New Zealand, that is their decision. The fact is that fresh pork from New Zealand is actually not permitted. No fresh pig meat is permitted entry from New Zealand into Australia. If New Zealand want to export fresh pig meat to Australia, it would need to meet strict import requirements established by Australia's final import risk analysis report for pig meat, which was released in February 2004 when the coalition was in government. Australia will not water down its strict science based quarantine and biosecurity system. I hope that provides an answer to the issues that were raised there.

The member for Gippsland refers to Lakes Entrance where he is right: we made many election promises in 2007 in the electorate of Gippsland which were not successful in ousting Peter McGauran and became even less successful by the time the current member for Gippsland was competing in a by-election. But he raises an issue which is of deep concern to people in the seafood industry. (Extension of time granted) We need to remember the extent to which overseas competition is real for the seafood industry. It is extraordinary that, while we export a lot of very high value seafood, a large amount of seafood consumed in homes and in restaurants is in fact imported.

While when you go to the supermarket or to the local fish shop you have country of origin labelling, there is a presumption when people go to restaurants that they will be receiving fresh food and a presumption that most people have, particularly when they are in fishing communities, that what is sold locally is in fact locally caught. It has been a running sore for a long time in terms of not only the economic value but also people feeling a sense of deception when they go to a fishing village or town—whether they go to the local fish and chip shop or they go to the local cafe or restaurant—at the thought that what they might be consuming is in fact imported, and that comes as a very deep shock to most consumers.

The only area at the moment to my knowledge, and as I am advised, where this has been able to be resolved in a very direct way is in the Northern Territory. When it was first introduced in the Northern Territory much of the restaurant industry was quite resistant to having to put the country of origin on the menu. But what ended up happening was they did not just put country of origin, they started to put town of origin, they started to put village of origin and they started to put precisely where something had been caught, because there is no greater selling point for seafood than that it is local. People know that, with the purity of the oceans we have in Australia, there is a purity of product that follows.

This is very much managed by the states. It has been encouraged on many occasions by the Commonwealth. To my knowledge, though, at the moment it is only the Northern Territory which has stepped up to the mark. When I have spoken to anyone in the restaurant trade there who was hesitant when it was first introduced, all of them now acknowledge that what was originally put forward as a restriction is now a selling point for them with their customers.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Defence Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $24,003,348,000

Debate resumed.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Main Committee will now consider the Veterans' Affairs segment of the Defence portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the departmental officials for being here to give me advice on the questions you are about to ask. Are you asking them too? How does that happen?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am first.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget maintains Labor's strong commitment to our veteran community, with a $12.3 billion budget, a $200 million increase on 2010-11. This increase mostly comes in health care costs. Because we have an ageing veteran population, their demands upon health services are getting greater, therefore resulting in increased expenditure. It delivers on our election promise to provide a $500 per fortnight supplement to our much-deserving prisoners of war, which you will have seen announced only recently. It provides an additional $8 million per annum to the Australian War Memorial after a careful and considered review which was inaugurated, you will recall, in October of last year. It contains a number of measures to simplify the system and improve access for veterans. It is fiscally responsible and in line with the government's commitment to bring the budget back to surplus in 2012-13.

I might just concentrate briefly on some of our overall priorities, because I think they are relevant. Looking after our ageing veterans and their families. Over 180,000 of those people we look after our 80 years or older. That is a significant proportion of the client group. Secondly, and a very significant area for me in my view and I think for the community, is ensuring that our younger wounded, injured and ill veterans are properly cared for. Forty per cent of the ADF has now been deployed in the last decade and 50 per cent of those have been deployed more than once. They are significant figures. Our election commitments were honoured in this budget through the Veterans' Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Scheme, which has been allocated $30.1 million, and the Vietnam Veterans Education Centre in Washington with $3.3 million.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy for my comrades from the other side to have a chat.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister and I also acknowledge the initiatives in this year's federal budget. It was certainly well received in the veteran community. As a former veterans' affairs minister myself I know how hard it is to extract money from the treasurers and I certainly welcome what he has been able to achieve. I have a couple of questions, Minister, in relation to commemorations. This year I attended the commemoration for Anzac Day at Villers-Bretonneux, which was very well done and I commend the work of the department in running a very well organised commemoration at Villers-Bretonneux. We saw something like 4,800 people—that was the official figure—mainly Australians, if not all Australians, attend that commemoration. And I understand Gallipoli too, where I think you were, Minister. I want to say something about Gallipoli. As the minister responsible for the establishment of that new site—and I know there have been several ministers since my watch and before your watch—I think obviously the site has been altered somewhat. I wonder if you might comment on the way the department is approaching looking after the people who arrive there. There is obviously the issue of toilets, but I also understand that significant infrastructure has been placed on the peninsula itself for permanent seating—you might correct me on that. I know that when I was negotiating with the people of Canakkale and the government and authorities in Ankara they were very insistent that we keep a very, very low profile in relation to the memorial because it is a national park. That is why we have a low stone wall that just says 'Anzac'. Even the flagpoles come down after the commemoration on Anzac Day. I know, Minister, that you have a committee working on the commemoration for the centenary year of 2015, and I would be interested in how that is going in relation to that. From my discussions when we established the new site, it was always important to make sure that we preserve as much as possible and as closely as possible the original site—as it was for those arriving at the peninsula on the very first day. That is what should be preserved, rather than any great structures. I would be interested in what you are looking at. I have heard—I must say with some dismay—that, as a country, we might be looking at a re-enactment, for instance. To be perfectly honest, I feel that having people come ashore is rather tacky, but I would be interested to hear your comments because I do have some opinions in relation to the commemoration that will take place in 2015.

I will put all my questions on the table at once, Minister. One is that next year is going to mark the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Milne Bay. I am wondering, in relation to commemorations, whether in August-September next year you would be looking at any official commemoration of Milne Bay. It marks the 70th anniversary of the first battle and a very significant turning point in the Second World War. It was, after all, Australian territory at the time. It was the first major defeat that the Japanese suffered as they moved south across the equator, down through the islands and into New Guinea. Milne Bay was the first significant defeat of the Japanese by the 2nd/9th Battalion of the Australian forces, and Corporal John French was awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously. I know how over the years, and even prior to my watch as minister, official commemorations were not the most important element but an element of Australia remembering Australia's involvement. I think that perhaps that might be one you have focused on. If not, I would ask that you look at it. I am certainly getting veterans who served in Milne Bay asking me whether there is any consideration of that very important battle which was the first turning point of the Second World War. (Time expired)

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the questions. I will make one observation: in terms of Anzac Cove, it is very much as you left it. There are no permanent seating arrangements, that I am aware of. The toilet facilities are all brought in and, as I understand it, that will continue. We have real limitations on that site, and one of the issues is people management. Although we had 7,000 or so there this year, there is an upper limit to how many people can be managed at that site. I met with the Turkish Defence minister not only to discuss the Anzac celebration for this year but to introduce myself and to start a conversation about the centenary of Anzac. That conversation is ongoing. There have been department to department discussions around the general issues. There is ongoing discussion about how we should move these things forward. The Anzac commission has made recommendations to government, which we will respond to in due course. You mentioned a re-enactment; that clearly will not be happening, in my view. Nevertheless, we will have an advisory board which, hopefully, we will announce the chair of in the near future. We think that advisory board will have a number of subcommittees which will look at things like education, youth—a range of issues—and which will provide advice to government and have discussion with the community.

Clearly, the centenary of Anzac is a lot bigger than us. We have already started conversations with the French. I have met the British minister for defence and opened a conversation with him. I have met the New Zealand Minister for Defence and opened a conversation with him. There are obviously things that we need to do and we cannot presume to know the outcomes of those discussions before we have in fact had them. We know what our priorities might be. I think it is generally accepted that we are leading the pack in terms of our awareness of what we need to be doing and the need to engage with people. We want to do that but we will not be doing anything without agreement; that is the first thing.

I will just deal with Milne Bay very quickly. I am not aware of any proposals for Milne Bay, but there may well be. It is certainly something that I will talk to the department about because, clearly, 70th anniversaries will abound next year. The fall of Singapore, the bombing of Darwin, the occupation of Timor-Leste by the 2/2nd Commandos and Kokoda are very important in our military history, so there are a range of events next year which we will have to have a mind to, and I am sure that Milne Bay will be one of them.

Turning back to Turkey, the responsibility for managing the people still rests with the Turkish government. We are guests when we arrive there and we remain guests while we are there. We have to be very active and involved in what we do but, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Turkish government. Any works done there are to preserve the site and grave consideration is given to ensuring that the site's heritage is considered; the Turkish government has assured us of that. The recent commencement of construction of the seawall, and you would be aware of the area, will ensure that Anzac Cove is preserved for future generations. I hope I have answered some of your questions. I am happy to engage on a continuing basis with you about those issues.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. I do appreciate that this is significant and I thank him for his answers. I look forward to working with you in what is a bipartisan, non-political portfolio.

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

I have an issue that I want to raise with the minister. I was fortunate enough earlier on this year to travel to Crete with the minister to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Crete. While we were there we visited many memorial sites with veterans from Australia and heard many stories from the locals and from those veterans. Minister, I ask about the significance of the commemorations this year and whether there are any plans for the future to commemorate the Battle of Crete, which has been commemorated for many years here—not only official commemorations; there were many unofficial commemorations all around Australia and in Crete over that particular week. Can the minister elaborate a little more on the significance of that particular battle and its 70th anniversary?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very important that we acknowledge this 70th anniversary. The importance of the battles of Crete and Greece in our own military history is not well understood, in my view. I certainly did not understand it until I went to Greece and Crete. Having now been there and read the history I understand what events took place and the sacrifices that were made not only by Australian, New Zealand, British and other allied troops but, most importantly, by the Greek nation and by the community in Crete. One of the remarkable aspects of this part of history is that, despite the severity of the treatment by the Germans, support for the Australians and New Zealanders in particular was profound. There is now an ongoing partnership and relationship with Crete—and with Greece more generally but with Crete in this particular case—as a result of those events. I commend the member for Hindmarsh for engaging himself as Chair of the Greek Australian Parliamentary Friendship Group. Very importantly, six veterans attended the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Crete: Daniel Bowden from HMAS Perth, Alfred Carpenter from the 2nd/4th Battalion, Basil Hayler from HMAS Perth, Arthur Leggett from the 2nd/11th Battalion, Norm Maddock from the 2nd/7th Battalion and George 'Bill' Taylor from the 2nd/11th Battalion. We need to appreciate the sacrifice that these men made. One of these gentlemen was 101 years old.

I commend the department, General Mark Kelly, who is now part of our organisation, and those who accompanied the veterans on the support they gave them, but I have to say that the stories we were told were more than payment for doing the work. It was such a pleasure to be with them and learn about them and their stories. We can take great pride in what they did. It was such an incredible privilege to be there and see how they were honoured by the Crete community. The member for Hindmarsh will remember that we called into a small roadside stop to have a toilet break and buy a cup of coffee. We selected some articles, went to pay and the owners refused to take our money—because of the significance and the salience of the presence of those men but particularly the history.

We went to the Preveli Monastery, which hid hundreds of Australian and New Zealand troops in the hills after the German forces took over and after Australian and New Zealand troops had disembarked on their way back to Egypt. This is important because they survived as a result of the support of not only this monastery but the population, who fed them, clothed them, warmed them, acted as their sentries and worked with them. Some of them worked as guerillas. That was really significant for me.

It was an enormous privilege to be there and a great honour to be with these men. I know the members for Hindmarsh and Maranoa have both travelled extensively. When you have the privilege of being in these locations, to see the honour with which Australian men who served in these past engagements are held as a result of their integrity and their work is outstanding.

Reg Saunders was the first Aboriginal officer and was at Crete at 42nd Street. I just had a chat to his daughter. She sent us a letter and indicated that apparently there is no memorial on 42nd Street to commemorate the involvement of the Anzacs. I want to establish whether that is true and then we might try to do something about it.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his contribution and his comments on Crete. They are well received. Minister, in 2007 Labor promised to increase funding for the Building Excellence in Support and Training, or BEST, program by $8 million. We have 10 minutes left to discuss veterans and I want to take us back a bit. At the time, Labor said:

Labor believes that these programs are invaluable to the ex-service community.

Well trained and supported ESOs and individuals contribute greatly to improving the operation of DVA—and they also provide a saving to government through their work.

In recognition of this fact, Labor will commit an additional $8 million to support ex service organisations to provide essential services for their members.

Unfortunately, Minister, in 2011-12 the government will slash $4 million from the BEST program and $4 million from Veterans and Community Grants, which assist with providing social and interactive events to veterans and prevents their isolations. Minister, I think you will understand when I say this is outrageous.

At the last election Labor made no mention of cutting funding—no mention at all. It was all quiet on that western front. The coalition, on the other hand, actually promised to increase BEST and TIP funding by $2.5 million per year for the next three years—$7.5 million in new money. At that time the coalition indicated this additional funding would assist with implementation of the recommendations of the advocacy funding review, which were at that time still secret. I note the recommendations have been made public after the election and in February this year the government announced it had accepted all 45 recommendations. I note that none of the recommendations called for a cut in funding. The review said that BEST funds were limited but, rather than cut funding, suggested that more needed to be done to work within current funding envelopes. It even suggested a means testing of ex-service organisations to see whether individual organisations could contribute more of their financial resources to assist the local veteran community.

The review did, however, recommend the establishment of veteran support centres across Australia with working models to be established in Queensland and regional New South Wales. Again, when asked, the government said it would not force organisations together. But the cut in funding may suggest otherwise. Perhaps this is means testing and forced amalgamation by stealth, Minister. How can the government build these new centres while at the same time cutting $4 million in BEST funding over the forward estimates? Won't this severely jeopardise the work of the largely volunteer ex-service organisations across Australia? Minister, why has the government slashed this funding just months after accepting the recommendations of an internal advocacy funding review which did not identify a need to cut funding but rather suggested there may not be enough funding presently? How do you justify yet another breach of trust with the veteran and ex-service community? (Extension of time granted)

I also note your department's explanation for the major adjustment in the cost of your flawed pharmaceutical reimbursement scheme. This scheme, I suggest, is making up for Labor's broken 2007 election promise to relieve the burden on veterans of the cost of medications to treat their war caused disabilities. Labor's 2007 plan for veterans affairs went on to say, 'This will be a key objective to be addressed in our first term of government.' Of course, the veteran and ex-service community and the coalition knew that the solution was not delivered at the last election. Instead Labor promised a deal with the issue if re-elected in 2010. Their second-rate scheme leaves out more than 1,500 of our most disabled war veterans as well as war widows and orphans. Labor's scheme relies on a complex reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses which will not help those veterans on limited or fixed incomes deal with the rising price of other items. In contrast, the coalition scheme which covered 87,000 disabled veterans, including all 27,000 TPI pensioners, delivered immediate relief to the disabled veteran once they had paid for 30 scripts. The department is still unclear about how the scheme will work and the parliament is yet to see legislation to enact this second-rate scheme.

I have significant concerns about the costs, Minister. During a recent Senate estimates hearing your departmental secretary told the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee of the rise in the cost of the scheme from $18.2 million to $30.1 million. They said, 'It is not a blowout; it is a combination of two things: the costing in the government's election was over a shorter period than the budget costing and it was done on a cash basis whereas the budget is done on a fiscal basis.' So during the election Labor chose to deliberately misrepresent the cost of the scheme, did it, Minister? Why did it not cost the scheme during the election in the same way it claims the coalition should have costed our military superannuation reforms? Why is there one rule for one, Minister, and another for others?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly let me address the pharmaceutical reimbursement scheme. I understand the rhetoric, but I think it is genuinely seen as a very great benefit to the veteran community. While I appreciate that political points can be made, the fact is that we will be investing $30.1 million over four years to reimburse eligible veterans' out-of-pocket expenses relating to pharmaceutical prescriptions. I do not think we should apologise for that; I think it is a bloody good thing to do. I know that it has been well received across the veterans community. The measure will address the out-of-pocket costs experienced by some veterans when their annual concessional patient pharmaceutical co-payment costs exceed the value of existing pharmaceutical assistance provided through the pension or veteran supplements. And it does, as you say, deliver on our election commitment, for which you should be pleased.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a term late.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may say it is a term late, but it is a commitment which I am nevertheless pleased that we have been able to deliver. You talked about the increase from election costs to $30 million. As the secretary pointed out at the estimates, this reflects the addition of year 2014-15 to the budget costing and the use of a fiscal amount rather than cash.

In terms of the best funding, I acknowledge the report and believe it was a good document, but we have operated in a fiscally responsible way. We have looked at all of our funding and the $8 million funding reduction for the Veteran and Community grants program and the Building Excellence in Support and Training program are important parts of our fiscal responsibility. The funding reduction aligns with the decline in the veteran client population and the number of grant applications. There are synergies here; this is not just some arbitrary cut. The funding of $4.4 million per year will continue to be made available through these programs and savings from this measure will be redirected to support government priorities. I have been to a number of conferences where I have made this very clear and been upfront about the government cutting these programs—I have not run away from them. I think one of the things that we jointly need to do—and I am not saying this as a point of political difference, because I do not think it is—is to look from now into the future and consider how to manage a declining population. That means we need to talk about current programs which may not have the demand they have had previously, and where we have got the capacity to change the program directions or the funding base for those programs, and redirect that money to other areas of need. That is what we have done in this instance and I do not apologise for it.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I draw your attention to the government's less than admirable record in the area of commemorations. The budget contained no new money for commemoration of the centenary of the Anzac landing. These commemorations will begin in November 2014 and carry through to 2018. Under this government the Australian War Memorial was forced to consider closing one day per week to save money, because their funding had been cut by 20 per cent. It is only after considerable pressure from the community and the coalition, Minister, that you were dragged kicking and screaming to address this sorry state of affairs. The coalition welcomes your belated commitment of an additional $8 million per year to the War Memorial, although there remains doubt about your commitment—sorry, the government's commitment—to the redevelopment of the World War I galleries, given that only $1.7 million has been committed for the feasibility study. The government must guarantee that this work will be completed well ahead of the Anzac centenary in 2015.

On 21 October last year the Prime Minister wrote to you, Minister, about the funding crisis at the Australian War Memorial and instructed you to bring forward a cabinet submission on the funding options. I note that her letter did not call for a funding review. I am happy to table the letter and I seek leave to do so.

Leave granted.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister did instruct the minister to detail suggestions for the centenary of Anzac and other important World War 1 anniversaries. This year's budget, however, remains silent on any proposals for commemoration. Either the minister did not do what the Prime Minister asked of him—which would be terrible—or both the Prime Minister and Minister Snowdon were bound by the ERC in cabinet when their proposals were tabled. Frankly, either outcome is simply not good enough.

The government has gone too cold on the Anzac commemorations. Amidst great excitement on 26 March this year the Prime Minister and Minister Snowdon received the report of the National Commission on the Commemoration of the Anzac Centenary. At the time the Prime Minister indicated she would form an Anzac centenary advisory board to progress the work of the commission and provide strategic advice on the planning and implementation of Anzac centenary events and initiatives. Yet this board has still to be appointed, Minister, or at least have its appointment publicly announced. Not only is there no money for the Anzac centenary commemorations but since late March nothing further has happened to progress the commemorative agenda. It is deeply troubling for the wider community.

Just last week the coalition heard how the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne needs to know in six months whether there will be Commonwealth assistance for a refurbishment of the shrine ahead of the Anzac centenary. The shrine is one of just three military memorials of national significance. Similarly, the community of Albany needs certainty about funding for the proposed Anzac interpretive centre, a centre which I note received strong endorsement from the national commission.

Minister, you say that you will make an announcement in the third quarter of the year about the funding for the Anzac centenary, but why has it taken you so long, especially given the Prime Minister asked you to do this last October? Moreover, does your inability to do what your Prime Minister instructed you to do in writing on 21 October last year prove that you simply have far too much on your plate in terms of your wide responsibilities? Finally, how will the centenary of Anzac commemoration events be paid for? Will the minister guarantee that no veterans' entitlements will be cut to cover the cost of these significant national commemorative events?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much time do I have?

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All the time in the world, Minister.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister can do a response and then we will move on.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I thank the honourable member for reading out that diatribe and say to the author, who I think I know, that we have rebutted these arguments in the public domain previously and I do not intend to traverse them here tonight. I have never heard such rubbish in the time that I have been in this parliament.

Let me say to you very genuinely that we are committed to commemorate properly the Centenary of Anzac. We have a process in place. Very shortly I hope to be able to announce, along with the Prime Minister, the person who will head our advisory board and I think that will be an important statement in itself. You would have heard earlier that I have already had discussions with our counterparts in Turkey, in France—or at least with the office in France—in the UK and in New Zealand about the Centenary of Anzac and those things are ongoing. We have had a report from the commission which the government will respond to in due course.

I do not even want to attempt to respond to the garbage about the Australian War Memorial because, again, this has all been rebutted in the public domain. I have to say the flights of fancy which have reached new heights from—not you—the shadow spokesman on veterans' affairs just dismay me.

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

Who is it?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good question—a senator, you might believe.

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

Which one? Name him.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator from Ballarat, Senator Ronaldson. Now, Michael has his attributes—

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

Is he a Turnbull supporter?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I get on quite well with him. That is a positive thing.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members will assist Hansard by not multiply interjecting during the process.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They can interject individually, and I am happy to respond.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has the call.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But in the context of these issues the shadow spokesman would do well to talk to us before opening his mouth. If he were to do that, he would understand that we have been committed from the time that the Prime Minister instructed us, along with Penny Wong, the finance minister, to do a review of the funding. As a result of that review, we were able to make an additional $8 million a year available to the War Memorial. I would have thought that would be the subject of some praise. It is in effect a 23 or 24 per cent increase in their budget on an annual basis, a very significant amount.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kicking and screaming, Minister.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only kicking and screaming that has been done in the public domain where a bloke is lying on his back with his legs and arms shaking saying, 'Look at me, look at me,' is that of Senator Ronaldson.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Treasury Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,626,511,000

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rhetoric around this budget has all been to do with living within our means, about tough fiscal management, yet when you look at the budget—even since MYEFO late last year—the predicted level of debt has gone from $94 billion to $107 billion. That does not sound to me like a tough budget. We see spending increasing in real terms. Over the forward estimates, we see savings of $2 billion more than the $19 billion of spending, but in the first year it is the opposite: we see spending in excess of savings. So I ask the minister to start with: how can this be presented as a tough budget, when in fact the debt has ballooned from $94 billion to $107 billion?

Secondly, we see now a significantly larger increase—probably up to about $7 billion—in the annual interest to be paid. That is about seven world-class hospitals a year in interest payments alone. And the spending we see in the first year is not much better over the whole forward estimates. I know the minister's head will be full of percentages, but he might go back to the 22 per cent increase in spending a couple of years ago, the base that all of this is coming from.

I compare what the government has done to what Australian households are doing. Households over the last 12 months have gone from minus one per cent saving to about 11½ per cent saving now. That probably equates to close to $75 billion more in savings, by way of people paying off their mortgage or their plastic or putting money in bank deposits. But it is savings in the order of $75 billion. No wonder the retail sector has been as flat as a tack. No wonder there really is a recession in several parts of this economy. If you strip away the energy and resources sector, there is a recession in many parts of this economy.

Here we have a government parading this budget as something setting us up for the future, when it sets us up with even greater debt, when it really demonstrates no impact—or very little impact and certainly none over the next 12 months—on spending over the forward estimates. Then we see an attempt to increase the amount of debt that this government can raise, from $200 billion to $250 billion. Minister, could you please advise us who took the decision to contain the debt-raising proposal in the secondary appropriation bill? Who took that decision about that bill that you introduced deep into the night of the budget, when everyone else was distracted?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't do it during the day.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could do it during the day the next day. You could have made it obvious to people rather than burying it. It was not mentioned in the budget papers, of course—no amount of money was mentioned. You snuck it in in the depths of the night when everyone was distracted. Why was it done this way, when in the past it has been a matter of a separate bill that the parliament could discuss in a substantive way? Can the minister explain why it was contained in a cognate debate, which does not allow for substantive debate or substantive amendments? Does the government really have the discretionary authority to alter the terms of the cognate debate, given that I have corresponded with Minister Albanese, with a copy to you—and I have yet to receive a response—about the opportunity to discuss that matter in a substantive way?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for the questions. I just need some clarity from the chair: is the substantive question there about the increase in the $250 billion? Is that the substantive question?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister seek to ask a question of the questioner?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I need some clarity from the chair.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a series of questions.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is free to interpret that question as he sees fit; I am not going to interpret the question.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to talk generally about the debt issues and the savings and the tough decisions the Gillard government made in the budget, but I will reserve my right, on a point of order, as to relevance and refer to standing order 76. If we are talking about Appropriation Bill (No. 1), and most of—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister may not be totally familiar with the procedures of the Main Committee and how it works. He is duty bound to take a note of the questions—this is a free-flowing exchange—and to deal with each of the questions. If so early in the evening he wants to hide behind all sorts of excuses, that is a very bad start.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member has made his point of order, and I have given the minister the opportunity to interpret and take the question as he sees fit.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did seek guidance. It is not my fault if I had to listen to a poorly drafted ramble. The point which I am coming to—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked you a number of specific questions. If that is a poorly—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is. I reserve my right on one aspect, and I will go to the other—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't remember what I asked you.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Man, you'd need a compass and a cut lunch to follow your question! I am just saying that I am reserving my right on one aspect—I will go to the others; I can understand Mr Robb's impatience to hear my logic—because in standing order 76 the debate is confined to Appropriation Bill (No. 1). Any exception to the standing order can only relate to the second reading debate and not to consideration in detail. I will not quote standing order 76, as no doubt such senior experienced members of the opposition are intimately familiar with it, but we are debating here Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in detail. Questions around the debt cap specifically go to Appropriation Bill (No. 2), and they are not in order for consideration in detail.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a cognate debate, remember?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right, but I am sure you regret your question.

Going to the issue of debt, let us go to the alleged opposition narrative on debt. Let us talk some numbers. The member for Goldstein, perhaps anticipating the answer because it is somewhat self-evident, said, 'No doubt the government will talk about percentages.' Do you know what? He is right. Let us talk about the debt; let us see how Australia is going compared to the rest of the world. Let us use net debt, the key aggregate used for international comparisons. At the peak, under Labor's economic stewardship, which is represented in its flagship, the budget, it will be at 7.2 per cent. If you imagine the Australian economy has GDP of $100,000, net debt will be $7,200. That is very good going. And let us have a look at interest payments: 0.4 per cent at its top—or, using this analogy of the Australian economy at $100,000 GDP, net interest under Labor is $400 out of $100,000. Come in spinner—a beautiful set of numbers! No problems.

Now we have had a look at the debt bogeyman, which is just a shadow cast by a mouse, we look at the issue of how tough is the budget. I am happy to draw the shadow finance minister's attention to Budget Paper No. 1. We go to the decisions we have made, and we look at the impact of policy decisions and natural disasters. I draw his attention, in case he has not had a chance to open the book—he does not appear to have one in front of him; he has a good memory—to 3-14, which talks about the impact of decisions. The member has talked about MYEFO and estimates since then. The reality is we have had some natural disasters since then, shocking disasters, and they have had a big impact on revenue. Even so, despite the natural disasters we have had, this government in this budget has made distinct and difficult savings. We are winding back the largesse of the Howard years—the creep of welfare to nearly every family in Australia. Again I would draw the member for Goldstein's attention to the boxes on 3-12 and 3-13: 'Savings in the 2011-12 Budget', 'Family Payments System', 'Health services', 'Tax expenditures'—we are making the hard decisions.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was a young boy growing up in Ipswich, my dad was a cleaner at the meatworks and my mum was a shop assistant. They were very proud of the fact that Bill Hayden, our local member, the member for Oxley, was the Treasurer in the Whitlam Labor government. Bill was a very well respected person in the local community. I remember that my mum and dad were always very pleased about the fact that, when there was a Labor government in power—sadly enough, there were not too many Labor governments in power when I was growing up—the budget would say what a Labor government really stood for, what a Labor government meant to the working people in Ipswich, and what it meant for jobs, apprentices, skills, the local economy and the national economy.

In my area at the moment we have a high unemployment rate. Our local employment coordinator, Samantha Wilson, works in the Ipswich and Logan areas and does a good job. I was pleased that there was an extension in the budget of the $45.2 million over two years to support the 20 priority employment areas in south-east Queensland and other places. This is very important for my area because, traditionally, Ipswich has been a manufacturing area. When the economy goes down, unemployment rises in the area, particularly among the Indigenous community and the low-skills area. From dealing with local employment providers and organisations that assist young people get into employment, I know that is important. The jobs expo that we saw at the Ipswich Showgrounds was really important. Hundreds of people got jobs as a result of that venture.

I will defend the BER. Those opposite will not support the BER. There was $109 million of investment in my area. As I understand it, jobs were created in this budget and assistance was given to apprentices as well. One of the proudest things I have seen is the jobs created in south-east Queensland, at places like the Ipswich Motorway, which is a $1.95 billion investment by the federal Labor government in south-east Queensland, linking Ipswich and Brisbane. That was extremely important and up to 10,000 jobs were created. I was extremely pleased to see the jobs created in the last three years and pleased to see the opportunities for young people through places like the Ipswich Trade Training Centre at St Edmund's College. I was also pleased to see $2 million invested in Bremer TAFE. Bremer TAFE has been a wonderful vocational institution. We have seen that operating in the Ipswich area for over 100 years and training young people, many for the mines in North Queensland and Central Queensland. We have seen jobs created through partnerships between Bremer State High School and the University of Queensland's Ipswich Campus. We have also seen a vocational focus at USQ, the University of Southern Queensland, with business training at Springfield.

I am pleased to ask the Assistant Treasurer some questions. I think this is very important for my area. Those opposite can sneer and whinge, but I think these considerations in detail are very important. I think it is good to get both national and local information. Queensland is a growing state. It has grown so much in the last 10 or 15 years. You can see that with the number of representatives we have. Sadly, there are not enough on this side and there are too many on the other side. Certainly, Queensland has big mining projects and big infrastructure. We have seen double the amount of funding for infrastructure in Queensland under this government than the previous government. I am pleased to support what we are doing. I ask the Assistant Treasurer these questions: how is the government investing in the jobs that we need in south-east Queensland and nationally; how is the government creating more apprentices and giving the skills to the Australian workforce that we need, particularly in a growing state like Queensland; how will the budget keep the economy strong; and how will it do that for Queensland and nationally?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Blair for his question and the ongoing work he puts into the participation and productivity agenda in Australia and, indeed, in his own area, in Ipswich and other regions. There are a range of initiatives in the budget on participation and productivity—in fact, there are a lot of initiatives on participation and productivity in the budget. Obviously the member is familiar with some of them, but I draw his attention to Budget Paper No. 2—and, again, I note that the opposition has one budget paper between the two members here, so they could share—at page 131. We are looking at linking—

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

It's the ACTU handbook.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How is it that I start talking about linking job seekers with a disability and national employers, and I get catcalls from the member for Casey? We are also proposing to put in place wage subsidies for people with a disability. We all know that people with a disability have not shared in the long prosperity of the last 20 years. So we are looking at further wage subsidies. We are also putting in place wage subsidies for the very long-term unemployed. This is an important initiative because, whilst Australia has been doing well—despite the difficulty of the global financial crisis and despite the benefits of the mining boom mark 1 being squandered by the opposition when they were in government—there have been pockets of disadvantage, and there are families where you have second- and third-generation unemployment. So we are putting in wage subsidies for these people, to assist them to get the chance to break the cycle of unemployment.

We are also accelerating Australian apprenticeships. So if you are a very motivated trades apprentice and you can get through the units of your learning and your employer is satisfied with your work, we can accelerate your apprenticeship. We are also providing additional language and literacy programs to assist people in the workplace. Interestingly enough, we are also providing mentoring for apprentices. We think this is a good idea, and perhaps some of the inspiration comes from watching the member for Berowra assist the member for Longman. Apprenticeship mentoring—it happens everywhere. We are also looking at the access arrangements for Australian apprentices. This is a government which, in each budget since being elected, has supported apprentices and supported the development of apprentices, and I would invite the members opposite to attend some of the apprentice jobs shows and see what a good job is being done.

But it does not stop there. We are putting in place compulsory participation plans and support for teenage parents. We are also looking at changing the eligibility criteria for youth allowance so that our young people who are 20 and 21 will get the youth allowance if they are at home rather than the unemployment benefit. These are tough decisions but decisions that this government is making in order to ensure that everyone is encouraged to participate.

I have made it clear also that we are looking at putting in place compulsory participation requirements for families and for people in jobless families in targeted locations—a tough call, but one that I would hope the opposition would support us on. We are also looking at working with group training apprenticeship schemes—very good—and we are also providing incentives for single parents and parenting reform.

We are working with Indigenous youth and Indigenous job seekers. A great little scheme which I think the parliament should be made aware of is the Indigenous Ranger Cadetships. They will go some way to assisting Indigenous Australians in remote communities. There is good news also for mature age workers—good news indeed. We are providing more assistance to help mature age workers. Registered training organisations will be eligible for grants of money for people who are older than 55 so that those people will be able to gain assistance in seeking work.

We are also looking at working with the states. We are identifying areas—regions of Australia, postcodes—to be provided with a bundle of employment initiatives. We are also looking at making sure that we are working with all of the services for job seekers so that people are encouraged to be able to reach out and find that work. We are making sure that, as we develop these services, we are working with the single parents to make sure that they are able to enter the workforce. Indeed, as the member for Blair would know, we are also working on a range of issues in terms of child care to allow parents to be able to participate more in the workplace. There is a lot being done in the field of productivity and participation in the budget.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was reminded of something when the minister talked about participation in training. I would be grateful if you could give us the reasons why the trade training centres, which were heralded so magnificently for four years, were scrapped—2,650 trade training centres, some of which you had begun to put in place but then were unceremoniously scrapped. You wrung an endless amount of publicity from that. Do you want this in short syllables so that you can write it down? Most of my questions last time were not answered, Minister. Have you got someone writing a note for you?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I was asking a question I would ask another question altogether; syllables don't help your question.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein has the call and will continue.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But he does not answer the question, so it is a bit of a futile use of the time anyway. But, Minister, if you could firstly explain why the trade training centre scheme was scrapped, it would be very helpful to know why you have done that, because you have now substituted that spending for other things which are now making a song and dance. You have scrapped the scheme. You scrapped the trade training centres. Some were built, but they have overwhelmingly been scrapped.

Secondly, Minister, could I go back to the debt and just ask you—again I will speak slowly—who took the decision to contain the debt-raising proposal in a secondary appropriation bill and why it was done in this way when in the past it has been stand-alone legislation.

Thirdly, I did send a letter to Minister Albanese asking if we could have the debt-raising element of the bill separated. I have not had a response from him. Minister, you got a copy of the letter and you are the relevant minister in any event. I seek leave to table the letter that I sent to the minister.

Leave not granted.

You have not seen it but you do not want to see it. This is a joke. This is a total joke. Anyway, you might rely on me—probably not.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not rely on you.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking to the minister. You get back in your box. You will get your screed that you can read in a minute. Someone gave it to you. You will get your chance, so keep the trap shut.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the House to order. While this chamber is more robust, people will deal with each other in an appropriate manner. The member for Goldstein has the call.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sent a note to Minister Albanese—copied to the minister, though unfortunately his staff have not drawn it to his attention—where I formally requested that the terms of the cognate debate be altered to accommodate a substantive debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012. I would ask the minister, as he is the minister responsible, if I could get a response now on whether or not the government is prepared to alter the terms of the cognate debate. There is still an opportunity to accommodate a substantive debate.

Finally in that area, I would be grateful to know why the special circumstances clause has been removed. This clause was a major factor when the government asked the parliament to increase the debt ceiling from $75 billion to $200 billion. Now that the ceiling is rising to $250 billion the government no longer sees a requirement to provide any reasons why the debt should go above $200 billion without any explanation about special circumstances. Could you explain the special circumstances and also why that clause has been removed.

Finally, in the 2009 budget the government included an estimate of the revenue from the emissions trading scheme, and the associated costs, and it was included in the budget. I would put to you, Minister, that this time round the government is, in fact, at a more advanced stage and has the benefit of all the modelling that has taken place but has decided not to include the estimate. Could you please explain why you did include it in 2009 but not in this year's budget. (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. Of the five questions that were asked, two go to the issue of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 and the debt cap. Again I would refer to standing order 76—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are going to take the fifth here, are you?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen, if you do not like the rules, change them. But they are the rules and, if you do not like them, go and have dinner.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. That is what you want to do. You are a disgrace!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, on the contrary—

Honourable members interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members will settle down. Members from both sides of the chamber will settle down.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Need I say Peter Costello?

Honourable members interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat for a moment. When we are all ready I will proceed. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of Appropriation Bill (No. 2), which is the reference to the debt cap and the proposition to increase that to $250 billion, under standing order 76 that is not an item for consideration in detail. Are the opposition so bereft of ideas to talk about in all of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) that all they can do is squander their opportunities to ask questions on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and instead refer to Appropriation Bill (No. 2), which they know is not up for consideration now? They know this. We said this earlier, reserved the right and gave fair warning to the eminent member for Goldstein to say Appropriation Bill (No. 1)—

Mr Tony Smith interjecting—

The member for Casey keeps interjecting but he does not actually ask a question. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) relates to the issue with the debt cap. They know that, but the opposition would still rather focus on that, even though I have made clear that our net debt issues are very small in comparison to those of the rest of the world. So two of the five questions are to do with a bill which is not being considered tonight, but I will go to the other three points, as I can best recall them, from the member for Goldstein's question. The first one went to trade training centres. The second was about some correspondence to the Leader of the House. The final proposition was for us to change our mind, as I think he was putting it, on debating matters cognate.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the emissions trading scheme.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am sorry, and the emissions trading system. Thank you, there were six questions. In terms of the procedures of the House, the government made clear and we put it up to the House that we will have the matters debated cognate. You had shadow ministers at the table. The member for Mackellar was there on duty, a sentinel for conservatism at the table, and she did not even raise a whimper. Whilst the opposition make great play at night, as far as I could tell the member for Mackellar had her eyes open. She certainly seemed alive, awake and breathing, a formidable sentinel for conservatism, but when the proposition was for all the bills to be debated cognate she said nothing—not a whimper, not a squeak. The member for Mackellar is a formidable advocate and I have seen her rise on less than a reason in the parliament. If the opposition think there was a reason to debate it, they missed it, so I can understand that they are embarrassed.

On trade training centres, we certainly have done some good work, but I think it is a little specious of the member for Goldstein to say, 'What's happened to apprenticeships, what's happened to trade training centres?' when in fact this whole budget is a telephone book of effort on doing more for apprenticeships, more for training and more for skills. There is a veritable telephone book of accomplishments, and I think I have given the page reference, in Budget Paper No. 1.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about trade training centres? That's all I want to know.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am making it clear that when you talk about trade training centres you open the door to say apprenticeships. I am making clear that there is a great proposition on apprenticeships in this budget and we have done well with trade training centres so far. If the member for Goldstein misses them so much I just wish he had had the honesty to support them when we had them there.

Then we get to the issue of the ETS. I am surprised that the opposition are complaining that we do not do things like the ETS. If you liked the ETS so much, why did you vote it down? Why did you vote it down with your allies the Greens on that matter? The budget outlines decisions that have been taken. The short answer to the member for Goldstein is: the final decisions on the carbon price have not yet been taken. When you introduced the GST, when you said you were going to do it, you did not put it in your budget. (Time expired)

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

I did not come here tonight to speak about trade training centres but I would mention for the benefit of the member for Goldstein and the member for Casey that the vocational trade training centre in my electorate of Reid which was sited on the old Christian Brothers college in Burwood is a state-of-the-art trade training centre. Minister Garrett and the Prime Minister have visited the trade training centres and they were supremely impressed. The centres are providing an invaluable service for people in the inner west of Sydney.

Mr Robb interjecting—

You asked the minister a question and the minister gave his answer. I did not come here to mention that but I am quite happy to give a commercial to Minister Garrett and the Prime Minister in relation to the vocational trade training centre in Burwood in my electorate. I also take this opportunity to give some feedback to the Assistant Treasurer in relation to the budget being very well received in my community, particularly in the business community. I had a meeting with the President of the Burwood Chamber of Commerce last Friday. He is very, very impressed, as other members are, that the budget will return to surplus in 2012-13, because they know we are the No. 1 economy in the OECD and they know the importance of maintaining a very, very strong economy to make sure that we keep people in jobs, and that is critical for a Labor government.

My question, Minister, is: I would like to know what the government is doing for not-for-profit reforms. I would be grateful if you could inform the chamber of those initiatives.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for his question and his ongoing interest in the important not-for-profit sector. The member understands that the not-for-profit sector employs nearly one million people and is worth $43 billion in activity to our economy.

Mr Robb interjecting—

I know the member for Goldstein does not want to hear about the not-for-profit sector. He had his chance. I would sack your question writer. Returning to the question, and not to be distracted by the interjections of the member for Goldstein, let me say there have been numerous reviews about the future—

Mr Chester interjecting—

The cavalry has ridden over the hill: the member for Gippsland is here; now it will get interesting. We have upgraded the quotient. There have been numerous reviews of the not-for-profit sector. As far back as 1995 there were calls for the establishment of a not-for-profit commissioner in order to streamline the regulation of not-for-profits. As much as members of the opposition interject, it does not stop them from coming around to see the Assistant Treasurer about a deductible gift recipient status for their favourite charities. We hear one thing in the parliament but another thing I am told is: 'You have to understand, Bill, that this is just politics. Let us do business.'

This is important stuff. I believe, all partisanship aside, that the opposition believe in reform for the not-for-profit sector. I know you believe in it. I know the better angels of your nature think that this is important work. What we are looking at doing is establishing a not-for-profit commissioner. We are going to put an interim commissioner in by 1 July. Over the next 12 months we will be seeking to create one central point in government where not-for-profit agencies can go. It will save a lot of red tape. The not-for-profit sector have been calling for it for years and, as I said, there have been plenty of reviews to this point. In addition, what we will do in the next 12 months is to open up a dialogue with the states. We had a choice: we could do nothing and keep talking to the states or we could at least establish a regulator—hopefully to be in place by 1 July 2012—for the 60,000 charities that are currently covered by Commonwealth law. We hope to reach out to the other 540,000 not-for-profits who are regulated by state and territory jurisdiction. We will get a move on and open up what we are doing at the Commonwealth stage. But it is not just that.

We also intend to introduce a statutory definition of a charity. This was a touchy issue under the old coalition government. They liked the idea of a statutory definition of charity but they did not like the idea that groups could be advocates. In other words, they loved the view that you could see a thousand victims of domestic violence, but if that group chose to advocate more reform, that was a different issue and that was going to make it harder. The now opposition—the then government—understood intuitively, instinctively, the value of a statutory definition of a charity; they just did not like groups that advocate. This is a government that welcomes advocacy. We understand the value of the third sector, so we will be putting forward a proposition around a statutory definition of a charity which the regulator will administer. I have to say that we have also made clear a number of other decisions flowing from this. We have said that, for charities that have investments and activities in unrelated commercial ventures, where the money is not remitted back to the charity for the purpose for which the charity was established, that operation will not receive the same tax concessional status. I think most people across the political divide think that is very good.

What we are going to do further with the not-for-profit regulator is to have the back office function provided by Treasury and the Australian Tax Office for the next 12 months. The view is that by 1 July 2012 we will have a completely independent not-for-profit regulator, who will report to the Assistant Treasurer. We have set up an interim task force. We have nominated Mr Robert Fitzgerald, a Productivity Commissioner and former head of ACOSS, to chair the interim task force. He is well respected throughout the not-for-profit sector. He has been a long-time advocate for improvement, reform and modernisation. We are yet to announce the interim commissioner, but that decision, I am sure all members will be pleased to know, is imminent.

We think the not-for-profit sector is a very important part of Australian life. Henry Lawson wrote a story in which the hero sends around a hat whenever someone is indigent and has fallen on hard times. We think that Henry Lawson's values of the mid-19th century still echo in 2011. We certainly believe the not-for-profit regulator will be an agency to assist in sending the hat around. It will be good for philanthropy, charities and the many thousands of people who work ceaselessly in the charities. I acknowledge the work of Senator Ursula Stephens; the Minister for Social Inclusion, Tanya Plibersek; and the member for Melbourne Ports. (Time expired)

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

I want to start by saying how extraordinary and disappointing the Assistant Treasurer's conduct has been here tonight in this important Main Committee meeting to consider the budget in detail. This is the closest thing the House has to the estimates process. It is quite clear from his conduct over the last 40 minutes that his sole preparation has been to conjure up as many excuses as he can, not to answer specific questions and to bring along with him as many colleagues as he could to waste time. The House ought to know that this conduct by this minister tonight—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Those opposite may interject. That is part of their riding instructions. This is not some ALP state conference. The record ought to show that the conduct of this minister is not only out of step with previous ministers who have spoken broadly but also out of step with the conduct of his own colleagues, including other ministers who appeared earlier this evening. That is the minister's choice. That speaks volumes about his approach to his job. It speaks volumes about his ability to be across the detail of that job.

He clung to the standing orders, which has been his preparation, all afternoon about how not to talk generally about the budget. This is the government's budget. His performance has been absolutely pathetic. He is here on behalf of the Treasurer to talk about the government's budget. He ought to know it backwards. He is the Assistant Treasurer. Previous people in his position have come to this committee and taken questions for an hour and have attempted to answer them. They have not organised colleagues to come into the chamber and waste time, as these three colleagues of his have been organised to do, no doubt by him. He ought to answer the questions put to him by the member for Goldstein. He spoke generally about the budget when it suited him. He ought to be across it. I want to ask him a series of questions, given that he spoke generally about the budget when it suited him. I would like him, as a Treasury minister, to remind the Main Committee of the forecasts in the budget for the unemployment rate and the consumer price index in 2011-12 and 2012-13.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a little disappointed by that ad hominem attack by the member for Casey. I thought he was better than that. Clearly, I am to be disappointed. In terms of the general discussion first of all, I cannot allow the persiflage of the opposition to slip by unremarked upon. The opposition complain that government ministers ask questions. This is hardly a surprise. If the opposition are surprised by it then they must be more lazy than I realised they were. I waited for questions. In terms of the CPI forecasts, in 2011-12 inflation is 2¾ per cent and unemployment is 4¾ per cent.

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

And 2012-13?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dobell.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

I am sorry; can the Assistant Treasurer hold. The Assistant Treasurer will hold for a moment.

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

No, I asked you about both. You weren't listening. The Hansard record will show—

Mr Shorten interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the Assistant Treasurer does not have the call. The call was given to the member for Dobell.

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

I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the Assistant Treasurer questions relating to two years, 2011-12 and 2012-13. He just said that he was only asked about one year and he sought to answer the question—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister answers the question as he sees fit.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a further point of order: given that the minister has not answered questions tonight and he is now starting to answer them, I would ask you, on indulgence, whether the minister could be given the chance—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out to the member for Casey that that is not a point of order. I have given the member for Dobell the call.

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

If it assists the member for Casey, I will ask the Assistant Treasurer as part of my question: what are the inflation rates and the unemployment rates for 2012-13 as well as 2011-12? That was not what I was going to get up to talk about, but I know that you wanted to get that question in and I am making sure that that question is asked so that the Assistant Treasurer can answer it.

I wanted to talk about how well received the budget was in my electorate, for a number of reasons, and then I will come to a specific question about my region. My region has a lot of commuters. We have higher unemployment than the rest of the state and we are one of the 10 areas in Australia that is being singled out and looked after in this budget in relation to unemployment issues. That is important to note by way of background for the question that I want to ask. But we also have a number of large industries, predominantly food processing. We have Sara Lee, MasterFoods and Sanitarium.

In fact, the Leader of the Opposition came to Dobell the other day to visit Sanitarium and talk about the price of Weet-Bix. It was great to have him in the electorate. I said that while he was up there, if he wanted to talk about climate change, the opposition leader was very welcome to come with me to look at the flooding around the lakes. Today we actually have people being evacuated around Tuggerah Lakes due to flooding. We have houses falling into the water at Norah Head and North Entrance. So I was happy to show him, if he wanted to come to an electorate to look at what climate change is about. He came to the right electorate. Unfortunately, he was more interested in a stunt about Weet-Bix than in that.

Having made those points, the primary area of employment on the Central Coast is small business. Small business is what employs the most people. We have a great record in terms of small business and innovation on the Central Coast. We have a BEC that this government funded in previous budgets. I was talking to Wayne Gates, the CEO, only last week about how successful it has been in mentoring and growing businesses there. But what I am particularly interested in is what sorts of packages there are in this budget that will assist small business. In particular, we also have a large number of tradesmen who buy their vehicles. They commute down to Sydney to do a lot of work. In fact, I think my electorate has one of the highest proportions of tradesmen in Australia, so I am very interested to see what measures in this budget would assist tradespeople and small business people. I seek an answer to that from the Assistant Treasurer, along with an answer to the important question about unemployment and inflation in the year 2012-13 which the member for Casey tried to ask last time.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dobell for doing the job of the opposition and asking a question. The inflation forecast for 2012-13 is three per cent, and the unemployment forecast for 2012-13 is 4½ per cent. Of course, that is in the budget papers. I watched the member for Casey's questioning style and he is not above asking the odd number question. I saw him ask a question on the terms of trade. So I appreciate that for all the sound and fury of the desperate need of the opposition to ask questions, the member for Casey's form is to ask basic economic data questions which, to be honest, a year 10 student could find out on Google. Anyhow, if that is how he wants to use his time—the point is that these questions should be for insight, not data and fact collection. If you want data and fact collection, open the budget.

I am sufficiently alarmed by the member for Casey's lack of knowledge of the basic economic data that I think he may not be aware of what we are doing for small business. The member for Dobell is a relentless advocate for small business in his electorate. Indeed, he is getting me to come and meet people in his electorate, and hear what the issues are on the Central Coast. I am optimistic for the Central Coast in the long term. I think the coastal regions of Australia will grow and will boom. And they are fortunate to have, by and large, Labor members of parliament, because they will fight hardest for their regions.

On 1 July 2012, as a result of the budget, 2.7 million small businesses will be able to instantly write off the first $5,000 of a vehicle or truck purchase. That is good news. That is costing $350 million. That is a direct, tangible help. Often we leave this place and go into the real world and talk to people about what we are doing. What we on the government side are able to say is that because of us, because of the budget, there is another $5,000 you can write off your vehicle. That is real. Leave aside all the opposition's scare mongering—I know that plenty of individual members on the opposition appreciate the real accomplishments of this budget; that is why they have infested the openings of the Building the Education Revolution school halls like serial pests, even though they voted against it. It is almost like they have two sets of clothes. They have their Canberra clothes, which are opposition, opposition, opposition; they get out into the electorate and they want to associate with the real things that this government is accomplishing.

But it does not stop there. What it means is that when the tradesperson, such as those that the member for Dobell represents, takes the $5,000 write-off they will be able claim $1,275 back. That is what they will get back. That is real money. As much as the opposition want to decry this budget, that is something real and tangible. Furthermore, combine that with our write-off of $5,000 for assets. Then there is the small business company tax. That is an important part of the strategy of the government for helping small business. We are proposing, when we pass our minerals resources rent tax, to use some of the revenue from that to decrease the company tax of small business from 30 per cent to 29 per cent. That makes a real and material difference to the operation of small businesses. Furthermore, on budget night we announced $700 million of tax instalment relief for small businesses. We think this is a good gain. We think that is a benefit for small business and we understand that that instalment relief will assist businesses experiencing difficulty in cash flow.

The other good news is that with the fringe benefit tax reforms to motor vehicles, some people who had been previously driving their vehicle just beyond a certain point to claim the better deduction rate for the fringe benefit tax benefit on motor vehicles will no longer have to engage in that behaviour to get the benefit. There is a range of benefits for small business.

Another proposition I feel obliged to draw to the attention of the committee is that in the last budget—the one before this—we announced a clearing house for superannuation. In what can only be described as a misfire or a clanger or a mistake or an oopsy moment by the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, in a demonstration to try to prove he is not just Dr No and Professor Negative, said the coalition will announce a clearing house for small business: they can remit their money. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'You can pay your money, small business, to the tax office and they will remit to all the superannuation funds of the employees.' Sounds like a good idea except for one thing. We have already done it. It is already happening. We are using the Medicare office—4,500 employees have used it; $45 million has been dispersed; 86,000 payments have been made; 29,000 employees. It is a good idea but it is a bit like the opposition claiming credit for inventing the wheel. Just bad luck that someone else has already got there.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am deeply frustrated, annoyed and bewildered by the lack of any substantive answer we have had. The minister just said in his recent response that these question periods should be about gaining insight into the budget—the most important document of the year. We have a cast of thousands here and I have had no insight given by the minister into anything. What he has said basically all night is a repeat of what was in the Treasurer's speech, which any year 10 student could google and get the answers that you have given tonight. I did seek to get some insight into the debt, I did seek to get some insight into trade training centres. They were legitimate, reasonable questions to ask in most cases why you have done it, to give us some insight.

Let me ask you about another area, the structural deficit. I would ask for some insight this time, not just a lot of pap in your response. Minister, why did the government not feature any significant discussion about the structural deficit or forecasts about the structural deficit in the budget papers as it has before? Does the minister accept that the current structural deficit is of the order of $35 billion, as can be deduced from the work done by Treasury a couple of years ago and added in a separate paper last year? Minister, have you seen that document from last year about a structural deficit? Does it worry you that this country has got an underlying structural deficit of $35 billion given that the forecasts on revenue are about as Pollyanna as you could ever get and they go out forever? Aren't you concerned if there is some reduction in the terms of trade greater than what is anticipated that the structural deficit may in fact lead to this country being lumbered with debt and deficits for a decade or more to come? Minister, given that the IMF and the OECD regularly publish these estimates of structural deficits, do you think that Australia should be able to do so and should do so? It is not an unreasonable question.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad you critique your own questions.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not getting any answer; I am not getting any insight. You can have your smart shots, but I would not mind answers to the questions. Finally, Minister, do you think it is possible that the terms of trade could fall from their current high levels given the supply response to resources that is building around the world, and what impact will that have on the $35 billion existing structural deficit? He was not even listening.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry I did miss the last few minutes of Goldstein magic.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rest my case.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In amongst the polemic and the diatribe—I have to say demeanour is a little grumpy for the member for Goldstein—

Mr Robb interjecting—

No-one kept the member for Goldstein here. If he did not come well prepared with questions about Appropriation Bill (No. 1), don't blame the government. You asked about structural deficit. You know we do not publish a structural deficit. It is assumption driven and we have not published it—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did two years ago.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know we have not done it in this budget. You know that to be the case. Let us go to what worries the member for Goldstein and keeps him up at night. He did refer—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Five questions on the structural deficit; give me one answer.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not publish it. In terms of what the member was saying about—

Mr Robb interjecting—

I am sure the officials are grateful they do not have to work for you. I am sure they notice the difference in the opposition from when the former member for Higgins was there to now.

Mr Robb interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein will remain silent.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As much as the member for Goldstein wants to single out Commonwealth public servants and start attributing—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Assistant Treasurer will hold for a moment. There are one and a half minutes left. I will ask the member for Goldstein not to continue interjecting and the minister not to respond to interjections and to use the time that is left.

Mr Andrews interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Menzies brings his own particular form of charm to the debate. The member for Goldstein, amongst his angry, grumpy rave about how he would rather be somewhere else, did ask about the terms of trade. I draw his attention to our forecasts on page 2-10 of Budget Paper No. 1. We are forecasting it at 19¼ per cent this year. There has been some debate. There was debate in the main chamber about terms of trade, which the member for Casey raised. He asked the Treasurer about the terms of trade. We are forecasting that our terms of trade will reach their highest sustained level in more than 100 years. This is based on the rise of our non-rural commodity exports. We are also forecasting, in 2011-12 and 2012-13, a decline in these terms of trade, obviously as other suppliers around the world come online.

More generally, the shadow finance minister has complained that he has no insight about the budget. He is not even listening to the answer to his own question—very unprofessional. Anyway, perhaps the member for Casey could relay my comments to him, or indeed the member for Menzies. This is the narrative: we are keeping real spending down; we have made tough savings; the opposition, when it was in government, ignored the capacity constraints; our tax-to-GDP ratio is much better than the opposition's tax-to-GDP ratio was when it was in government. We had the global financial crisis. I think there is almost a degree of disappointment on the part of the opposition that our stimulus package, which it opposed, has been so successful. It also opposed our flood levy. We put in a flood levy and found a lot of other money to deal with natural disasters.

We have a fiscal position to create more jobs, to get the budget back into surplus and to spread the benefits of the mining boom. That is the story of the budget. The story of Australia is that we are an economy in transition. This government is best able to handle the economy and the transition to make sure that we get back into surplus, that our children are getting a proper education and that we are investing in skills. We are going to roll out national broadband and we are going to increase superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. Let me again put on record this question: why does the coalition keep opposing increasing mandatory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent when most of those opposite are on a defined benefit or they receive 15 per cent? One should practice what one preaches. I can only assume that when the opposition votes against it for all Australians it will be handing back its own superannuation and reducing it to that which it expects its voters to live on.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Human Services Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,203,004,000

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that, at least at the moment, there are a number of members in the chamber who represent rural and regional areas of Australia. In that context, I want to ask the minister about the decision relating to the Medicare access points and the closure of those access points. I am seeking information, so I can handle this in a couple of ways. I can put all the questions to the minister now, but I am also happy for the minister to take them one at a time or however she would like. I am not seeking to make some political point about this; I am seeking information about the process.

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

Ask them all now.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, can the minister provide the chamber with a list of all of the Medicare access points that are going to be closed and the timetable for the closure of those points? This is something that is of importance to many communities throughout Australia. Secondly, in relation to each of those closures, what consultation might have occurred with the provider of the service and, more importantly and more significantly, the local community where this service is being and has been provided up until now? I am also interested in the savings service by service and, in relation to that, I have a subquestion. I have been informed that in many instances the service provider, if I can call it that, has been prepared to continue to provide the service without any cost to the government. I would like to know, if that is true—if such offers have been made—why that has been rejected, because it would seem to be a win-win situation for local communities. I would like to know whether any survey was undertaken—or, if not, why not—in relation to the people in these areas around whether or not they are capable of using Easyclaim. I think the minister would recognise that there are many Australians whose ability to use Easyclaim may not be as great as the ability of people sitting around this room. I would like to know how many people in remote and regional areas are not able to access telephone or internet services, particularly the elderly and vulnerable members of society. I suspect that at least some of these people may well have written to the minister or to the agency on this matter and I would like to know what the response has been.

In a nutshell, I am seeking information about the basis upon which this decision was made, the consultation with local communities and particularly whether there has been any survey or consultation around whether people can use alternative forms to make these claims. I also have some questions in relation to other matters, so I do not know whether the minister wants to take them all now or deal with one subject at a time.

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

I am happy to take them all now.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand other members wish to ask questions. I will not spend time on grand rhetoric; I will try to get to the questions I would like answers to. In relation to communications at Centrelink, answers were provided at Senate estimates last week that suggested that the General Manager, Communication, of Centrelink, Mr Jongen, 'works closely' with your office in the preparation of items for the media. How often is your office in contact with the gentleman in question? To what extent are his media activities directed by your office? How does this relationship work? One could cynically suggest that the gentleman in question is rolled out on programs like Today Tonight for puff pieces when there is other more significant and possibly bad news on the horizon.

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

I will not respond to the interjection. I am interested in the relationship between the gentleman in question and your office, Minister.

Finally, in relation to the Centrelink disaster relief fraud task force, according to answers provided in Senate estimates in February this year, as of 23 February 2011 Centrelink reported that it had only recovered $124,735 more than it spent on investigating fraud of the disaster relief payments to that date. Can you update me on the figure of what has been recovered?

I end on an observation to which you might like to respond. There has been a lot of talk in the media about success, but $124,000 extra recovered, if that is the amount, is not a great amount as compared to the effort that might have gone into this. One might have expected, given the comments that have been made in the media about fraud in this regard, that more than that amount might have been recovered.

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

I assure the member for Menzies and the minister that la grande rhetorique is not part of my purpose here, but I would say, Minister, that you and the government are due congratulations. I congratulate the minister and the government on their initiatives to help people who need assistance, particularly the long-term unemployed, unemployed youth, homeless youth and young single parents who unfortunately lack skills, training and employment.

I want to highlight the Place-Based Initiatives which were announced in the budget. The municipality of Burnie in my electorate, which the minister is very familiar with through her past work and current work, is one of the 10 areas that have been chosen under this initiative and it will have access to a whole array of extra resources on top of those provided by Job Services Australia, Centrelink and other agencies. In April I was fortunate enough to launch the Local Connections to Work program in my electorate through the Burnie Centrelink. It is an excellent initiative. It is really common sense in that it brings together all the agencies that are working with individuals and organisations so that they can share information and provide their services in the one place—a one-stop shop in a sense—to their clients, who opt to be able to do this. That stops all the duplication and the record keeping that goes with it. I congratulate the government on that initiative. I must also congratulate Burnie Centrelink, which has really been working very hard to make this work along with the department, Medicare, Housing Tasmania, job service providers, the University of Tasmania, schools and others. I was really hoping that the minister would be able to tell us a bit more about the program and why it is an important part of our government's broader workforce participation package that was announced in the budget. I do congratulate the minister and the agency and all those that are making these services much more readily available in such a common-sense way.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the previous speaker I also want to commend the minister on the Local Connections to Work program. Ipswich was a pilot site for that program and it is doing a great job there. I am very pleased with the work of Jenny Wright, team leader at Centrelink in Ipswich. In fact, Jenny is in Parliament House—I saw her an hour or so ago—and I will be catching up with her tomorrow morning.

I wanted to take this opportunity to personally thank the minister for the assistance that my electorate received during the recent floods, particularly for the wonderful support from Centrelink. Those people in dark-green shirts with 'community recovery' emblazoned on their backs and with their iPads were greatly appreciated and did a great job. Since and before being elected to this place, I have always thought that mobile offices were particularly important. I did 190 mobile offices personally last term and I have done 76 already this term. I represent a regional and rural seat. I have got all the Somerset region, which is our country area, and most of Ipswich, 60 per cent of which is rural as well. I get around to all the country shows doing mobile offices once a month. I notice that Centrelink is taking up that task. I am not sure whether they are replicating my work! Indeed, Jenny Wright, the team leader for Local Connections to Work in Ipswich, and Kylie Stoneman, one of my electorate officers, who does a lot of community development work, have been going out to various places. I want to put on record that on 27 June they will be in Lowood, on 28 June in Laidley, on 29 June in Toogoolawah and on 30 June in Esk.

Lowood, Toogoolawah and Esk are in my seat in Somerset, and Laidley is in the Lockyer Valley. They are all areas which were badly affected by the flood. The flood went straight through Esk. Laidley was cut off and a lot of the sites we saw on TV, where people were being evacuated by helicopter, were in Laidley and the surrounding area. Lowood had whole farming districts destroyed. In fact, 3,000 homes in Ipswich and 500 homes in Somerset were inundated. Whole farming areas, like Brightview, were completely destroyed. I know that Centrelink workers went out to those places at the request of the minister and, locally, at the request of Jenny Wright, to evacuation centres and recovery centres. They went to places like Fernvale, Toogoolawah, Lowood, Esk and Ipswich, and suburbs like Leichhardt-One Mile and Riverview—just getting out into the local communities.

I was very pleased to see in the budget that the government is investing $24.5 million of new funding to continue this important service for another four years, as well as providing more mobile offices in 2014. I am very interested in the role of Centrelink social workers, because, as a number of them said to me, a lot of people were stoic and resilient during the recent floods; but, if you sat down with them for a while and earned their trust and respect, they shared their travails and troubles, and the Centrelink workers were able to give them important emotional and psychological support. So I am pleased to see the budget includes new funding to support more Centrelink social workers over the coming years. I think that is absolute crucial, Minister, and I commend you for that. Those workers do very important work. I think the assistance given by the mobile offices in terms of customer document information, payment and service options, and rural payment entitlements are particularly important, as is processing new claims in an expeditious way.

So, Minister, I would like to know more details about this budget measure—how it is going to be delivered in rural and regional areas, and why it is as a particular priority for you in the Human Services portfolio. I think this is a good initiative; it will help seniors, families, students, carers and self-employed people. But it does need to be publicised well, because in some of these areas people rely very much on the rural newspapers, so it is important that that information goes out in various different ways—through the rural press and not just on TV. For a lot of people, it is that rural weekly throwaway that is so important. It is not just their TV guide; it is their source of local information—and it should be the source of information about Centrelink mobile offices. I am happy to hear any information from you, Minister.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be here this evening to pass on my observation to the minister that this budget continues the government's efforts to focus on improving service delivery, particularly in the area of case coordination for people who face very complex problems, have complex needs and face significant disadvantage.

I know that the Department of Human Services supports a great many very vulnerable people in our community, many of whom do face extremely significant impediments and disadvantage. I certainly know that constituents in my electorate of La Trobe regularly interact with Medicare, Centrelink and the Child Support Agency and that the employees of the department who work in those agencies do an extremely good job in extremely difficult circumstances at times.

This government, recognising the particular needs of individuals within the community, has already embarked on a series of service delivery reforms which co-locate services to make them more accessible, and I was very pleased to see that continued focus in this year's budget. From my own experience of working with, for instance, the Boronia Centrelink office, which services the needs of so many people in the northern end of my electorate, I know that Centrelink do an extremely good job in trying to assist people who have complex needs and face significant hurdles. It has been a priority of this government to make it much easier for Australians to access the government services they need, to simplify the interactions they have with government agencies and to really give them much better support and assistance when they need it the most. I know that my electorate has certainly benefited from the funding commitments this government has made which support families and pensioners, which have improved circumstances for the long-term employed and which support new parents. But in addition to those very practical measures we all stand to benefit from the better delivery of government services to those who face significant disadvantage. We know that some people in our society are doing well, but that a great many others are still facing significant barriers to other work, training or a range of other things. These are barriers which we know could be better overcome with some assistance and coordination.

Having a case manager available to assist a person with complex needs to get access to services will be invaluable. Arranging access to things like child care to help a parent access a job interview or arranging access to mental health services or assisting people to prepare for job interviews could quite literally have a life-changing impact for those individuals, their families and, ultimately, the community.

I certainly do commend the minister on her endeavours to emphasise those concerns in service delivery reform for better case coordination in the response in this budget. I suspect in particular that many of those measures will have a real and practical impact for many women, for those who are long-term unemployed and for older Australians, certainly in my electorate and right around the country.

With all of that in mind, I was extremely interested to see that as part of the service delivery reform measures in the budget that there is a $74.4 million measure to provide more intensive and tailored support for people in need through new case coordination services. I note that at this stage the program will be trialled at 44 locations over the next three years, including the 10 sites in which the government is making major new investments through its workforce participation agenda. I would ask whether the minister might be able to provide some more detail about how the case coordination program will work in practice. And could the minister also outline any plans for extending that program beyond the 44 sites in coming years?

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

We are going to run out of time because a division is expected in the House, and I would like to give the minister an opportunity to respond. The member for Throsby has the floor.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Chair, are you asking me to be brief?

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

In a roundabout sort of way!

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am interested in the impact of budget proposals as they relate to one of the local government areas within my electorate of Throsby, the local government area of Shellharbour. It has a stubbornly high unemployment rate, generally at around two per cent above the state average. We have a significant group of young people; about 25 per cent of the population within the LGA is under the age of 35, and there is a significant group of young unemployed people–particularly young unemployed parents. I am very pleased that the budget goes to some initiatives which, hopefully, will improve the life opportunities of these people. I note from the budget papers that the minister's portfolio is going to be critical to the delivery of some of these services. Indeed, recently the minister came down to the local government area and engaged with community representatives, which was very well received.

I am keen to hear from the minister on the Community Innovation through Collaboration initiative, which was a part of the measures. Hopefully, the minister will be able to update us on the role of the Human Services portfolio in these new initiatives and how we can get beyond the one-size-fits-all model, which has been part of our service delivery in the past.

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

Firstly, to the questions that were asked by the member for Menzies—and I thank him for those questions. The Medicare access points, for those people who do not know, basically provide a telephone booth where people can phone through their Medicare claims. They were begun by the previous government at a time when there were very few ways of claiming other than going and queuing up in a Medicare office. They were very useful at the time for that reason. But in the 2007 budget—the Howard government budget—there was a decision not to continue those access points beyond 30 June 2011. The idea at that time in 2007 was that these new forms of Medicare claiming would become much more useful. And, indeed, they have.

Through the service delivery reform agenda of this government we will see a doubling of the face-to-face Medicare points over coming years as more Medicare counters open in Centrelink offices. And, of course, we now have much better swiping facilities at the doctor's, so you are able to claim Medicare much more easily there. Over 500 access points have already been removed at the request of the host because they were not used at all or were not wanted. Of the 666 that have been removed this year, all were used fewer than 20 times a month over the last two years; 15 were not used at all; 115 were used on an average of less than once a month over the last two years; and 512 were used fewer than 10 times a month over the last two years. For those access points that continue to have high usage, we are looking at ways that we can help customers to transition over time to more convenient ways of claiming their Medicare entitlements, and that is why I have asked my department to keep open 174 access points that are used, on average, more than 20 times a month. We will work very closely with affected communities.

I do not want to spend my whole time talking about this but I think it is very important to say that, in many cases, where these access points are being removed there are very practical and easy alternatives—for example, visiting Centrelink access points or Centrelink agents or using Centrelink facilities in the very same spot that these Medicare access points have been offered. They can be literally in the same community organisation, literally in the same shopfront, and there are a number of examples—too many to go through. This is technology that has fallen out of favour with people. It is the beta videotape equivalent. It has fallen out of favour because it is not as convenient as many other options that we offer people today.

I will turn now to other questions that people have raised. The member for Braddon talked about Local Connections to Work. I am very pleased that he mentioned Local Connections to Work. Frankston, Ipswich, Burnie, Morwell and Maroochydore will continue, and there will be five new sites a year between 2012-13 and 2014-15. There will be a total of 24 sites around Australia by 2015. The most important thing about Local Connections to Work is that it has been much more successful in getting job seekers, particularly highly disadvantaged job seekers, into work. The Local Connections to Work sites have a 50 per cent higher success rate than for the equivalent group of job seekers in sites where there is no Local Connections to Work.

The member for Blair talked about mobile offices and mobile vans, as well as the assistance that Centrelink gave during the floods. I am very happy to report that we will have a third mobile office in coming years. The two that exist at the moment have been re-funded. They have mostly been out in the rural areas but they were very handy during the floods, and a lot of people used that service then. The member for Blair also talked about Centrelink workers doing outreach work. Of course, we already have 90 community engagement officers, and in fact another 20 have been funded in this budget. These are people who go out to boarding houses and homeless services. They sit on river banks with people and make sure that they are getting their proper Centrelink entitlements.

The member for La Trobe talked about case coordination. Case coordination is a very important new approach that Centrelink is trialling in 44 locations over the next three years, including the 10 sites we are focusing on in this budget where there are highly disadvantaged communities with large numbers of highly disadvantaged job seekers. The first 19 sites will be rolled out this year and the idea, as the name suggests, is to have Centrelink staff freed up to work intensely with highly disadvantaged job seekers and their families, because in a lot of cases there are intergenerational issues in a family. Those Centrelink workers will be linking those highly disadvantaged job seekers to all the supports that Centrelink can offer but also, more importantly, linking them to all of the community supports as well—to Alcoholics Anonymous, to financial counselling services, to gambling counselling services and to housing and homelessness services if job seekers are homeless. We believe that by overcoming some of those existing barriers, we will be able to much more effectively help highly disadvantaged job seekers move into the workplace.

The final comments came from the member for Throsby on the place-based initiatives that we have taken in this budget and young unemployed parents in particular. I was very pleased to visit Shellharbour with him. It is one of four locations so far that I have visited of the 10 that we will be focusing on with these place-based measures. I guess, in short, as time is short, it is important to say that we do expect more of people. You mentioned young parents in particular, the member for Throsby. We will expect them to come when their baby is six months old and engage with Centrelink and develop a plan to go back to school and to get back into the workforce. We are expecting more of them, but we are offering greater supports as well, because we do think it is important. Life does not finish at 19 just because you have got a baby. It is really vital to be able to provide for yourself and provide for your child and by supporting the parent back into school and study and the workforce we are also able to support children through Communities for Children—playgroups and preschools—to be school-ready as well so we do not see intergenerational cycles of poverty.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the time constraints, as time has run out. Can I simply, through you Madam Deputy Speaker, ask that the minister take on notice the questions which I have put that she has not had the opportunity to answer tonight and to answer them in the normal course. If you could give an undertaking to do that, I would appreciate it.

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

I will have a look, sure.

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

The minister has agreed.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are waiting for another minister to turn up, I am quite happy for the minister to answer the rest of my questions now—especially in relation to the other two matters which I raised; namely, the Centrelink Disaster Fraud Task Force and Centrelink communications.

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

Is the minister happy to keep going with questions?

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

Yes, I am happy to. The shadow minister, the member for Menzies, asked about Hank Jongen in particular and the Centrelink communications business. Mr Jongen has been employed by Centrelink for many years, long before my time. He is sought after for media interviews in a talkback format where he answers questions on the radio about people's entitlements to pensions and family benefits and so on. I certainly have not instructed him on how to undertake those regular media engagements that he has had for some time. I think he does a very good job in explaining the complex detail of entitlement to particular payments and so on. He, of course, is in regular contact with my office about media engagements that he has been asked to undertake, but not in a way where we are instructing him to pursue particular engagements.

The shadow minister also asked about the Disaster Relief Fraud Task Force. I think the first thing that is very important to say about the payments that occurred during the flooding is that the vast majority of people who applied for and received payment after the disasters that we experienced in January, particularly the Queensland floods, were people who very much needed help. They were in very difficult circumstances and they were applying for an amount of support from the government that would allow them to, as the member for Blair will tell you, buy clothes, buy a meal that night, perhaps if they were fortunate find a room in a hotel, replace medication and buy a phone and a SIM card so they could let people know they were okay. It was were important for the government to be able to help with those expenses. I am very proud of the job that Centrelink did in turning those payments over very quickly, with the vast majority of people receiving financial support within 24 hours or 48 hours, with hundreds of thousands of calls handled not just by Centrelink but also by the other Human Services agencies. We had people from Medicare and from the Child Support Agency answering phones. We even had people from the tax office and other Commonwealth departments pitching in to answer phones and to process claims.

There were some people who claimed incorrectly, and that was established on subsequent checks. Our bias when people were ringing up in the first instance was to accept the information that they gave us. If they were already on our Centrelink database we were able to verify identity, bank account details and so on. But in some cases people received money that they were not entitled to. The shadow minister, the member for Menzies, asked how much money has been recovered so far. Almost half a million dollars has been recovered to date, with around three per cent being voluntarily repaid. Almost 97 per cent are being repaid through withholding from regular payments. If people are otherwise entitled to a pension, family tax benefit and so on, a proportion of that money is being withheld over time, so for that reason the amount under recovery is growing all the time.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her answer to my previous question. When I have been out in my electorate since the Treasurer's speech talking about this budget, I have described it as a Labor budget—

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

It certainly was!

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because it is a budget that goes to the issue of jobs and has identified the importance of jobs. The member for Riverina might not appreciate this issue, but this budget identifies the issues of jobs and skills for the future. What has been in the front of my mind is that, as Australia takes off for mining boom mark 2 and as the centre of global gravity for the next wave of economic development shifts south, Australia is certainly in the pilot seat for a take-off for our next economic boom.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Perhaps if the member for Riverina sat quietly and listened for long enough, he might understand where I was getting to. There are many regions of Australia that will not enjoy the fruits of this boom unless there is positive government intervention. My questions are: what is the thinking behind those 10 regions that have been identified as a part of our place based initiatives; why and how have they been identified; and what is the government going to do to ensure that the people in those regions are not going to be left behind as we move into the next phase of our economic growth?

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

I will be very brief because I know the next minister has arrived and is wanting to talk about his portfolio. We chose 10 regions that had, for example, a high proportion of highly disadvantaged job seekers, a high youth unemployment rate and a high number of people on disability support benefits or other benefits. We wanted a balance of city and regional areas. We will look at this very intensive new approach as perhaps being appropriate for rolling out more broadly in the future. We wanted to have a balance of different types of communities so that we could be sure that the approach that we are taking works both in cities, rural, regional and suburban areas. As I say, the focus was on not only communities with a high number of disadvantaged job seekers but also communities where there is already a really strong culture of pulling together, where there are strong non-government organisations, where there is a strong culture of the community actually taking responsibility and working with employers, looking for opportunities and where there is an opportunity to build on the strengths of those communities. We wanted statistics that related to not only unemployment but also communities where there was a lot of existing social capital.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,170,915,000

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Committee for its patience. I have a great opening statement but, given that I have tried the time already, I may skip that and provide an opportunity for questions.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the spirit of brevity, I will list a series of four questions relating to the administration of the minister's department. Those that he can answer now would assist the House and those that could be responded to in more detail, perhaps in writing on notice, would also constitute an acceptable outcome. The first is in relation to the Home Insulation Program, which was formerly a responsibility of the minister's department. Have any members and officers of the minister's department, either now or previously, been subject to any disciplinary action in regard to the failure of the Home Insulation Program? Given that previously the government has talked about possible action against officers, I would be grateful to know whether any officer, past or present, of the department of the environment, as it then was, has in anyway been counselled, disciplined or removed from office as a consequence of the tragic failures of that program?

The second area of administration relates to the protection of marine wildlife. Will the minister commit to a national inquiry on the systematic slaughter of dugongs, turtles and dolphins, in the absence of the Queensland government doing so? This in particular relates to the tragic slaughter of turtles and dugongs for commercial purposes in violation of Australian and state laws in much of far North Queensland. In particular, has the dugong task force, a joint federal and state body, been re-formed and, if so, who is on the committee and what are their qualifications? And, if so, how many meetings has the re-formed task force had? Would the minister consider the inclusion of dugong and turtle protection campaigners Colin Riddell and Bob Irwin on such a committee either now or in the future?

The third area of administration relates to the protection of the koala. This is a very simple question: will the minister consider a regional listing process for the koala under the EPBC Act and, in particular, is there a possibility of establishing a regional threatened species status for the koala within South-East Queensland?

The final questions relate to heritage. Has the minister relegated the Heritage Division to the status of a branch? Has the minister failed to renew the Distinctively Australian program? Does the failure to renew the program threaten the ability of the government to fulfil its heritage obligations under EPBC Act? If not, why not?

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

Is the minister happy for the member for Gippsland to also ask questions before he responds to the member for Flinders?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Always.

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

Thank you, Minister. My question is, similarly, quite brief. Minister, in 2007 the government allocated $3 million over three years to improve land management practices to reduce the nutrient levels of water flowing into the Gippsland Lakes. Naturally, that is directed at the threat of algal blooms, which have been quite a blight on the lakes over the past 20 or 30 years. That money was managed by the West Gippsland CMA in consultation with the Gippsland Lakes task force. To the best of my knowledge, there is no commitment for the continuation of funding in this current budget cycle. I am interested to know whether the minister can provide an update on the success and/or failure of the program and whether there is any intention to provide additional funding in the future for these types of practical environmental initiatives and for monitoring the Gippsland Lakes and river catchments?

From my experience, providing seed funding for landholders and farmers and then leveraging off that money and providing the capital works has been very successful in the Macalister irrigation district and has proven to be a good model. I am interested in knowing what the government's response to that is. Also, given that the new Victorian state government has allocated $10 million in its term for the Gippsland Lakes projects, I think there is a real opportunity for the Commonwealth to work in partnership with the state government and leverage off that funding.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as you would be well aware, there has been a great deal of concern in relation to the coal seam methane gas extraction in my electorate and, obviously, other parts of Australia. Minister, are you aware that the British government has recently suspended hydraulic fracking of deep shale formations in the underground? This followed officials from the geological survey installing measuring equipment near a drill site that measured a magnitude 2.3 earthquake. That occurred on 1 April and, further, on 27 May another earthquake was recorded. Those are small earthquakes, but the suggestion is that there is a link between hydraulic fracking and those minor earthquakes. As a result of that, the British Department of Energy and Climate Change firstly suspended the practice of fracking and is now investigating the possible link between fracking and the earthquakes. I wonder whether you or your department are aware of that?

Also, Minister, I do not know whether you are aware that the French lower house recently passed a bill which would prohibit the fracking of the underground for coal seam methane gas or gas extraction, including oil as well, I think. Minister, as a result of the information that is coming out of Europe and the United Kingdom, the French lower house, not the upper house—it would require both houses—wants to impose a ban on fracking and the withdrawal of all permits that may have been issued for this procedure to continue. It has to go through the upper house and their decision is yet to be decided, obviously.

Minister, would you be prepared to suspend fracking in Australia until the investigation in the United Kingdom has been completed? Would you and the department undertake any more research into the process of fracking within Australia or would you consider requiring the installation of measuring equipment near drill sites where fracking is occurring? I know those are a whole lot of questions about 'Did you know?' or 'Are you aware?' but they have suspended operations in the United Kingdom; the French government in the lower house—if they get the support of the upper house—want to ban fracking; and the British geological survey officials installed measuring equipment and that is how they identified the mini-earthquakes. There are quite a lot of other questions, but those are the most important at the moment. Thank you, Minister.

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

Minister, the government has announced another water buyback tender, despite a recommendation in the recent House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia report that non-strategic buybacks cease immediately. When will Labor heed the advice of the report rather than persisting with haphazard buybacks which continue to have a negative impact on regional communities? The standing committee worked long and hard to produce a comprehensive report which supports farmers and irrigation communities as well as the environment. The report contains the detailed findings of the 12-person multiparty committee's investigations into the economic and social impact of the guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It has the potential, if carried through, to achieve a much-vaunted triple bottom line in any future Basin Plan. However, despite the committee's recommending that the Commonwealth immediately cease all non-strategic water purchases in the Murray-Darling Basin, Minister, just last week you opened a new round of buyback tenders. Please do not try to convince me that this is a strategic buyback, because I do not believe it is. I appreciate this latest round is apparently from South Australia and Victoria. Perhaps you could confirm this. You might also validate whether this is because the New South Wales cap has been reached until 1 July.

The minister has stated that reform cannot and will not happen without buyback. There are many people in my Riverina electorate who are disappointed, frustrated and angry with this latest buyback. One is Griffith Business Chamber's water spokesman, Paul Pierotti, whom I understand your department has spoken to. He said the new round was a further example of you, Minister, saying one thing and doing another. He said the changes made to the program whereby the government implemented smaller but more frequent tenders did nothing to address the core concern of water being taken from productive use without compensation to communities. 'The fact they have done this shows that they do not have they do not have regard for affected communities,' he said. I would also like to add that this shows scant regard, I believe, for the hard work done by the member for New England, whose support is crucial to this government staying in office. 'It is fine,' Mr Pierotti continued, 'to come out and say you support the committee's findings, but where is the action?' Indeed, Minister, where is the action?

If a parliamentary committee with more Labor members than coalition members, headed by a key Independent whose support for the government keeps it in power, can make recommendations which are then blatantly ignored the very next week then what does it say? I sincerely hope it is not a slap in the face to the member for New England and a committee which has worked so hard for eight months to get a bipartisan agreement which recognises a triple-bottom-line approach, with the possibility of a win-win situation for regional economies and the environment.

Committee members as well as community members, farmers as well as environmentalists, have all recognised that a healthy Basin Plan can be delivered without destroying communities and industries, yet once again, Minister, Labor has made a decision which creates more concern for the regions, without so much as a thought for the people, jobs and long-term sustainability of those regions.

Minister, what do you say to the truism that the biggest building company in Griffith has not had one job, not built one single house, since the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released its ill-conceived, ill-researched guide to a draft to a plan on 8 October last year? Housing prices in Griffith have dropped 30 per cent and business is down by half due to continued uncertainty. The regional Australia committee's 253-page report, Of drought and flooding rains, was a much-needed fillip for irrigation regions, districts where farming families grow the food to feed our nation, our people. But, Minister, will you follow the 21 recommendations or just nod when the member for New England tables in parliament the result of his and other committee members' hard work and pay it mere lip-service?

The coalition when last in government set aside $5.8 billion in the Water Act for water savings infrastructure. Up until now, only $68 million of this, as I understand it, has been spent on initiatives which have actually delivered water—21 gigalitres—into the basin, whereas federal Labor has spent $1.5 billion on water buybacks.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Proceedings suspended from 20:5 4 to 21:3 4

Before the pause in the debate I was making the pertinent point that until now Labor has splurged $1.5 billion on water buybacks yet, of the $5.8 billion for water savings infrastructure, less than $70 million has been invested. Minister, is this acceptable from a government that purports to have a real focus on the needs of regional Australia? In the recent budget the government's planned spending is $195.8 million on Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder management of water holdings—that is, licence fees on water entitlements—and $8.5 million for water for future communication—that is, the Basin Plan television advertisements. All of this money is coming out of a fund that is meant to invest in water-saving infrastructure in the basin. Why is this so, Minister?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can go through the questions in order, first of all the shadow minister referred to the Home Insulation Program and disciplinary action, past or present. In response to that I inform the House that, while the Home Insulation Program and the entire governance of that were contained in what back then was called the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, that is not the department that I now administer. Those sections of the department some time ago were transferred to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Since that time the arts section has also left my department, a number of housing functions have come in and the sustainable population unit was transferred from Treasury to my department. So, while the question may be pertinent, it is not one where there is any direct carriage within this portfolio, and that one should appropriately be directed to Minister Combet.

In terms of marine wildlife, I remain deeply concerned about the protection of all listed species, and I think it is fair to say that for dugongs, sea turtles and dolphins there is a particular attachment that all Australians feel; they are deeply concerned. We need to be mindful of what the actual challenges to those populations are. The claims made by the people referred to by the shadow minister in his question are not claims that I necessarily agree with. I do not accept that the principal thing that you need to do in order to protect these species is to change the exemption of the Native Title Act. This is not an argument that was made by the shadow minister—I want to make that clear; I do not want to be seen to be verballing him—but he named a couple of people in his question, and they do run an argument that one of the principal problems for dugong populations in particular and for sea turtles is that the environmental legislation does not apply in instances of harvesting for the purposes of native title. That is not an exemption the government seeks to change. I think it is a fair argument from traditional owners that, of all the different groups in the community that might be responsible for the numbers of a species starting to deplete, it is not them.

There is a separate argument about culling where it has been done by people who are not in fact the traditional owners of the particular area and an argument that there is a rogue element which is involved in culling not for local or traditional use but, in fact, for trade. This is something which the state minister and I have been working on. I have a firm view that the way to deal with this is through finding mechanisms that work with Indigenous leadership. I have spoken to different groups. Everyone who knows Cape York knows there are very different groups across Cape York, and I have spoken separately with each of them. I think that, if we want to find a solution to the rogue element which does exist in that part of our country with respect to dugongs and sea turtles in particular, we have to acknowledge that it will never be able to be fully patrolled. The only way to be able to fix what is a problem—it is not the principal cause of problems for these populations, but it is real—is to have mechanisms that allow for Aboriginal leadership to come forward and play a direct role.

The state minister and I are working on that. We are very close to having a resolution, but part of having a resolution of this nature work and work properly is to make sure that it is not yet another case of governments telling traditional owners that this is how it must be, because if you do that then, in the same instance, you very likely take away the opportunity for leadership that may actually be able to break some of the elements which are currently causing concern. Traditional owners will themselves talk about the concern that is there with the rogue element. They would like to be part of the solution, and I have to say I think the options that are put forward by the people named by the shadow minister would completely crush the opportunity for Aboriginal leadership to form a big part of the solution on that issue. (Extension of time granted)

The shadow minister also asked with respect to the issue of the koala: 'Will there be consideration of a regional listing process?' Yes, and that is something that I have already sought some advice from my department on. It is something which obviously I would want to take advice on from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. It can be the case that regional listing can be done and with respect to the koala that is something that I am open to. I have made a decision and have said previously publicly that there is a parliamentary inquiry in place on this issue and I wanted to be able to work through its recommendations before I dealt with that further.

The government's commitment to heritage remains. The staffing changes referred to by the shadow minister are in the context of two expiring programs. One of them, importantly, was attached to the stimulus program, and I think it would be reasonable for people to accept that, as part of the stimulus program, once it is exhausted it would not get renewed nor is it prudent to have public servants attached to a program which no longer exists. So, yes, when programs expire that does mean you end up with fewer people in a particular section of the department. I think in those circumstance it is an appropriate way to deal with expiring programs. There is new heritage money in the budget through the Community Heritage Program, and the government does reserve the right to deal with these issues in different ways through different programs. That makes no difference to our capacity to deal with approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That capacity remains.

The member for Gippsland then asked about a 2007 election promise—$3 million which dealt with water flowing into Gippsland Lakes. I know the promise well. I was responsible for implementing it after we came to office. When the Gippsland Lakes commitment was made, there was no such program as Caring for our Country. We now have Caring for our Country. The Gippsland Lakes program in its initial form was an election promise in advance of Caring for our Country coming into existence and further funds for programs of that type continue to find eligibility through Caring for our Country when the rounds for that program take place.

The member for Maranoa then asked about the Surat Basin—and I do acknowledge that from the moment I took on the Environment portfolio there has been engagement from the member for Maranoa, who does have strong views which in large part reflect many of the farmers in the area that he represents with concerns about what coal-seam gas would mean for their properties and for their water supply. My obligations are very strictly aligned to matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act. With that in mind, there are some issues which sometimes people would want me to take into account which do not fall into consideration of the act. The specific international examples that were quoted by the member I know something about. There were some elements of detail that he raised tonight which went beyond some of the information that I had, and I thank him for providing that information to the House.

The principal issue which did fall as a matter of national environmental significance was the impact that coal-seam gas operations could have on the Great Artesian Basin. Effectively there are two different views of the science here and they go to whether the coal seams are watertight or whether they are porous. It is probable that there are some coal seams which represent one and some represent the other—probably both theories in different examples are right. The fear is that, if they are porous, when water is removed following the fracking process you will get the water from the rest of the Great Artesian Basin essentially seeping backwards and refilling the coal seams. If they are watertight, that is not a risk. The conditions that I put in place when I provided the approvals which affect the electorate demanded that individual testing happen seam by seam. If they are watertight then the problems for the Great Artesian Basin do not come about. If they are in fact porous then in those situations, whether it be re-pressurisation or whether it be reinjection, the company has an obligation to work in either way. The questioner then went on to ask: how does ongoing research play a role here? One of the conditions that I put in place for that region was the ongoing oversight of a scientific committee. With any environmental conditions that are put in place it is generally important to have—but I think that with coal seam gas, when we are dealing with a new technology, it is really important to be able to have—an adaptive management process. I think you need to have a situation where, as new information comes to light, the rules can work with that. So if something that we had thought might have been a problem turns out to have been too precautionary then a company will have a valid argument to say they want to see something revisited. If something is subsequently seen as having been not precautionary enough then you want to get on to it early, and have a science based process that allows something to be revisited. I think the role of the scientific committee meets the ongoing research requests that were made by the member for Maranoa.

The member for Riverina, in providing both speech and high points of rhetoric for this room, in a good and passionate contribution referred to the recommendation of the Windsor inquiry calling for an immediate cessation of non-strategic buyback. The member for Riverina then drew attention to the fact that there were some tenders which then went ahead on the Monday following the release of that report. I want to make clear that those tenders had already been advertised before the Windsor inquiry came out with its recommendation in good faith, and I think it is a tribute to the privilege of parliamentary process. I did not know that recommendation was coming until I sat in the parliament and heard the member for New England let me know that that was a unanimous recommendation from the committee.

When a tender is advertised, people begin to organise around that tender coming forward. They organise their finances and they change their behaviour, because they know the tender is coming forward. I believe it would have caused real uncertainty, and would simply have been the wrong thing to do, to view the tenders that were formally opened on the Monday as being anything other than already in train, given that the ads not only had been already placed but also had run publicly in many places throughout the basin. There was a strong view from the irrigation sector that there had been a long-term expectation—and some of these had been advertised a long time in advance. Ads had been placed, they had started to run, and we decided that it was too late to stop those particular tenders.

The rolling tenders, following these two, reached a conclusion of everything that had been announced. Future decisions on how we proceed with buyback will be made after the draft report has been released. I suspect we are not too far away. I still suspect we have quite a few weeks to go. But there will be a little bit of time before that happens.

Finally, we heard from the member for Riverina on the issue of infrastructure money versus buyback money. Make no mistake: buyback is an essential part of water reform. It is. There is a call from the committee to do it in as strategic a way as possible, and we are following the draft report. We will be able to announce our pathway of doing that. On infrastructure money, as the member for Riverina knows, there is work now being done with the states to try to make sure we can find a constructive way of getting the money that has been earmarked for infrastructure spent on infrastructure.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Infrastructure and Transport Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $704,974,000

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

I will speak briefly to the budget proposals. This year's infrastructure budget is about setting Australia up to compete and prosper in the 21st century. It is a forward-looking budget. It delivers the next critical stages of work to duplicate the Pacific Highway, with an additional $1 billion in extra investment, subject to some matched funding for a proportion of that with $750 million from the incoming New South Wales government. It funds reforms to make Australia a modern, seamless economy, including moving from 23 national regulators down to three, with an estimated benefit for the productive side of the economy of some $30 billion over 20 years. It delivers the national urban policy. It extends the smart infrastructure agenda that the National Broadband Network will enable. It continues nation building, particularly in regional Australia, providing funding of $395 million for our first Regional Infrastructure Fund projects and $300 million for early works on the inland rail, with $30 million coming online in 2013-14. It reinstates Bruce Highway projects now that flood reconstruction is underway.

In total, Labor's investment in regional infrastructure is some $22 billion. The budget also reforms Infrastructure Australia and provides a 40 per cent increase in its funding. It improves the operation of the infrastructure market. It delivers critical private financing reforms to attract up to $25 billion of superannuation and private investment into public infrastructure and it provides certainty for aviation infrastructure and services for remote Australia.

In total, the 2011 budget provides some $950 million in new and accelerated investment for the Nation Building Program on top of the $395 million for Regional Infrastructure Fund projects. This is a budget that is fiscally responsible. We are able to invest for the future because Labor acted decisively during the global recession. As the world shed 30 million jobs, 740,000 more Australians went to work. This is a budget of which I am particularly proud. It was a fiscally responsible budget, but we were still able to pursue the government's nation-building agenda, including indeed bringing forward funding, for example, for the Moreton Bay rail link of some $100 million—a major benefit indeed.

So this is a good budget for the government. We have had a comprehensive approach. The budget builds on the work that has been done by Infrastructure Australia. I note that the incoming New South Wales government has paid a very high compliment to this government's agenda by creating Infrastructure New South Wales, not quite on the model we have—ours is much more independent and at arm's length from government—but, nonetheless, if imitation is the greatest form of flattery then it is a recognition of the work this government has been doing.

In addition, Infrastructure Australia will establish a new infrastructure financing group, chaired by Jim Murphy of the Commonwealth Treasury. The deputy chair will be Ross Rolfe, and the group will include other senior private sector members. I spoke earlier today at the CEO forum, made up of the CEOs of all the major international companies present in Australia, and this government's agenda has been extremely well received. I commend the appropriations to the chamber.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a large number of issues I would like to raise, but obviously time is short, so let me go to them quickly. Firstly, in the 2007 election campaign one of the major issues in construction was the Ipswich motorway. The coalition had promised a major second route, which would undoubtedly have been the best result, but the government chose a cheaper option with the promise that it would be delivered faster. The Cooroy to Curra stretch of the Bruce Highway has been described repeatedly as the worst section of the Bruce Highway in Queensland. Indeed, it was recently identified again, on 1 June 2011, when the RACQ said:

Not surprisingly, the Cooroy to Gin Gin stretch has once again cemented its spot as the state's worst stretch of the highway.

There is currently a project underway on that Cooroy to Curra stretch. However, in spite of the minister's repeated acknowledgement that this was the worst accident stretch in the highway, incredibly, at page 272 of Budget Paper No. 2, the government announces it is actually going to take $325.4 million from the Cooroy to Curra project and from the upgrade to the Ipswich Motorway. My question is: how much will be taken from the Ipswich Motorway and how much of that amount is coming from the Cooroy to Curra road?

I would like to turn to a couple of aviation issues. At the Senate estimates for the previous budget, the government said that it would be developing a new en route navigation rebate scheme for regional aviation. At this year's Senate estimates, it acknowledged what was apparent from the budget, that the support for regional aviation services was to be abolished entirely. In spite of the commitments made as part of the white paper process, this support is to be eliminated entirely from the following financial year. All that is to be left is support for aerial ambulance services et cetera.

Rex Aviation have recently released a list of seven routes which they may have to terminate as a result of the loss of the financial support through the en route navigation rebate scheme. I ask the minister: what support does he propose to provide to enable services to continue to places like Taree, Grafton, Moruya, Bathurst, Griffith, King Island and Merimbula, if Rex, the only operator, withdraws those services?

I would also like to refer briefly to the new security-screening measures for regional airports and raise an issue that I raised with the minister during this debate at the last budget and on which I have, to this day, never received a satisfactory response. The proposed new security measures will impose jet style security on many propeller driven aircraft, particularly Q400s. I referred him to the airports at Barcaldine and Blackall, which have only 50 to 100 passengers a week, and pointed out that the cost of these new security measures would add around $1,000 a ticket to the price of travelling to those communities. I ask the minister: what arrangements are being put in place to enable the Q400 services to commence to Barcaldine and Blackall and what cost will be imposed upon the users of those services?

The next issue I would like to raise is on behalf of the member for Hinkler, who would like to have made a contribution tonight but was prevented from being here this week. Bundaberg airport has recently spent $40 million upgrading its airport services to receive large jets. From 1 June, CASA has decided that the minimum runway widths are to be increased from 30 metres to 45 metres. This airport has not yet received its first jet services and yet it will now have to spend between $7 million and $10 million to widen that runway. Hervey Bay Airport, which does have regular jet services, will have to spend about $6 million to widen the runway. Will the government provide any financial support to these regional councils to fund the widening of their runways so that they are able to receive jet services? Or is a different rule to be applied to airports in northern New South Wales than is to be applied to the rest of Australia?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This provides me with an opportunity to ask a question about the Ipswich Motorway. I note the shadow minister for roads actually raised the issue of Ipswich Motorway after 11½ years of doing nothing on the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway. Just before the 2007 election, those opposite came up with this expensive, ridiculous notion of a 10-kilometre alternative, the Dinmore to Goodna section, which linked back into the Logan Motorway. They allocated no funding for it. With respect to the Ipswich Motorway, there were 11½ years of inertia, inactivity and ignorance by those opposite. In fact, the previous speaker, the member for Wide Bay, was on the record in parliament, in October 2009, when the minister actually put it to him, saying he would stop construction on the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway, putting at risk 10,000 jobs across the whole project. That is the ignorance of those opposite on the Ipswich Motorway. I want to commend the minister for allocating $155 million in this budget for the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway, and I ask him to comment on the federal Labor government's proposal with respect to the Ipswich Motorway and also on community reaction to that. How does that compare with those opposite when they were in power?

The other thing I want to commend the minister for and ask questions in relation to is the Blacksoil Interchange. For 11½ years those opposite did nothing on the Blacksoil Interchange. That is an important intersection between the Warrego Highway and the Brisbane Valley Highway. There was absolutely nothing. There are the councils—the Toowoomba Regional Council, the Lockyer Valley Regional Council, the Somerset Regional Council and the Brisbane City Council. In fact, the shadow Premier in Queensland, Campbell Newman, is on the record advocating for the Blacksoil Interchange to be upgraded with a flyover. Those opposite did nothing for 11½ years with respect to the Blacksoil Interchange, but in the last election campaign the minister stood there with me and the state Labor member for Ipswich West, Wayne Wendt, at the Blacksoil Interchange and made a commitment that we would allocate $54 million and the state government $16 million for this $70 million project. I want to thank the minister for the commitment in this budget—the $54 million—and I want to ask him about the community reaction in relation to that and how that compares with those opposite with respect to this. My LNP opponent in the last campaign campaigned about this but made not one commitment. In fact, not one shadow minister came to my electorate during the whole of the last campaign, and there were no road funding commitments made by those opposite.

The shadow minister makes a comment about the Ipswich Motorway and the Blacksoil Interchange. The Blacksoil Interchange is the most important project west of the Ipswich CBD in terms of road funding. Those opposite have simply allocated no money. In fact, they voted and campaigned against, and consistently did everything they could to frustrate, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade from Dinmore to Goodna. With respect to the Blacksoil Interchange, did we hear one peep from those opposite during the whole campaign? In fact, I would like the shadow minister to know that my LNP opponent is on the record in the Queensland Times newspaper, contrary to coalition policy, saying he supported the Ipswich Motorway upgrade. Well, my predecessor campaigned against it, the shadow minister campaigned against it and you campaigned against it. That was your approach. Those opposite would put thousands and thousands of jobs at risk.

Minister, please comment with respect to the Ipswich Motorway upgrade on what we are doing about it and community reaction and with respect to the Blacksoil Interchange upgrade on what we are doing and community reaction. How does it compare with those opposite?

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

In terms of the issues that are raised, to begin with the Blacksoil Interchange, the member would be pleased to know that today I signed off on the Commonwealth government contribution to the Blacksoil Interchange. Consider this a press announcement. It is a very important project, and I did indeed stand there with him during the election campaign. It is indeed a very dangerous piece of road.

With regard to the issues raised by the shadow minister, I must express some surprise at his choice of issues which he raises. He actually raises the Ipswich Motorway, where we have contributed well in excess of $2½ billion over a seven-year period, whereas they just talked about it and nothing actually happened. As the member stated, the Goodna bypass option and all sorts of other options were put around, but they did not actually do anything about it. I am very proud of the fact that I not only went to sections of the Ipswich Motorway and turned the first sod but also opened them. During that period, there were literally thousands of workers inducted onto the site at a time when it was needed—a vital project which this government is proud of delivering.

Quite rightly, the member for Wide Bay quoted members talking about how bad the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway is. Indeed, I will quote the local member himself, who said:

"I'm always pleased when I turn off …

"You never feel completely safe on that road."

He also said, as he has again tonight, that it was rated as the worst piece of highway in Australia. Well, he was the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, it was in his electorate, and nothing happened. It is extraordinary that that statement would be put forward. Work is underway, as he would well know, on the Cooroy to Curra section, but it took a Labor government to deliver it.

He talks about the budget papers. The fact is that, in terms of both these projects, because we are a government that introduced in our 2010 budget a system of milestone payments according to actual delivery and construction, we are getting efficiencies through the budget. Gone are the days when, on about 14 June, the minister would get the department in and say, 'How can we shove money out the door, because our only key performance indicator is the fact that money has been transferred from the Commonwealth to state governments?' We are actually delivering efficiencies, better value for taxpayers, and we make no apologies for this.

Is it the idea of the shadow minister that we should have paid extra money to the contractors even though we have delivered the projects for under what we budgeted for? This is a bizarre logic. We have used that money to reinstate five flood-proofing projects on the Bruce Highway, because we anticipated that there would be capital shortages and labour shortages as a result of the flood and cyclone in Queensland. We always had the intention. We deferred it but kept the planning going, and we said that if we could we would bring them back on line according to the original schedule. That is exactly what we have done on these projects—something I am very proud of.

The shadow minister also raises a number of other questions. With regard to the runway width issue, that is simply not correct. I am advised that CASA is introducing changes to runway widths over time but is working with industry regarding implementation and time lines. I would certainly be happy to work with the member for Hinkler or anyone else on these issues. (Extension of time granted)

With regard to the issue of Rex airlines, quite frankly I would commend the comments that have been made publicly by the shadow minister's colleague the member for Calare, Mr Cobb, in the Western Advocate just last week, in an article titled 'Rex claims a flight of fancy, says Cobb'. When talking about the threats to airlines, he said:

"So there is no justification for this action. There is no excuse to shut Bathurst down."

He said:

"For Rex to say that it is all down to the loss of the federal rebate scheme, I don’t think is right, because they already got rid of the Cobar and Bourke runs very early on [when it was only touted that the scheme would go]. And if they are worried about capacity then look at bringing back the 19-seater.

"All it is is talk. They … really have no issues here."

Frankly, that is absolutely the right thing to do. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the shadow minister again tonight has sought to blame the government, when in fact he said in the Daily Examiner on 17 May:

The subsidy only amounts to a few dollars a ticket. Airlines will not keep going just because there is a subsidy.

He said:

If people don't use it, it won't survive even with government subsidies …

Quite frankly, in terms of the subsidies these are the facts. You people should be standing up against Rex, not playing political games. The fact is that this is the maximum per claim one-way subsidy for a Sydney-Bathurst return: $11 per plane. The subsidy between Sydney and Moruya is a maximum of $20.25 per plane. The subsidy between Sydney and Taree is a maximum of $22.90. That compares with the price from Sydney to Taree of $129 per person. The subsidy between Griffith and Melbourne is a maximum of $37.92 per plane. And compare this: the cheapest one-way ticket per person between Melbourne and Griffith on Rex is $344 per person.

If you look at the capex of the airlines in Australia, last year there was no more profitable airline in Australia. And if you go to Singapore you can meet with Rex and have a discussion with them about their contribution to the regional airline market. But Rex shut down the Cobar and Bourke routes in 2008 and used the subsidy and the withdrawal in 2012 as the excuse for shutting down the route four years before the subsidy was due to end. Get real! There is a sucker born every minute, but you do have a responsibility to your electorates to stand up for them and not to stand up for the commercial interests of any sectional interest.

Rex has not sought a discussion with me over any of these issues. And the shadow minister tells a blatant lie when he says–

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Withdraw!

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

that I won't meet with them. I will meet with airlines–

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I ask that the minister withdraw. The word 'liar' is totally unparliamentary.

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

I said, 'That is a lie.' That statement is a lie. I will meet with airlines. I meet with them regularly, but the fact is that if you look at their own statements–

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has always been withdrawn!

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

Minister, for the benefit of the House I ask you to withdraw.

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

I withdraw, and say that the shadow minister has told a blatant untruth.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unconditionally!

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

It stands: a blatant untruth. I do meet with airlines regularly and have not knocked back any meeting with airlines. The fact is that Mr Cobb has shown that he actually is a bit more fair dinkum than you are; I commend his actions and say that you should be less opportunistic if you want to be taken at all seriously as a regional representative.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is with regard to the promise by Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Albanese to provide $2.1 billion in funding towards the completion of the Chatswood to Parramatta rail link project.

Due to an infrastructure malaise in Sydney over the past 16 years, both the Epping to Parramatta and North West rail links are overdue and absolutely essential projects for the people of Bennelong. These projects are essential for Macquarie Park and Parramatta business districts to reach their full potential in growth, not to mention the current efficiency and productivity losses due to the extraordinary traffic congestion that blights our region.

I am on the record as calling for the immediate construction of both projects. I raise this issue due to concerns that have developed over the omission of Epping to Parramatta anywhere in the recently released budget papers. In last year's MYEFO papers, eight infrastructure projects were specifically listed for federal funding under the Nation Building Program at a total cost of $3.57 billion. Seven of these projects were specifically listed by name in this year's budget papers, with dedicated funding amounts attached. However, the largest of these infrastructure commitments, the Epping to Parramatta rail link, which comprises over 58 per cent of the Nation Building Program 2 funding, was not listed anywhere in this year's budget papers or even in the department's own portfolio budget statement. Can the minister please explain why he found it necessary to specifically list a recommitment to the other of the seven Nation Building Program 2 projects but the Epping to Parramatta link fails to rate a mention. At a time when, unfortunately, many Australians have lost trust in their government due to broken promises, could the minister please confirm the government's commitment to this project and, more importantly, the schedule to commence and complete the works? As the federal government was willing to take the lead role in seeking the electoral benefits of headlines saying, 'We will build Epping to Parramatta', is it not about time that the federal government, as the provider of 80 per cent of the funds for this project, takes the lead in fulfilling their promise, regaining the trust of the people and building this rail link?

It must be noted that the new New South Wales government took a policy to build the North West link in recent state elections and, whilst they have requested federal assistance, they have pledged to commence construction as soon as possible, regardless of the federal government's response. Their commitment is not dependent on re-election, on a future surplus or on other governments making political decisions. It is a commitment based on a policy promise to the people. Will this government accept the same moral obligation of a promise and list how much will be spent in the first year of this project which falls within the forward estimates period and the schedule of construction for the Epping to Parramatta rail link?

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

I thank the member for Bennelong for his contribution. But now I am not sure if he is for the Parramatta to Epping rail link or against it. I know that he put out a leaflet on the day that we announced the Parramatta to Epping rail link which said that he supported it and called for it.

I note that the opposition failed to commit a single cent to this project and I note that the opposition failed to commit a single cent to any infrastructure project in Sydney whatsoever—not one. I note also that over 12 years the Howard government committed $350 million in total towards Sydney infrastructure—including the M7, which was only Commonwealth funding. Not a single cent went into any rail project and no dollars at all went into other projects.

We have committed and stood by our commitments to $2.08 billion for the Parramatta to Epping rail link, $110 million for the F5 duplication, $840 million for the northern Sydney freight line, $150 million for the upgrade of the rail infrastructure at Port Botany and $300 million to develop the intermodal terminal at Moorebank. On top of that, we have $30 million for the planning work for the M4 East, available to the state government if they wish to use that funding. In terms of the budget papers, it is very clear that, as committed, there is $600 million allocated in 2014-15, the first year of our commitment on the Parramatta to Epping rail link. Our funding is available. We simply await the state government to confirm that they want this project to proceed.

This is extraordinary. The honourable member comes into this parliament and says he wants this project, while his political party is running a campaign of opposition to this project. I suggest that his questions be directed to the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party, because we have allocated the money as we said we would. This is a government that fulfils all of its commitments with regard to infrastructure projects. Across the board, every single one of our election commitments is in the budget. It is not my fault if the member for Bennelong cannot read a budget paper. It is there in 2014-15: $600 million as agreed in terms of the memorandum of understanding that we had with the New South Wales government.

The fact is that this project was well received. The member opposite said:

The construction of the Epping ‐Parramatta Rail Link is set to proceed, which is welcome news for the people of Bennelong.

The Liberal member for Mitchell has also supported the project, as have the state Liberal member for Granville and a number of other figures including, of course, the Lord Mayor of Parramatta. The member for Bennelong was present at a speech I gave at Parramatta on 8 March this year about developing Parramatta as Sydney's second CBD. I believe this is an absolutely vital project. It will finally provide the missing link between Parramatta and Chatswood and will help reduce the journey time between the two points by about 25 minutes. It will also have the bonus of improving capacity on the western line, therefore providing benefits for those people who live to the west of the existing Parramatta line.

We are now investing in urban passenger rail in every mainland capital city. We believe this is vital. What the honourable member has to answer is the question: do the Liberal Party support this project? Do they support it? You cannot say one thing as a local member and get away with it over three years, because your party is dead against this vital infrastructure project. With regard to our commitment, you are right: we should keep our commitments. The state governments should also keep theirs. Therefore, I commend the appropriation to the House. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

Main Committee adjourned at 22:2 3 .