Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest that the order for the consideration of proposed expenditures agreed to by the House previously be varied so that we consider the proposed expenditure for the following portfolios after the Attorney-General's portfolio this afternoon: firstly, the foreign affairs segment of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio; secondly, the workplace relations and BER segment of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio; and, thirdly, the tertiary education and skills and school education, early childhood and youth segments of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the suggestion of the minister agreed to?

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister make it clear whether the opposition whips and the shadow ministers have been notified of this variation? If they have not then I do not see we are in any sort of position to agree to that.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot assure the Main Committee of that one way or the other. It is a reasonable question. I have stood up and moved this proposition on the basis that we have. I am happy to check that and come back to this proposition. It would see five portfolios be considered in detail up until about 5 pm, so I am happy to get that assurance and get back.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has not moved anything. He has made a suggestion. The minister has agreed that he will obtain the information sought by the member for Boothby. On that basis, I think we proceed with the program we currently have. If the Main Committee chooses to accept the minister's suggestion subsequently, that is exactly what we will do.

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $7,800,412,000

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps on indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker: I just want seek clarification, bearing in mind that it is almost 10 minutes past the hour, about whether the Main Committee will be hearing the health and ageing part of this debate for an extended period and whether the minister will be in attendance.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, according to my schedule, the consideration of this portfolio will terminate at 11.30. Secondly, my understanding is that it is a matter for the government which ministers appointed to administer the Department of Health and Ageing appear for the consideration in detail in this chamber. It is open to any member who wishes to make a comment on that in his or her contribution to do so.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point that must be made is that this is a minister who is running and hiding. This is a minister who refuses to front this Committee, as would normally be the case, and clearly it is as a direct result of the hypocrisy of the minister overnight. It is an indication that this minister is embarrassed by having misled the Australian public. This is a minister who, whilst saying one thing publicly and leading the Australian public to believe that she was taking a certain course of action, has done something quite different in private. This is a minister who, while she was saying to the Australian public that it is bad to solicit donations from tobacco companies, was privately writing to these companies seeking those same donations.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is about the appropriations. The member cannot go off into a rant about matters extraneous to the issues in the budget.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a broad-ranging debate. However, I would point out to the member for Dickson, and I thought this was the point that was going to be made by the member for Fowler, that he ought not reflect on the minister other than by a substantive motion.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. All of it is now fact and it is before the public to make their own determinations about the credibility or lack thereof of this minister. The fact that she will not front this committee to talk about issues relating to appropriations is a disgrace—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member is now impugning another member and I ask for him to desist.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. He made a comment on the fact that the minister is not present, which I do not believe is impugning. I am listening very carefully.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Health and other matters. It relates to that part of the portfolio where there is direct expenditure on tobacco campaigns. In reference to that particular measure undertaken by the government, has the minister sought donations from or had contact with tobacco companies since the 2004 declaration of the then Leader of the Opposition that the Labor Party would undertake no such activity?

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

You ask me about tobacco initiatives under the budget, which I am happy to respond to. We are expanding in excess of $100 million on tobacco initiatives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We understand, as I am sure you do, that cutting tobacco consumption rates amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is an absolute must. Around 50 per cent of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people smoke compared to around 16.7 per cent of the general population. If we are to actually close the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life expectancy, it is imperative that we actually get people off smokes. That requires us doing a range of things. One of those is that we have employed a national Indigenous tobacco coordinator, Tom Calma, to oversee the implementation of our program. We have involved tobacco action workers in 57 regions across Australia and tobacco action coordinators. Their job is to work with the communities to try to, firstly, make people aware of the issues to do with tobacco consumption and its impact upon their health and the health of their communities and, secondly, ensure that they take action to reduce their own smoking rates.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that this is no easy task. I know the member opposite is actually interested in this subject, so let me take him to more detail. You know and I know that the diseases associated with tobacco consumption lead to a lot shorter life expectancy amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians through vascular disease, diabetes, heart disease and cancer—the sorts of things that we know kill people. I make no apologies, and I am hoping from the shadow minister's question that he is supporting these initiatives. I assume he is. It is very important, as I say, if we are to close the gap in life expectancy between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and the rest of the community that we address these sorts of issues.

I know that the member has got a fixation with tobacco companies and I understand that. I am not interested in tobacco companies in this debate. What am I keen on doing is getting consumption rates of tobacco down amongst the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. We have an objective of halving tobacco consumption rates amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community Australians by the end of the decade. If we can do that, that will make a substantial difference to their life expectancy. If we were to be able to bring down the tobacco consumption rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to what the rest of the population currently is, less than 17 per cent, then it is asserted that we would make a material difference across the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community of increasing life expectancy between four and five years. That would have a material impact upon the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

Mr Dutton interjecting—

Mr Deputy Speaker, this bloke wants to talk to you.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: I asked a specific question of the minister, who either is refusing to answer that part of the question, is embarrassed to do so or does not know the answer to it. Can he please answer that part of the question that related to whether or not he has had contacts with or sort donations from tobacco companies. Why does he refuse to answer?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. This is a wide-ranging debate.

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

I am responding to budget initiatives in this current budget which go to managing our chronic disease—

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not responding to the question. When did she give it up?

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

The relevance of the question is about tobacco and what we are doing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Let me just go to more detail around the general health initiatives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The member should know that we are investing in this budget $1.2 billion in 2011-12 compared to what they did in their last budget in 2006-07, $0.5 billion. This is a substantial growth in investment and we expect to get concrete outcomes from that investment. The government has continued funding of $39.1 million over four years for projects to assist stolen generations. But significantly, going back to the issue that was raised by the shadow minister, we are absolutely focused on bringing down tobacco consumption rates amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Do you want to have a discussion about what we are doing to address Aboriginal—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair. I am not wanting to have the discussion with anyone.

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

I am assuming that the opposition are genuinely interested in having a discussion about how we close the life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and the rest of the community. I am assuming they will want to do that.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop filibustering.

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

And, in the context of this discussion, I am the minister responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where's the minister?

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

He asked me a question about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. I am endeavouring to answer it. If he is not interested in the answer, he is quite welcome to leave and not even read the Hansard. It will not worry me one little bit. But let us be very clear about it. We are absolutely committed to reducing—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you receive a donation?

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

tobacco consumption rates amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and we, through this budget, are going to implement the programs we have announced previously through our chronic disease package. We are investing $805.5 million in that package. Together with the states we are investing $1.6 billion on addressing these issues. We are doing it in partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community; we are doing it in partnership with state and territory governments. We are having success in doing it. I want to say to the shadow minister: you do more by collaboration, discussion and partnership then you will do by adversarial politics. If you want to have a real discussion about how we improve the life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, I am pleased to have it. I know the shadow parliamentary secretary is keen on these sorts of issues, had his own experiences working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and knows what the priority should be. The person sitting next to him, another medical practitioner, also knows the importance of these measures. I am sure they both share, as I am sure you do—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much did you reduce the rate by? How much?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson has had a fairly good opportunity and he may ask another question later.

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

He can ask as many questions as he likes. You would know that we have implemented these measures over the last two financial years. Here we have it. We are going to spend $1.6 billion, we have spent in excess of $115 million on tobacco action programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under two different headings and now he wants to know what our results have been now that we are 18 months into it. Give me a break.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're four years into government; give me a break.

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

Even you know—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, please. The member for Dickson will remain silent.

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

What I do know is in 2006-07, you invested in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health $0.5 billion. In this year's budget—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the minister means the former government, not me.

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

It is $1.2 billion. Now do you understand the difference?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister should direct his remarks through the chair.

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

I am not a mathematician, but it is an increase of around 125 per cent.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you accept a donation?

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

Or 225 per cent, I should say—twice and a bit.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I find the member for Dickson's behaviour quite disorderly. He is interjecting.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume her seat. I am the occupant of the chair and I will make the appropriate determinations. The minister has the call for 23 seconds.

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

I am not at all worried about any interjections, and I just say to the shadow minister: we are absolutely committed to closing the gap in life expectancy and we are absolutely committed to these tobacco programs, which we know, if given effect to and assisted by you and the other people who are involved in this discussion, will bring down tobacco consumption rates and improve life expectancy. (Time expired)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be talking about Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 today, because this budget builds on an incredibly large investment in health that this government has made. I have been very pleased about this, because my electorate, in the outer suburbs of Adelaide, has had significant investment since this government got elected. Under the previous government, it was completed neglected, I have to say, and there was no investment, but under this government we have seen significant investments. Most recently, I am very pleased that it has been announced that there will be a Headspace unit at Noarlunga, which will really address mental health issues in the local southern suburbs of Adelaide. What is great about these Headspace sites is that they bring everyone into one tent: physical health professionals, mental health professionals and employment services, providing a holistic approach. In this budget, there is mental health funding of $2.2 billion, a significant investment. I am pleased that the Minister for Mental Health is here. He did a lot of hard work in making sure that we got this package. It was a priority of the government to really invest in mental health, and I am very pleased about the Headspace site.

It is disappointing that the member for Boothby has left the room, because the member for Boothby made a little bit of a mistake on radio the other morning. This government has invested $12 million into a GP Plus Super Clinic at Noarlunga. The member for Boothby was on the radio and had obviously read some paper somewhere that said this was delayed. He made a mistake because he got on radio accusing the state government of delaying the GP Plus Super Clinic. I have got good news for the Member of Boothby: there will be no such delays in Kingston. I am very pleased to inform him—I am disappointed he is not here, because he did make that mistake on radio—that it is full steam ahead, with stage 1 already open and stage 2 being constructed. This is another example of this government's significant investment in health.

In addition, we are investing a lot in training new GPs and clinicians, whether they be nurses or allied health people. I am very pleased that the final stage at Flinders hospital at the Noarlunga centre is open for the training of more GPs. That was something that the previous government really neglected. They put a cap on GPs. Their only strategy really was to provide golf balls to GPs to try and train more. I am not really sure what their strategy was with the golf balls, but certainly it did not work. The golf balls were somehow meant to encourage GPs. The minister has a good example of that—they were not even all used. That did not work.

Our investment is in training positions—in my electorate at Flinders, at Noarlunga and at the repat hospital—in training facilities so that doctors can be trained where they actually might want to work so that we can increase the capacity. I know that Flinders has also extended into some very sophisticated training facilities at Alice Springs, all funded by this government. This is real investment in health.

In addition, I know that there has been a real investment in integrated cancer services. This is really important. Darwin is one of the places where, previously, the patients had to fly to Adelaide but now they have an integrated cancer service in their local area. But a focus of this government has been on prevention. Previously, very little attention was paid to prevention, but this government has put a real focus on prevention. Obviously, the Gillard government has extended funding for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. My question to the minister is: could the minister advise how this program will improve the detection and prevention of bowel cancer?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for her concise, punchy question and for her ongoing advocacy of the health needs of the southern suburbs of Adelaide. I have had many a discussion with the member for Kingston about the health needs of southern Adelaide. She has been a strong supporter of the mental health reform process. I greatly appreciated her counsel and advice, as one of the very few, if not the only, professional psychologist in this parliament. Her advice about the better targeting of primary care services and youth mental health services was incredibly valuable to me in developing the package that was presented at the last budget.

She has also outlined some of the many advantages that the residents of the southern suburbs of Adelaide—the electors of Kingston—have received from the mental health reform process broadly and also from the specific investments in the acute care sector, particularly the Flinders Medical Centre, the major tertiary hospital in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, which has received $7.2 million for a new acute medical unit and $10 million for a general upgrade. We know that patient activity in that hospital has been increasing significantly for an extended period of time. Flinders has also benefited from the general emergency department capacity management system upgrade in the South Australian major hospital system, again funded through the Rudd and Gillard governments.

As the member for Kingston has outlined, a GP superclinic, in partnership with the South Australian government through its GP Plus program has been developed in the southern suburbs near the Noarlunga Hospital as well as a range of other community health and community mental health services. I was at the sod turning some time ago with the member for Kingston and the South Australian Minister for Health. The southern suburbs of Adelaide are one of the 10 areas where a new headspace service will be built during this year. I want to pay tribute particularly to the southern GP division down there, which I have dealt with on many occasions. It is an incredibly professional outfit and I know that it will play a very central role in the development of the headspace service there.

The member for Kingston also outlined the importance that this government attaches to preventative health. We know that of the more than $100 billion that is spent in this country on health every year, only about two per cent is spent of prevention and the vast bulk of that on immunisation programs. That is why we have set up the Preventive Health Agency, which finally passed through the parliament. That is why we agreed with COAG, in 2008, the largest ever preventive health agreement to the tune of about $872 million. We know that prevention and early intervention not only is much better for patients but also relieves a larger cost impact on the healthcare system later on if things are not picked up early.

The government's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program is a wonderful example of that approach. We know that bowel cancer kills almost 4,000 Australians every year, the second highest cancer killer in this country. We also know, though, that less than 40 per cent of bowel cancers are detected early, maximising the opportunities for treatment, intervention and therefore recovery. In 2008, as the member for Kingston well knows, there was an allocation in that budget of over $87.4 million over three years, offering free screening for up to 2.5 million Australians who turned 50, 55 and 65 years of age between 2008 and 2010. In 2008, that screening program led to 120 bowel cancer cases being detected, along with 334 suspected cancers and more than 5,000 potentially precancerous conditions also being detected.

This year we have followed up on that commitment with $138.7 million over four years to continue the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. Approximately 3.4 million Australians will be offered free screening over the next four years through that program. The program intends to commence sending out invitations in July this year—next month—to people turning 50, 55 or 65 from 1 January this year. I thank the member for Kingston for her ongoing interest in health reform and her interest in this program in particular.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question pertains to the Marathon Project, which is a half million dollar program to inspire Indigenous Australians to run the New York marathon. Twelve people were recruited last year and four attended New York, and this year they have expanded that to 20 participants. I wanted to understand some of the numbers around that program. First of all, which of the 12 participants from last year are involved this year or have followed up and are participating in community support and inspiration of local people in their communities? Why does this year's squad contain a bachelor of construction management, a bachelor of marketing, an Indigenous liaison officer from a university and a third-year environmental engineering student? Are these individuals who need the inspiration to run a marathon and deliver changes for their community? How many of these have undertaken certificate qualifications? It is our understanding that none have, either from this year or last year. Do they intend to make a certificate a compulsory part of that program?

Could you please enumerate the number of corporate sponsors that have jumped on board the Marathon Project as a good and inspiring idea? If there is evidence to support sending people to an overseas footrace rather than a local one—some of the largest footraces in the world are held here, such as the third largest triathlon in the world—then I would like to be directed to those resources. Lastly, why is that money a better expenditure for Indigenous wellbeing than the Lillawan study phase 2, of half a million dollars, to look after Fitzroy Crossing babies with foetal alcohol syndrome, which remains unfunded by the government.

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

I thank the shadow parliamentary secretary for his question. I understand that he has a deep and very genuine interest in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. It will not surprise him when I tell him that I cannot give him all of that detail right now. I will take the questions on notice and I will respond to him formally in as short a space of time as possible.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What medical advice is being relied upon by the government in not listing certain medicines that have been recommended by the PBAC? Can the minister guarantee that no patient's life will be placed in jeopardy by the government's refusal to list certain medicines because the budget is not in surplus?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his question. As has been the subject of some public commentary, earlier this year the government took a decision to defer a number of recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, PBAC. There were some seven pharmaceutical products recommended by PBAC which have been deferred—they have not been rejected by the cabinet. A decision was taken to defer them in the context of the government's fiscal position and our commitment to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. Even within those fiscal parameters, though, the government has been completely definite about our position that we will list medicines to treat serious and life-threatening conditions. The only deferrals that have taken place have been in areas where there is an alternative medication. We continue to take a proactive approach to listing on the PBS PBAC recommendations for medicines that deal with serious and life-threatening conditions.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure in drawing attention to the appropriations in this budget and particularly for health. I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Minister Butler for his frequent visits to Newcastle and his wonderful delivery on mental health services. I also take this opportunity to thank Minister Snowden, who is sitting beside me, for his attendance at a national Indigenous men's health forum in my electorate. I know how much it is appreciated that our interest in the health of the Indigenous population is genuine and that we have delivered great outcomes. Also worthy of mention are the achievements of Parliamentary Secretary Catherine King, who is also in the chamber, on the organ donation program. I also note that the member for Shortland joined with me just recently in my electorate to announce one of the first Medicare Locals, and that is something we take great pride in.

For us, this budget delivers on four years of great investment in the health of our electorates. All of us have been touched by cancer in some way, with 88,000 Australians diagnosed with cancer each year and 35,000 dying from cancer each year. In the four years before the federal Labor government was elected in 2007 we had campaigned long and hard for attention to be given to our scanning and imaging equipment but we were ignored by the then health minister, Tony Abbott. We were pleased and privileged to have a PET scanner, but it had been bought by the specialists themselves and was being funded by the specialists themselves. It was not until Labor was elected that the positron emission tomography scheme was funded for a Medicare licence, and then, in a follow-up budget, $1½ million was invested to upgrade services—to buy the necessary radiopharmaceuticals, increase the shielding equipment and purchase another PET scanner.

Under this government we have also seen a new Medicare licence for an MRI scanner at the East Maitland Private Hospital, which services my electorate and that of the member for Hunter. The Calvary Mater hospital in my electorate, which provides most cancer oncology services in the state of New South Wales, purchased a new MRI machine which was installed just two weeks before the budget. We had been waiting for that machine to be installed and I am very pleased that in this budget the minister was able to partially fund a new Medicare licence under a regional health program. So my question to the minister is: can you outline the ways that access to important MRI diagnostic services was included in the budget—those services that will help diagnose conditions such as cancer—and how this is reforming access to MRI services right across the nation?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Newcastle for her question and for her ongoing interest in health reform under this government. I was very pleased to conduct a consumer and carer forum in Newcastle during our mental health reform process. That forum was auspiced by the Mental Health Council of Australia but hosted by the member for Newcastle. It was an incredibly valuable forum and I took a lot from it. There were some particularly passionate carers at the forum who gave me some very valuable insights into the ways that they and the family members for whom they are caring interact with emergency departments in hospitals in particular. That is why one of the focuses of the mental health reform package outlined in this year's budget, supported by a $200 million reform fund from the Commonwealth, is to engage with the states about ways in which the experience of people with severe mental illness and their carers presenting at emergency departments can be improved. I took a lot from the Newcastle session about that issue, and it was very important in terms of us developing that position to take to the states at COAG later this year.

As the member for Newcastle has outlined, the area that she represents in New South Wales has benefited greatly from the health reform process. There has been very significant improvement in medical assessment infrastructure in Newcastle, particularly at the Calvary Mater hospital, with eight beds funded by this government for a medical assessment unit. The member for Newcastle has already outlined a number of the diagnostic imaging improvements which have been supported by this government. She would also be aware that the Hunter Urban Division of General Practice is one of the first group of Medicare Locals announced by the Minister for Health and Ageing in the last couple of weeks as well as being a lead implementation site for our e-health reforms, which are so central to the success of our broader health and mental health reform process.

The member for Newcastle would also be aware that this government has greatly supported the Hunter Medical Research Institute, which is something of a nation leader in medical research in the area of mental health. That institute has received support to the tune of $35 million from this government that will allow it continue and expand its valuable research in the area of public discussion of mental health and suicide issues as well as early childhood mental health, which is such a central part of our mental health reform package in this budget.

The member for Newcastle asked particularly about the diagnostic imaging reforms presented in this year's budget. As all members know, and as the member for Newcastle in particular knows, diagnostic imaging is an incredibly important part of the healthcare system and a fast-growing part of healthcare expenditure. In 2009-10, Medicare expenditure on diagnostic imaging was around $2.15 billion, an increase of over 10 per cent on the previous year in spite of a range of supply-side restrictions in the area of MRI licensing, for example. In response to significant advocacy from the sector and the broader community, in last year's budget this government announced a broad review into diagnostic imaging, which has led to the announcement of a $104.4 million diagnostic imaging reform package over the next four years. In particular, that package will do a couple of things. Firstly, it will expand the number of Medicare licensed MRI machines around the country from about 125 to about 200, an increase of over 50 per cent. That particularly will benefit regional communities. Also, we have responded to advocacy from the sector that would allow GPs to refer patients for MRIs directly rather than having to go through a specialist or a physician. From November 2012, children aged 16 and under will receive a Medicare benefit for a GP requested, clinically appropriate MRI service for the first time. That Medicare eligibility will be expanded to Australians over the age of 16 from the following year, 1 November 2013. These are reforms that will significantly improve diagnostic imaging and thereby significantly improve the health of all Australians.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question pertains to how the COAG National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health, the NPAPH, connects with the Australian National Preventive Health Agency announced by the federal government—these two federal efforts; how do these fit together? At estimates we have been told that the NPAPH now predominantly focuses on obesity, but the listed outcomes of the NPAPH clearly state that it also covers smoking, consumption of alcohol and a healthy start to life. Are these all now going to fall through the crack as the NPAPH is now purely obesity focused?

Secondly, once you have explained how these two connect, how will we be dishing out the reward payments of around $162 million for healthy kids and $144 million for healthy workers for a total of $307 million? If we have COAG working on the one hand and the ANPHA on the other, how do we correctly reward the states?

Finally, we understand that ANPHA has only picked up the area of social-marketing initiatives. What is going to happen with all of the other five initiatives that are effectively neglected—healthy children, healthy workers, healthy communities, industry partnership and enabling infrastructure—if these are not being picked up by ANPHA?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow parliamentary secretary for his question and for his interest in preventative health. As I indicated in an earlier response, this government has taken an unprecedented interest and approach to preventative health, reflecting the fact that only some two per cent of the country's total health spending is made on prevention rather than treatment and cure. This is an area in which the country—the government but the health system broadly—simply must do better.

That is why as part of our analysis of the healthcare system, the foundation of our health reform process, we engaged the National Preventative Health Taskforce to look at ways in which we could significantly improve our approach to preventative health. As the shadow parliamentary secretary knows, that task force was asked particularly to focus on three areas of prevention identified by the government as particular areas of priority: smoking, alcohol and obesity or diet and physical activity. That task force delivered a very comprehensive report about ways in which we could deal with those three health priorities in particular and also a broader approach to prevention from a Commonwealth government point of view.

At the same time, as the shadow parliamentary secretary has outlined, the government engaged the states and territories very early after its election in an agreement to ramp up our approach in preventative health, leading to the largest ever preventative health agreement with the states and territories, concluded in 2008—I think it is a five-year agreement, but I am happy to take that on notice—and comprising some $872 million in investment from the Commonwealth.

I add that the government has been committed for some time, in keeping with the recommendations of the Preventative Health Taskforce, to establishing an agency which will have cross-portfolio responsibility for prevention. As the shadow parliamentary secretary, as a medical practitioner, knows, good prevention cannot rely simply on the health portfolio and the Department of Health and Ageing. Good prevention requires a capacity to get into schools through the education portfolio and deal with children at a young age to teach them about good healthy habits. A good example of that has been the Gillard government's Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program, which many members in this place have in their own electorates and will have visited. I have one in the electorate of Port Adelaide, which I have the honour of representing. It has been there for some time. It is delivering wonderful advances not only to the understanding of the children who use that program but, through them, to the understanding of their broader families. I was there in only the last couple of weeks, and members of the school council were telling me that parents were reporting to them that their children were giving them lectures about the healthy or unhealthy nature of the meals that they were consuming at night. So this reflects a broad approach.

The Preventive Health Agency is something I will talk about later.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Proceed ings suspended from 10:47 to 10 : 59

I think I remember the substance of the question. It was particularly about the interaction of the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health, which COAG agreed, with the work of the Preventive Health Agency. In particular—although I do not remember the specifics—the shadow parliamentary secretary was asking whether any of the Commonwealth programs under the NPA would be affected or terminated by the work of the PHA.

The Preventive Health Agency's work, as I indicated before we were interrupted, is to coordinate the Commonwealth's work in the preventative health sphere. One of those jobs obviously will be taking control or oversight of the Commonwealth programs that we have committed to undertaking as part of the COAG National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health. I cannot remember all of the points that the shadow parliamentary secretary asked about, but I am happy to take those specific points on notice. Suffice it to say that all of the commitments we have undertaken as part of the NPA will be fully discharged by the Commonwealth and will become part of the Preventive Health Agency's work. It is not right that the Preventive Health Agency will only be dealing with obesity—I cannot remember whether that was part of the question. Its immediate remit will be the three areas identified by the Preventative Health Taskforce. I indicated that they are smoking, obesity—particularly childhood obesity—and alcohol abuse. But in due course the Preventive Health Agency will take a broader view of preventative health work.

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

I am pleased to be able to speak in the health part of the appropriations debate. My question is about regional health infrastructure, but before I get to the specific question I want to talk about some of the significant developments in my seat of Page and in the Northern Rivers-North Coast area. Firstly, one of the things that I really applaud the Minister for Health and Ageing in particular for is her commitment to extending integrated cancer care centres in the regions. We all know the statistics, and the statistics still stand, but they will change over time as these regional integrated cancer care centres get up and running. Indeed, some are already opening. The one in my area is at Lismore Base Hospital. The Minister for Indigenous Health had occasion to be there for the opening.

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

The joy of!

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

That is right. It was a real joy. The minister was also in my electorate when we did a regional hospitals tour over two days.

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

A great consultation.

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

Yes, it was a great consultation with the communities. We did it at the hospitals and brought all the health communities in.

Mr Dutton interjecting—

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

The member for Page has the call! The member for Page will continue and—

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

It is all right, Madam Deputy Speaker; it was friendly banter, so I quite enjoyed it. On the Lismore Base Hospital: before I got elected in 2007 there had been a commitment from the previous government for some $8 million. We agreed to keep that commitment, which we did, and we added an extra $15 million plus. I got another $7 million, I think it was, which meant that the cancer care centre could come on line one year sooner than it would have otherwise. That meant that people did not have to travel as far to have their radiotherapy treatment, which is really significant for better health outcomes and for some of those terrible statistics that show that people in regional, rural and remote areas sometimes die more quickly than those in metropolitan areas, where people can access facilities. It is a rather stark thing to say, but that is a health statistic that we have.

Five hundred and sixty-two million dollars was made available nationwide, and we were able to also get some extra money. We got it for a project called Our House, and that meant that people can actually stay across the road from the integrated cancer care centre that is being redeveloped now. We were fortunate to get $2.6 million and then got some extra money in the budget this year, because when they went to do the redevelopment they found asbestos and termites and it required nearly $1 million to flesh that out. But there have been more than that in terms of my area. We also had provision in the integrated cancer care centre for the second linac, the linear accelerator. We were able to get some money out of the regional money available for the second linac and they are just commissioning that at the moment. It takes quite a few months to set that up, but we went and had a look at it the other day. There is also a PET-CT scanner and an additional MRI. These are just some of the things that we will have within the integrated cancer care centre, which covers a broad area in my region.

There have been other significant developments in my area. There was money available for what we call a MAU, a medical assessment unit, at Lismore Base Hospital. That is really useful in assessment and triage of patients when they first come into the hospital. At Grafton Base Hospital as well for the first time in years money was made available to bring it up to a modern facility. I recently went to the commissioning of the new emergency department and it is just wonderful to see. It is an old hospital and it was one of those that no-one in the health department really wanted to touch for a long time but we got the $18 million there, which is not a lot of money in terms of a hospital, and it was really good value for money. (Time expired)

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the question?

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

It was about regional infrastructure.

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

I will allow the minister to address the points that the member raised.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to respond to the matters raised by the member for Page. She has been a strong advocate not only for health reform generally but particularly for the needs of regional Australia, and for mental health, along with a number of other regional members of parliament on this side of the main committee, including the member for Capricornia, the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, who have tirelessly advocated for the needs of regional communities. We do know, as the member for Page outlined, that Australians living in rural and regional and particularly remote Australia experience greater difficulty than metropolitan Australians in getting access to quality health care. That has been a particular focus of this government over the last 3½ years.

The member for Page outlined a number of ways in which her community, the community she represents, has benefited from that, ranging from the integrated cancer centre to upgrades to the Grafton and Lismore hospitals to GP superclinics, which improve access to basic primary care in those regional communities. She also alluded to the broad $560 million program to deliver regional integrated cancer centres in rural and regional Australia which help to close that gap in cancer care that the member for Page outlined.

There are also wonderful benefits that regional Australians are going to derive from our e-health program, a program that has not been the subject of questions yet. I know that in South Australia, for example, in the last couple of weeks we announced a cooperative program with the South Australian government to deliver new facilities for tele-psychiatry to, over time, up to 100 country hospitals or health centres in South Australia, which will allow remote diagnosis. Because of the quality of the bandwidth and the quality of the equipment being used in those facilities, it will allow remote diagnosis for the first time from Adelaide by resident psychiatrists at Glenside Hospital, the major psychiatric hospital in Adelaide, as well as some other places in Adelaide. This stops regional South Australians in that case having to be transported to Adelaide just for the purpose of diagnosis and will significantly reduce the level of trauma involved in that particular area of health care and improve the level of care provided not only to the people themselves but also the support provided to their families. Utterly central to our approach to improving health for regional Australia is the Health and Hospitals Fund. The member for Page has outlined a range of ways in which this government has supported capital improvements in the health system in regional Australia and, as everyone in the Main Committee knows, the latest round of the Health and Hospitals Fund has been focused particularly on regional Australia because we know that regional Australia needs particular attention to ensure it has equal access to the quality health care enjoyed by those living in the capital cities.

There was very significant interest in this latest round, funded by the budget in May. There were 237 applications made to the Health and Hospitals Fund Advisory Board, 114 of which were identified by the advisory board as satisfying the evaluation criteria and funding, to the tune of about $1.3 million, has been allocated for those 63 regional projects. Another half-a-billion-dollar round will be opened later this year, again, with a priority focus on regional Australia, which will allow a number of those projects that were assessed as appropriate being considered by the Health and Hospitals Fund Advisory Board in that later round.

The 63 projects include a very broad range of initiatives in regional Australia. I know that the shadow minister for health and ageing will be particularly interested in the subacute or integrated care centres funded through this round for mental health care in regional Queensland. There has been a significant gap in Queensland for a considerable period of time in this area. People are cared for either at an acute level in Queensland or at a primary care level. We know the importance of improving subacute care. There have been a range of other projects for regional hospitals: dental care, primary health care, further cancer infrastructure and such like. I thank the member for Page for her ongoing interest in improving health care not only for her constituents but for regional Australia generally. (Time expired.)

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, how many staff are budgeted to be employed in the first operating year of the independent Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, the National Health Performance Authority, the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority and the National Funding Authority? Further, could the minister advise how many patients are budgeted to receive a lower rebate for a GP mental health plan under the Better Access program for 2011-12. When will the first EPPIC be operational? How many of the EPPICs announced in the 2010 budget are operational and how many have commenced construction? What proportion of funding will be provided by the Commonwealth for each EPPIC? And, finally, why does the minister consider a GP mental health plan is worth less in terms of a Medicare rebate than a GP management plan that assists patients with physical chronic health conditions?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his question, in many parts. I think I got them all down and I will try to deal with them all, but not necessarily in the same order he did. Can I deal, firstly, with the government's reforms in relation to EPPIC? The EPPIC model has existed for almost 20 years and, as members would know, it was initiated by former Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry and has operated in western Melbourne since about 1991 or 1992. It has never previously received Commonwealth government funding and support. In all of the 11 or 12 years of the Howard government, the EPPIC model did not receive Commonwealth government support.

It was this government, in the 2010 budget, which, for the first time, indicated that it would provide direct funding to an expansion of the EPPIC model beyond Victoria, which is where the only EPPIC model—certainly, with fidelity to Patrick McGorry's model—operates. That was a recommendation from the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, chaired by Christine Bennett, and funding was provided in the 2010 budget for up to, I think, four additional EPPICs, based on cost sharing with the states: 60 per cent Commonwealth, 40 per cent states. As the shadow minister would know, that was then the cost-sharing arrangement for acute care included within the National Health and Hospitals Agreement, concluded in April. This current budget adopts a different proposal based on the varied arrangement agreed by the states and territories and the Commonwealth in February, which is that there be a fifty-fifty cost-sharing arrangement. The money included in the 2011 budget is for 16 centres to be rolled out across Australia based on a fifty-fifty cost-sharing arrangement with the states. Obviously that is something we have started to talk to states about but we have not yet got agreement. If we get no input from states, the Commonwealth will proceed to roll out eight centres fully funded by the Commonwealth, and the costing arrangements are based on advice that Patrick McGorry's organisation, Origin, has provided to the department since the 2010 budget measures. That work, as well as ongoing discussions with the states about the degree to which they have an in-principle interest, as opposed to a financial commitment, has meant that none of the four EPIC centres that were contemplated in the 2010 budget have yet been rolled out. Correspondence that I sent to the states in late 2010—after being appointed the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing—asking for their indications of interest in this model elicited a very positive response. Obviously, since the 2011 budget we have started to have more substantive discussions with them about that.

The Better Access program that was initiated by the former government in about 2006 was the subject of a comprehensive evaluation that was received by me over the few months leading into the budget. The evaluation showed that the Better Access scheme had improved the level of access to treatment, particularly for people with high prevalence, mild to moderate disorders, and that there had been a reasonably positive outcome for consumers. It also showed that there was a very differential distribution across the community. It cut a number of ways, but the most stark and obvious way was that different quintiles, by socioeconomic status in the community, received very different levels of service. In 2009, for example, the richest quintile of Australians received 2½ times the number of services, attracting three times the amount of Medicare dollars compared with the poorest quintile of Australians. The difference between service numbers and Medicare dollars reflects that those in the highest quintile disproportionately received services from psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. We decided that we needed to take a look at that program to see whether or not there were ways in which we could redirect funding from that program, which is still projected to grow significantly, into more targeted primary care. One of the ways we have done that by reducing GP rebates for mental health treatment plans back down to a standard time-based formula, still with a 27 per cent premium for those doctors who have done their six to eight hours of mental health skills training, which is about three-quarters of them at the last analysis.

I will take the other questions on notice about particular staffing numbers for the three authorities that the shadow minister identified.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask a question of the Minister for Health and Ageing relating to the government's programs in the area of mental health. It is an issue that I know affects many of us in this place. When I was 22, I had the experience of giving the eulogy of a friend of mine who had taken his own life. It is one of those experiences that you never forget and that you never want any other young person to have to go through. Andrew McIntosh was a good high school friend of mine. He was someone who drove a yellow Valiant Charger, loved music, but had the black dog inside him—unknown to all of us at the time. Thinking back, I wonder whether, if there had been better services available for people like Andrew, he might still be with us today.

I wanted to ask the minister to reflect on some of the programs in this area. I know the minister spoke in answer to the previous question about the EPPIC models for serious mental illness, and in the youth space there is also the headspace model for moderate ill health. I was hoping that the minister would reflect as well on some of the other interventions across the life cycle. We know, for example, that in the area of early childhood intervention there are programs that show promise. There is even a study, for example, which shows that expert observations of toddlers correlate with suicide attempts in adulthood, suggesting that there are hints of mental ill health that appear before the age of 12—the age at which headspace and EPPIC begin. Thinking right through the life cycle, we know that suicide peaks in the age range of 35 to 44. In fact, when I crunched the numbers it looked to me as though the typical Australian suicide victim was aged 44. We know that, for example, if we look at depressive episodes or anxiety disorders often brought on by workplace trauma, those are going to be things that appear later in life, in middle age, well after the age range of eligibility for headspace and EPIC.

There are other good things going on in the youth space, not just headspace and EPPIC but some of the youth targeted programs. I opened a day-long event in my electorate on 12 October last year which was titled 'Towards recovery: how do we talk about suicide?' The aim of the event was to encourage young people and community organisations working with young people to have a more positive conversation about suicide. Mike Zissler, the former CEO of Lifeline, told me when I met with him last year that the new research we have suggests that in the case of suicide it is important to use the 'S' word. If you are around somebody who you think might be contemplating self-harm, one of the best things you can do is ask, 'Are you thinking about suicide?' It is that destigmatising process that those in my electorate—the ACT Transcultural Mental Health Centre, the Mental Health Community Coalition and people like Simon Tatz, Brooke McKail and Simon Biereck—were trying to work through, aiming to ensure that young people and community organisations serving young people were up with the best research on how to address mental ill health.

The question that I really did want the minister to give me some more information about was the overall $2.2 billion national mental health reform package and how those reforms will affect Australia's mental health system. Particularly I wanted the minister to reflect on how the government's policy of looking at mental health right across the life cycle, not just in the 12 to 25 years age range, is producing the best results.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fraser for his question but also his advice over the last several months. He has made a number of very important contributions to the public and parliamentary debate around mental health, along with many other members from both sides of the parliament. I particularly remember a speech that he gave reflecting on the experiences he has repeated again today in the chamber about his friend and about suicide prevention, and also the piece that he wrote for the Financial Reviewin one of his regular forays into the Fairfax press. It was a very important piece. I know that he had very good discussions with Professor Patrick McGorry about youth mental health. It was a very thoughtful piece, penned at a very critical time in the debate within the sector about what our focus as a government should be on mental health reform.

This budget does deliver on the Prime Minister's commitment made last year that mental health reform would be a priority of this term of government. As the member for Fraser has outlined, there is a package comprising $2.2 billion of new measures, part of which was announced over the course of the last year and $1.5 billion of which was announced on budget night. The measures announced last year very importantly focus on suicide prevention. Some years ago, only in the middle part of the last decade, suicide prevention from the Commonwealth's point of view attracted probably less than $10 million in a year. After the rollout of the measures announced last year as well as the step up that has taken place since the middle part of the last decade, started by the Howard government and continued by our government, that will be more like $50 million a year—a quintupling of the focus by the Commonwealth on suicide prevention—because all members in this place have experienced either directly amongst their family and friends or among their constituency the tragedy of suicide, which we know is still the largest killer of males under 45 and the largest killer of females under 35.

The member for Fraser makes an important point too, which is that our package does not simply focus on one age group or one part of the community. It focuses on the whole of the life span. It tries to take an approach that is not only health based but recognises that good mental health depends as much on good employment, good housing, good education and training, and good social support as it does on good clinical care through the health system. That is something I think we all understand. Finally, it also rests on the foundational idea that you do not have to choose between health reform and mental health reform, which was at the heart of the Leader of the Opposition's package last year. You can have both and, indeed, you should have both.

I want to take up a couple of points made by the member for Fraser about nought to 12 or early childhood and primary school aged children, because increasingly we understand in the education and physical health space the importance of the first five years. We know that that is where the brain develops at its fastest rate and, increasingly, as the member for Fraser has indicated, we know that good mental health later in life depends on a good experience in the first five years of your life. We have already followed up that intuition through our Perinatal Depression Plan, launched in the very early stages of the Rudd government, with the support of beyondblue and we have followed that up, again, in this package, with strong supports for promoting good mental health among children.

We have decided that the Healthy Kids Check, initiated by this government, will move from four years to three years of age, based on expert advice, particularly from paediatricians, child psychiatrists and the like, that the earliest possible check gives the best opportunity to identify emerging behavioural and other disorders and to identify whether the child is developing well in terms of their emotional and social wellbeing. In the next twelve months we will expand that Healthy Kids Check to incorporate social and emotional wellbeing elements. That was a very strong recommendation from experts in this field. It is also supplemented by a focus on the middle years and the primary school years, again, based on strong advice from the Research Alliance for Children and Youth, ARACY, an organisation that I think all members of parliament are familiar with.

We take a very strong view that good mental health across the life span rests on good foundational mental health at an early childhood level in primary school and in adolescence, which I think has been the focus of significant public debate, as well as on good supports through adulthood. (Time expired)

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister and it is on GP superclinics. Is the minister aware that the government's own director of the GP Super Clinics Program has said:

We've got clinics that are struggling …

The patients that are walking in the door are not the sort of patients that have the sort of chronic disease they think they should be focused on.

What discussions have the government had with the 11 operational GP superclinics about their patient loads with chronic disease? Also, the Department of Health and Ageing have said that they will only provide self-reported numbers of service presentations at an aggregated level. Given that the minister has released the numbers of services at Palmerston and at Strathpine in February this year, why can the department not release this information? Given that this information relates to only self-reported figures, why is it considered commercial-in-confidence? Why are the department only taking self-reported figures from the GP superclinics? Are the department checking or confirming the self-reported figures presented to them? Why are the department not undertaking more detailed analysis of the use or presentations at each GP superclinic, considering the size of the taxpayer contribution to this initiative? Given that the Townsville GP Superclinic, an existing practice, is described as 'offering early services,' what is the definition of 'early services' under the GP Super Clinics Program? Given that the minister promised, on 6 November 2007, a GP superclinic in Wanneroo, does the minister believe it is acceptable that this clinic will not be opened until late 2012? Can the minister advise what date the clinic will open and see a patient? Will it be in Wanneroo? And can the minister guarantee that no existing practice will be closed or folded into the superclinic?

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

Does the minister seek to answer the question or take it on notice?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have to take some of those 34 questions or thereabouts on notice from the shadow parliamentary secretary, particularly the specific ones about particular services, but let me just clear up the record on this program before taking a number of those specific questions on notice. I know the opposition wants to run down the GP Super Clinics Program, but let me reiterate that this government has a very strong view that targeted interventions to ensure equality of access to quality primary healthcare services—

Dr Southcott interjecting—

Settle down. Targeted interventions to ensure quality primary care access across the community are needed. We needed to lift the number of GPs in training following the cap that was kept in place at 600 by the Leader of the Opposition during his five years as health minister. We are lifting that over the course of time up to 1,200. We need to ensure that those communities who have high healthcare needs that are not well-served by a market based solution, which is generally the approach taken in the Medicare system, get the sorts of supports that are delivered through the GP Super Clinics Program.

I know that the opposition wants to run this program down, but let me state for the record that over 350,000 services have already been delivered through GP superclinics. As the shadow parliamentary secretary indicated, there are 11 GP superclinics that are operational, but there are also nine services that are providing early services and are under construction. There is an additional service providing early services without construction, and there are 10 further services that are under construction and in a short time will be providing services, no doubt. I am happy to take the particular questions the shadow parliamentary secretary has asked on notice, and I thank him for his interest in the delivery of good-quality primary health care to the Australian community.

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

The time for this session has expired. The minister seeks a final comment?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not a final comment, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker; this is a matter that was raised at the beginning of the consideration of the Health and Ageing portfolio, which I understand has been the subject of discussion with the opposition, which is for some reordering of the proposed expenditures. 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 following portfolios after the Attorney General's portfolio this afternoon: firstly, the Foreign Affairs segment of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio; secondly, the workplace relations and BER segment of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio; and then the tertiary education and skills and school education, early childhood and youth segments of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.

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

Is the suggestion of the minister agreed to? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,591,562,000

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been my practice for some time to make a brief opening statement at these hearings. On budget day I released this year's immigration program. It is appropriate that I talk a little bit about that because the most important part, in many senses, of an immigration minister's role is to set the immigration program for each year. We have taken the decision to increase the immigration program this year to 185,000 places, with 16,000 places specifically for regional Australia. Over two-thirds of the program will be for skilled migrants to help fill critical skill needs. It is well known that the Australian economy has emerged very strongly from the global financial crisis, and as the mining boom mark 2 is driving record investment across Australia it will present unprecedented opportunities for Australia. But it is important that we indicate that we want our migration program to deal with not only the emerging pressures but the existing and re-emerging pressures for workforce capacity. This is not just a matter for the resources sector, although the resources sector feels it particularly acutely, but a matter across the economy. I know that I regularly have representations from the hospitality field, for example, and from the retail sector generally, about skills gaps and about labour shortages. So the increases in the immigration program that I announced on budget day are very important. They are prudent, they are responsible and they are necessary. It has been particularly important to make sure that they are focused on the areas of greatest need. Those areas are regional Australia, whether in Western Australia, Queensland or elsewhere. There has been a particular need to fill labour shortages and skills gaps in regional Australia. The allocation of 16,000 places as an indication, subject to demand, for regional Australia is very important.

Also important are the regional migration agreements which I announced on budget day. Regional migration agreements are a first; they are an important opportunity for local councils, regional development organisations, chambers of commerce and unions to come together to assess the labour needs in their particular region and to make it easier for businesses in that region to develop further agreements and bring in temporary workers under those agreements. Also important are the enterprise migration agreements, which are very much focused at megaprojects. The thresholds that we have set in terms of enterprise migration agreements mean that a relatively small, but nevertheless significant, number of projects across the country—perhaps 14 or so—will qualify for treatment as a megaproject in the resources sector, which will make it significantly easier for those projects to attract the type of temporary migrants that they need. There will be close consultation with all the relevant affected parties, including trade unions—that is something that is appropriate—to make sure that we set the appropriate standards. In particular, we will set standards in relation to the needs for domestic training. It will be a very clear requirement of having an enterprise migration agreement that there be an opportunity for domestic training in the areas of labour shortage for which migrants are being sought. It will not be appropriate to have a general program, but people will need to show us how they are engaging in domestic training, making it possible for us to justify entering into an enterprise migration agreement.

There are other measures announced on budget day, including the 457 processing centre in Brisbane, which will further speed up processing. I am very pleased with the processing regime for 457 visas. There has been a considerable improvement under this government in the amount of time it takes to process 457 visas, but we can always do better. The new $10 million centre in Brisbane will make substantial progress.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

I see the member for Cook scoffs. I am more than happy to compare our record with theirs when it comes to 457 visa processing. The figures speak for themselves: it is considerably quicker to get a 457 visa under this government than it was under the previous government. I am more than happy, if the honourable member for Cook chooses to ask me a question about that, to answer it. That is my opening statement, and I look forward to fielding questions from honourable members.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition welcomes the increased skilled migration numbers that are in the budget. The coalition significantly increased skilled migration when we were in government, so any increase in skilled migration is also always welcome. But where I want to focus today is on a matter that the minister has not focused on in his opening statement. I would have thought he might have, because he is, I am sure, spending quite a bit of time trying to land a deal in Malaysia which, almost seven weeks later, has not yet been completed. My questions relate to that arrangement, and specifically to the funds that have been set aside in the budget. I refer to page 17 of the portfolio additional statements regarding administered expenses, and the item 'Regional Cooperation Framework—Transfer of Irregular Maritime Arrivals to Malaysia', which provides for $65.7 million to be spent over four years in output class 4.3. Can the minister provide a breakdown of the amounts to be paid to the UNHCR, the IOM, any other NGOs and the Malaysian government and any agencies of that government, as well as the purpose of these payments—in other words, what are these payments paying for?

Secondly, what is the per capita payment being made for each of the 800 persons to be transferred to Malaysia to these various agencies, and are the payments for each person being made on a one-off basis upon their transfer or annually over a period of years? If the latter, how many years? Are the payments being made for those transferred intended to cover support for the entire duration of their stay in Malaysia or for a fixed period? If not for a fixed period, what is the estimated length of stay for all of those who are transferred to Malaysia?

What amounts have been set aside for any capital building or refurbishment works for facilities in Malaysia to accommodate people transferred to Malaysia under the deal, and where are those facilities? What is the nature of the works and how much will those works cost?

Can the minister advise whether within this funding envelope funding has been set aside for the training of the approximately half a million RELA members in Malaysia—the paramilitary civil volunteer corps formed by the Malaysia government—who are charged with enforcing illegal immigration in Malaysia, who have the power to search without a warrant, who can carry arms, who are paid on arrest and who have the ability to inflict all sorts of punishments? Has the minister provided in that funding envelope any package for training of those approximately half a million individuals to ensure that they do not abuse the human rights and liberties of any of the 800 people transferred to Malaysia?

Can the minister provide a breakdown of the $65.7 million to be paid to support those transferred to Malaysia, specifically on health, education, accommodation, meals, transfers, including airfares, immigration processing—I should say refugee status assessment processing, but immigration processing to the extent that is required for their entry into Malaysia—and legal support? Will the $65.7 million spent by the agencies receiving these funds be paid directly to service providers in areas such as health, education, accommodation and meals on a consumption basis or is it a fixed payment to the provider of those services with no reference to whether those services are actually used? How much of the $65.7 million will be spent by the agencies receiving these payments on administration?

Finally, what audit processes have been put in place to monitor and report on the disbursement of funds in Malaysia provided under this arrangement to support those transferred to Malaysia? How will this government be reporting on the disbursement of those funds to this parliament? In particular, will they be subject to scrutiny by the Auditor-General? If so, when?

These questions go to how the money that has been set aside will be spent—not in generalities but in specifics. Who gets the money? What is it for? How will it be spent? How will it be audited? Will it support those 800 who are sent there on an ongoing basis or will it just be one lump, up-front payment and after that they will be on their own? These are the questions that I think it is necessary to answer. They involve the specifics of this arrangement so Australians can understand what exactly it is that the government is proposing with this arrangement. I look forward to the minister's answers.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I welcome the shadow minister's support for the strengthening of the skilled migration program. It is the first time he has indicated that. It has been a little over a month since the budget and it is the first time the shadow minister for immigration has talked about the immigration program. We see lots of press releases on his website but nothing about the immigration program. Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think that the shadow minister for immigration should have a position on the immigration program and I welcome the fact that we now have one. That is a very good thing. I know he finds it difficult to complete a sentence without the word 'boat' in it, but I think he managed to get through an entire set of questions without mentioning that word, which is a major achievement for the member for Cook. I welcome that and I welcome the fact that he actually talked about skilled migration.

In relation to the honourable member's questions, as the honourable member is well aware, the government has announced an in-principle agreement with Malaysia. The government has announced a commitment to enter into a bilateral arrangement at the prime ministerial level. There have, of course, been intensive discussions prior to that announcement and after that announcement about the implementation of the various matters which the honourable member refers to.

I can say to the honourable member that the costs outlined do go to the transfer costs. The Australian government will of course cover the costs of transferring people from Australia to Malaysia. We will also be working with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration as well as the Malaysian government on appropriate care for people as they get transferred into Malaysia. That does not mean, of course, that the Australian government would have some ongoing role—he mentioned meals et cetera—over a long period of time. That would clearly not be the case.

In relation to the honourable member's question about the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General is of course welcome to examine all matters in relation to government expenditure, as the honourable member well knows. I dare say the Auditor-General may well look at this matter as the agreement gets implemented, which I would welcome. Further details will be released, as is appropriate, once the arrangement and the operational guidelines and documents are released by the Australian government and the Malaysian government in consultation with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to draw attention to the appropriations, particularly in the Immigration and Citizenship area. In doing so, I think I speak for all members of parliament in saying how important the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is to us in our daily dealings with our constituents. I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship the wonderful work of Ralph Harwood, who is our ministerial contact in the New South Wales parliamentary and ministerial liaison section in the DIAC office in Parramatta. I praise Ralph particularly for his professional expertise, his timely, accurate and detailed advice and for the fact that he is always willing to canvass all options with my staff and me so that we can give the best advice to the many people needing assistance.

In my electorate a lot of humanitarian services contracts have been delivered. That has not been an easy ride. Settling almost 1,000 African refugees in an electorate like Newcastle has been a challenging task and one that has been well embraced by the community—but it has not been without problems. The minister is aware that earlier this year, after the Social Justice Council of the Catholic diocese of Maitland-Newcastle approached me and brought to my attention some serious matters regarding the delivery of those contracts, I asked the department to investigate those concerns through the minister. However, it was not until I actually sat with the Rwandan and Congolese families who were newly arrived in my electorate—I sat with them for 2½ hours; it was a devastating 2½ hours—that I heard of their distress, saw their depression, saw their destroyed morale, saw their damaged confidence and saw that their belief in the strength and greatness of this country was at risk. I brought the matter to the attention of the minister, who took very strong, direct and immediate action. It has been recorded in the parliament that the minister instigated an independent inquiry conducted by Ernst and Young. I would like the minister to detail for me how that has progressed and how it will deliver settlement services that we can have confidence in, that are value for money and that absolutely marry with the outcomes and expectations that a good government would have.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Newcastle. She raises a very important matter, which I would have thought would be important to members on both sides of the House. I place on record, as I have previously, my thanks to the member for Newcastle for the way that she has handled these matters. She rang me, as I recall, in early April to raise with me directly her concerns about settlement services in Newcastle. I asked her to put her concerns in writing, which she did the next day. I received those the next day. Within a week we had instigated an independent review for which Ernst and Young was engaged. As I have said previously, the Ernst and Young report does not make for pretty reading. We have let people down. We have settled refugees in Australia but have not supplied them with the support that they need. That is a cause of great regret for the government, for me and, I know, for the member for Newcastle. It is important that we recognise and acknowledge that, and take steps to make sure it does not happen again.

In relation to the matters in Newcastle, it is important to note—I do not do this by way of excuse—that they occurred under a contract which is not currently in force. They occurred under a contract which was entered into in 2005 and which was replaced early this year. The contract management provisions and the terms of the contract have been significantly improved since then, which I am pleased about, but I am not yet satisfied that all action has been taken to ensure that what happened in Newcastle is not repeated across the board. I am satisfied that it is occurring, but there is more work to do.

Departmental officers have now completed property inspections of all short- and long-term properties in Newcastle. The inspections found that most clients in long-term accommodation were well settled and living in well-maintained properties. We have moved people out of inappropriate properties. There have been some instances where we offered to move people, but the families, because they have been to some degree settled, have requested to stay there and, in those instances, we have taken measures to ensure that those properties are safe and improved as much as they can be while they are being occupied. I have commissioned Mr David Richmond, who is well known to many honourable members, who played an integral role in contract management in the Sydney Olympics, to engage a review of contract management within my department and ensure that all necessary measures are in place. He has began his inquiry. He has had individual meetings with senior DIAC executives, and key stakeholders are further being scheduled. I envisage him reporting to me over coming months about how my department can improve its contract management—because it clearly needed to be improved—resulting from this inquiry.

In addition, the department has engaged a firm to undertake a forensic audit of the housing provider which provided the services in Newcastle under the former contract. That company no longer provides services in Newcastle, although it does provide services elsewhere in Australia under contract, so it is important that that forensic audit take place. I am advised that that process has begun. In addition, I put on record that we will reserve the right to take further action depending on the results of that forensic audit. Some matters have been referred to New South Wales Police for investigation of potential criminal conduct. I have no further update on that; that is now a matter for the police. If I were in a position to update the House further I would, and if I am in a position to update the House further I will, but I am not in a position to do that at the moment because the police inquiry is underway, as I understand it.

These are serious matters. This is a matter that I have focused on and will continue to focus on. We have also instigated an audit of all property across the country that we resettle refugees in, and that will take some time. It is a large task but it is a necessary task, because I do not want to receive another call from another member on either side of the House bringing to my attention matters such as the member for Newcastle brought to my attention. I want to make sure that we know about it straightaway and that we are dealing with it in an appropriate manner, and I am confident that that will be the case. It is important that when we settle refugees we settle them well. Australia has a well-regarded refugee settlement program. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said it is the best in the world, and I take that as a very good thing. But it is also important that, where errors are brought to our attention, we deal with those, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was able to give the last member a full and detailed response to her question, and I hope that the minister will now give me a full and detailed response to the questions that I pose. I ask the minister, if he does not know the answers to these questions, if he would be able to take them on notice, including those that I asked when I last got to my feet. I seek the commitment from the minister in his response that he will take each of these on notice if he is unable to answer them today.

But I just want to confirm that the minister today, as we debate these matters in detail here, is unable to advise us that in framing the budget for this year he has allocated $65.7 million as an administered expense in the budget, and he is unable to tell us who it will be paid to. Will it be paid to the UNHCR? Will it be paid to the IOM or any other government agency or the government of Malaysia? It is a fairly straightforward question. Is the payment based on a per capita figure for each of the 800 transferred, and, if so, what is that figure? That would seem to be a fairly basic item to determine what the average total cost will be as it has been placed in the arrangement. He should know whether it includes training for those who enforce immigration law in Malaysia. He avoided that completely. He is unable to provide a breakdown of how this money will be spent on meals and accommodation and over what period of time. So how he comes up with this figure I do not know, and I think it is important that parliament should be told what is in this figure and how it has been arrived at. He is unable to tell us, for example, whether, for those agencies that receive funds, they are paying it out on a fee-for-service basis or as an upfront payment.

These are all matters that I would have thought would have been important in framing the budget position. And he is unable to tell us, about the facility which was reported in the Daily Telegraphand I assume the source came from someone close to the government, if not the minister's own office—that was being developed in Malaysia, whether that report is accurate and what funds are being put in place to support the redevelopment of that facility. Clearly these matters must be under discussion, and clearly they must have been thought of before the minister put this money in the budget. So I ask the minister if he is able to shed some light on those matters today. I would welcome that, but, if he is unable to do that, I am disappointed, I am surprised and I hope that he will attend to getting those responses to us as quickly as possible. I will add a few more to the list. On page 18 of the portfolio additional statements, it states that around $10 million has been allocated for departmental expenses in relation to the Malaysian agreement. Can the minister provide us with a breakdown of staff costs; staff numbers involved on a full-time equivalent basis; accommodation costs that are included in that budget; costs for travel, training and contractors; and any other relevant line items that go to the composition of that figure over the forward estimates?

Could I also ask the minister about a separate matter. In the budget, $130 million was allocated for a phantom regional processing centre, because at estimates the department was unable to say where this was or what it was. It was a phantom processing centre. Can the minister advise whether he now knows where that centre that the government have budgeted $130 million for will be? Does he agree with the foreign minister that current discussions with Papua New Guinea are pointless because they are focused on other issues and, if that is the case and the department has already confirmed that it is not currently talking to any other countries at all about a regional processing centre, whether the 275 people, who have arrived since 7 May, will be transferred to another country, if indeed they are unable to be transferred to Malaysia?

The minister is always very clear about what he says on these matters. He is very careful with his language and he, unlike the Prime Minister, made it clear in a statement on 7 May that only those persons who arrived after the agreement had been finalised would be transferred to Malaysia. Those 275 people are now on our shores, on Christmas Island. Papua New Guinea is not going to be opened anytime soon, unless the minister wants to share something with us today. The Malaysian agreement, referred to in his own press statement and his own statement on 7 May, indicated that they could not be transferred there because it would be prior to the agreement. Where are these people going to go? Where is this regional processing centre going to be? And, if he is unable to answer it, I suggest he pick up the phone to the President of Nauru.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that all the costings in relation to the agreement with Malaysia have been very thoroughly prepared in consultation with not only my department but the department of finance. They have been based on estimates of the costs of transferring 800 people. It may not be that we transfer 800 people to Malaysia; it may be that fewer than that arrive, in which case we would not transfer 800 people to Malaysia. But it is the case that there will be payments to organisations, such as the International Organisation for Migration, and that if we transferred fewer than 800 people then the full costs outlined would not be accrued.

I can confirm to the honourable member and to the House that those costs are based on the transfer of 800 people. I think that therefore answers the honourable member's question as to whether it is on a per capita basis or an upfront basis. It will depend on the number of people transferred. Of course, the payments will be in relation to people actually transferred and the costs are borne by organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and, particularly, the International Organisation for Migration.

In relation to the facility that the honourable member refers to, we will be saying more about that when we announce further details. It is the case, as I have said previously—and the Malaysian government has confirmed this—that people will not be detained in Malaysia for any long period, that they will be held in a facility that is not an existing detention facility. Of course, that would be a facility currently in the ownership or, at least, in the care and control of the Malaysian government. We will be cooperating with the Malaysian government to ensure appropriate facilities are in place.

I can say to the honourable member in relation to his question about RELA that RELA is, as the honourable member correctly points out, a non-government organisation in Malaysia but one which does have certain powers. As I have previously said, repeatedly, that people transferred from Australia to Malaysia will not be treated as illegal migrants under the purposes of Malaysian law, but rather as people transferred by agreement between two sovereign governments, Australia and Malaysia. And so, of course, the Malaysian government will be putting measures in place to ensure that they are dealt with appropriately. The honourable member referred to Papua New Guinea and operational costs. Can I say that this government, when it enters into discussions with another government, makes prudent allocations for operational costs. The honourable member opposite talks about Nauru. I would be interested in what his allocation for operational costs for Nauru are. I would be interested to see the honourable member—he will get five minutes—outline what his prudent allocation for the operational cost of Nauru would be. Our prudent allocation for the operational cost of a regional processing centre is in the vicinity of $130 million. He says it would be a fraction of $130 million for a centre which would presumably be for 1,500 people. I know why he can say it will be a fraction of $130 million. It is because under the previous government they hid the cost. They spread the cost right across the government—they hid it in the overseas development aid budget; they hid it in the Defence budget—because they were so ashamed of the operational cost of Nauru.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

We have made a clear allocation in the budget for operational cost. It is a prudent allocation for a regional processing centre should one proceed. That is the prudent thing for this government to do, the responsible and sensible thing for this government to do, while the opposition engages in its short-term slogans and refuses to even pretend that it will have any operational costs.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

Order! The honourable member for Cook will cease interjecting.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member claims the capital costs will be $10 million. I would like to see him do that; and that is even before we get to operational costs. I would like to see the honourable member develop and implement an offshore processing centre in Nauru at $10 million total cost, as he claims he can do.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the minister concludes his remarks, can he confirm that he is prepared to take the matters I raised with him on notice?

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

Is the minister prepared to take the question on notice?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am fully prepared to report back to the House on all matters concerning the operational details for the Malaysian arrangement, when those are out.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will focus my questions on the regional skills measures given that one in three people live outside our major capital cities, two-thirds of export earnings are generated in the regions and there is no doubt that strong regional economies underpin us having a strong national economy. Different regions face different pressures and opportunities, and one of the issues facing regions in being able to attract and then hold onto skilled people is ensuring that the right skills and attributes are there to strengthen and broaden our economic base and particularly that of regional Australia.

The migration program we have in this country has played a critical role in our economic growth. It will continue to do so and it will continue to support the growth of regions. As a representative of a Western Sydney seat, it is critical that there is balanced growth within cities and regions to ensure that the pressure on cities is reduced. Skilled migrants who settle in regional Australia will be important in supporting the viability of regional enterprises that operate there. This in turn will create and sustain jobs for Australians in the regions and contribute to social and cultural diversity across the country.

The OECD has recently noted that instead of simply reacting to existing problems, regional policies around the world have become more proactive and forward-looking. I am interested in finding out from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship how the skilled migration policies announced in the budget will support the growth of regions, support entrepreneurialism within the regions and support diversity of social and economic growth outside major cities.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Chifley for his very important question. As the honourable member correctly points out, ensuring that we have migrants moving to regions where there is demand is very important, not only economically but also socially. There are many regions around the nation which are crying out for more people to live in them—both migrants from overseas and people moving around Australia. That was the focus of our announcements on budget day in relation to regional migration, particularly skilled migration but also humanitarian migration. It important that we have humanitarian migrants settling in the regions. That goes to the question of the honourable member for Newcastle in ensuring we have adequate support in place.

We have made good progress on this under governments of both persuasions. We have seen a fourfold increase in the number of skilled migrants settling in regional Australia over the last decade, under governments of both persuasions. That is very good thing because it is good for the regions, it is good for capital cities in terms of dealing with their congestion pressures—concerns which the honourable member, as a fellow Western Sydney MP, shares with me—and it ensures that we have the appropriate measures in place.

We announced a number of measures on budget day on regional migration. We made an allocation for regional skilled migration of 16,000 places. That will be dependent on demand, but that is an indication of what we feel would be appropriate and what we would be prepared to accommodate should that demand be there. I hope and expect that demand will be there. There are a number of other measures which we have put in place. The regional migration agreements will bring together employers, local and state governments, regional development organisations, chambers of commerce and unions. The definition of a region will change across the country, and I am not intending to be prescriptive about it. It may be that, in some cases, a group of local councils commonly regarded as one region will join together to develop a regional migration agreement; in other cases, it may well be that different boundaries apply. We will be taking a flexible approach to applications from organisations—primarily local government, I would envisage—in the definition of a region. That will enable template agreements and clear and easy processing for small businesses, in particular, and larger businesses in those regions to enable them to attract the necessary workers under 457 and other temporary arrangements.

I think that is something that has been welcomed. There has been a lot of interest from local governments around the country. A number have come to see me about how that would work and a number have contacted the Department of Immigration and Citizenship seeking more information, and I look forward to working with local governments and regional development organisations across the country. It is not just a matter of rural areas; as the honourable member for Chifley correctly points out, regions can have a broad definition. We will take a flexible approach to that. All of that complements the other measures taken in the budget by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations for a very significant investment in skills training. A $3 billion package was announced in the budget.

We recognise that training takes time and that temporary migration and permanent migration, with our significant increase in skilled migration, will play a role in that. I think that has been widely welcomed. For example, Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Jennifer Westacott said:

In the area of skills the BCA called for a three-pronged strategy built around improving the education and training of Australian workers, maintenance of the permanent skilled migration program and new initiatives in the area of temporary migration. The skills package included in the Budget comprehensively addresses all of these areas.

I welcome the endorsement of the Business Council of Australia and others and I look forward to implementing those regional skilled migration agreements and other regional measures that we announced on budget day.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to ask the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship some questions relating to the Inverbrackie detention facility in my electorate of Mayo. I am sure the minister will be surprised that I have risen to ask him these questions. This is the first budget post the announcement that the minister made when he ambushed my community in October last year—the day after the Prime Minister visited for a photo opportunity. He made his announcement the next day here, in the confines of Parliament House, rather than in the Adelaide Hills, just 17 kilometres from Woodside, where she was the day before. The announcement followed an election where it was promised there would be no more onshore detention processing facilities.

Putting those facts on the table, I seek the minister's indulgence for me to ask a few questions. If he cannot answer them here, would he be so kind as to take them on notice, as he did with questions by the member for Cook. My questions include these. What is the total cost of the establishment of the Inverbrackie detention facility, including a breakdown of how much per property the government has spent on upgrading the facility prior to its opening in late December? What is the total recurrent spending over the forward estimates for the facility, including the costs of transport, the use of local health services and educational facilities and payments to the state government? In relation to those issues, could the minister outline to the House whether the state government agreement has been signed yet regarding the children from Inverbrackie attending local schools?

The minister was gracious enough, it must be acknowledged, to come along to a public meeting at Lobethal, in the Adelaide Hills, in November last year, when there was outrage in the community a couple of months after he made the announcement. He made several claims that evening that there would be a significant economic benefit to the local community. I am interested in whether the minister can now verify, in facts and figures, the economic benefit that he talked about that evening, including how many jobs have been created for local people from the Adelaide Hills, the percentage of total spending on the facility and how much of that has gone to local businesses and local contractors. For instance, how much of the building work that went on in Inverbrackie went to local contractors? Other than the grocery service, which locals are providing for the Inverbrackie facility, how many other local contractors and businesses have ongoing contracts for the facility?

I have two more issues. Can the minister outline whether the arrangements between the AFP and SAPOL have been finalised, in the event that there is an issue at the Inverbrackie facility? There has been recent media speculation that there has not been an agreement signed between the AFP and SAPOL in that respect, because of course Inverbrackie is a federal facility.

There is also an issue relating to a bushfire plan. I know we are not in the bushfire season now, but this was an issue in the past and I understand from the local CFS that it still has not been finalised. Can the minister clarify that? Finally, in relation to the management of the facility, there have been some very disturbing reports in decent investigative articles by Brad Crouch in the Sunday Mail in Adelaide about how many workers compensation claims have been made by Serco employees and the incidents they relate to.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take those questions. In relation to the total cost of the Inverbrackie facility, it is completely in line with the previous announcement. Yes, there were some remedial works necessary for some of the buildings, as you would expect with buildings which have not been occupied for some time. That was built into the original costing. So the total funding envelope is no different to the total funding envelope which has previously been announced.

In relation to his questions about significant economic benefit, I will take some of those details on notice but there has been significant economic benefit to the local area. As he correctly points out, a local business won the grocery contract, which is a substantial one and one that I think has been well received. A substantial number of Adelaide Hills residents have been employed at the centre. Again, I cannot recall the exact number off the top of my head, but it is a substantial number. I will take that on notice and report back to him in relation to the number of Adelaide Hills employees, but we certainly encourage Serco to employ locals wherever possible and Serco does take that approach. That has certainly been the case in relation to the Inverbrackie facility.

In relation to his questions about bushfire, there is a bushfire management plan in place. That was put in place immediately, as I outlined at a public meeting which he and I attended. That means that Serco and the department have a plan in place for managing what could be a very serious bushfire incident, and that includes evacuation plans et cetera.

In relation to the question of education, children who are resident at Inverbrackie have been attending schools from the beginning of the operation of the Inverbrackie facility. I am advised that an MOU is still being discussed with the state government, but the fundamental issue is that people are getting education. People are attending local schools, and that is working very well.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

If the honourable member has a particular concern he wishes to raise, I am more than happy to hear it. But I am not aware of any particular concerns that have been raised by local schools or local principals in relation to those questions. In relation to other questions raised and some of the details about the economic benefit, I am more than happy to report back to the honourable member in the spirit of goodwill which I have always attempted to give the local member, the honourable member for Mayo. As I say about the honourable member for Mayo, he holds an important role as chairman of the waste watch committee. It is a fine institution that has in the past played an important role in keeping governments to account, although it has gone downhill on his watch.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to ask the minister some questions about the regional cooperation framework. But in particular I would like to commend the minister for pursuing a regional cooperation framework, along with the Prime Minister. As we know, and unlike what the opposition would perhaps have us believe, irregular migration and asylum seekers moving around the region is not just an issue for Australia. It is an issue across the countries in our region, and that is why it is so important that we work with other countries, not just in our own little bubble. We must work together because—and I think the minister has said this many times, as has the Prime Minister—we do not want people getting on boats, risking their lives, to end up with tragedies such as the one on Christmas Island. That is why the Prime Minister and minister have undertaken some very proactive arrangements that were not even thought of by the previous government.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Quite frankly, the previous government did not break the people-smuggling model. With their smoke and mirrors, they would like us to think that, but we know that there was not international engagement or engagement with countries in our region. This is a very important step that I commend the minister for.

In the 2011-12 budget, there were a number of initiatives to improve regional cooperation and capacity building as well as support the government's announcement of the arrangement with Malaysia, which is very innovative. It is an arrangement that the UNHCR is looking to work with us on. It is very cooperative and engaged in this process, which is something that cannot be said about the coalition's plans for Nauru. In fact, the UNHCR indicated that they believed that that was a very poor choice.

This is a very important agreement, so my question to the minister is: can the minister outline to the Main Committee how the regional cooperation framework first gained credibility in the region, what role did the Bali process play in formulating the regional cooperation framework and what relationship does that regional cooperation framework and the Bali process have to (a) the transfer agreement and (b) the regional assessment centres?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Kingston for her question and for what is a very genuine and real interest in the issue, which she has discussed with me on many occasions. She is clearly very aware of the complexities of dealing with this on a regional basis but is very supportive of the progress that has been made.

The honourable member asked about the development of the regional cooperation framework. Earlier this year, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I attended the Bali ministerial meeting. Officials who have been involved in these meetings for many years, since their instigation, said to me that more progress had been made at that meeting than at all the previous meetings combined in terms of reaching an agreement on a way forward for a regional framework. All 44 nations participating in that conference agreed with a regional framework which outlined that this is a regional issue requiring a regional response and outlined the possibility of bilateral agreements within the regional framework. The Bali communique, for example, indicated the possibility of transfer arrangements, which is one that this government has pursued with Malaysia in consultation with the UNHCR.

The UNHCR are very important in these matters because they are, in many respects, the guardians of the appropriate way of dealing with refugees and asylum seekers around the world. So I have been very keen, as has the Malaysian government, to ensure participation and consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Those opposite have claimed that the UNHCR endorses their approach, and that has been a false claim. We have seen the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim that, we have seen senators claim that and we have seen the UNHCR have to come out and repudiate that, which I think is very unfortunate. I am more than happy for a robust debate around these issues, but it must be based on fact. When one side of the parliament claims that the UNHCR—

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

Order! The minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides: the interjections are causing a ruckus and ensuring that we are not getting a debate. There is ample opportunity in this place. You get five minutes and there are turns going around for everyone. So I would appreciate people not interjecting and allowing the speaker who is on his feet to finish his answer, and then there will be ample opportunity for everyone to debate.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just making the point that claiming the UNHCR endorses your approach does not mean that the UNHCR endorses your approach. Just like saying, 'We'll stop the boats,' does not mean the boats will stop. You actually have to have a mechanism to do it.

The benefit of the regional framework is that we can engage with partners across the region to deal with problems in not only destination countries such as Australia but in transit countries. Malaysia is a transit country and a destination country. Malaysia is the country in which most people start their boat journey to Australia. Most asylum seekers who come to Australia from the Middle East fly to Malaysia, get on a boat, take that boat to Indonesia and take another boat from Indonesia to Australia. The whole fundamental underpinning of the Malaysian arrangement is that you do not achieve the outcome, because you return to where you began the boat journey. There is no point undertaking a boat journey, a dangerous boat journey, an expensive boat journey, because you get returned to where you began that boat journey.

We are also very keen to use this as an opportunity to expand our engagement in the region, work with countries like Malaysia on protection outcomes and ensure that we are working together and providing every assistance to destination and transit countries in our region and ensuring that we can deal with this matter in a holistic way. That is why I think organisations like the UNHCR have seen some benefit in this, not only the increase in humanitarian intake, which is very important for the government and very important for me personally that Australia should play more of a role in resettling genuine refugees across the region. I am very proud of the fact that under this arrangement, our humanitarian intake returns to its highest level since Labor was last in office in 1996—higher than at any point under the previous government. That is a very good thing and something that we should be proud of.

I know the honourable member complains that five for one is too many. Five to one is a very good outcome because it means that Australia is resettling more people who have been waiting a very long time in difficult circumstances and who do not have the money or the inclination to get on a boat. They should not be forgotten in this debate. These are the forgotten people of this debate, and the opposition can claim that taking five to one is too many. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that the fundamental problem with this agreement is that Australia was taking too many refugees. I have a fundamental problem with the Leader of the Opposition's approach because I am very proud of the fact we are taking more genuine refugees. I think that is a very good thing. I think it is a good thing that we are working with a country like Malaysia to improve protection outcomes at the same time as providing a very significant disincentive to get on a boat and it could only be possible through genuine regional engagement, engagement through the Bali process, engagement with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—something the other side, when they were in office, never got around to doing.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to ask the minister a few questions. Hopefully, he can answer them for me or take them on notice. Minister, can you confirm that all children transferred to Malaysia will be sent to school for the entire duration of their stay? What is the annual average resettlement cost for each of the additional 4,000 refugees to be accepted under the Malaysian agreement to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship? And what is the annual estimated additional cost in Centrelink payments and other costs to resettle an additional 4,000 refugees?

I would like to ask some settlement questions. The contract with Navitas was entered into in the year 2005. When was the new Navitas contract awarded? What processes were in place to check the services being provided by Navitas to the new entrants? What postevaluation follow-ups occurred prior to the new Navitas contracts being awarded to provide settlement services? What was the total value of the contract with Navitas? What services were they contracted to provide? What were the agreed milestones in the settlement services funding agreement—did they achieve these prior to the new contracts being awarded? And what reports did Navitas provide the department during the life of their previous contract? The DIAC guidelines stipulate a three-, six- and a 12-month reporting period for such contracts. Are you able to provide these reports from Navitas?

The Navitas contract in the Hunter region: what was the actual dollar value of the contract to cover areas such as housing, health, schooling and employment? How many employees of Navitas have been investigated by the police for fraud after the allegations of money scamming from Congolese people were reported earlier this year? Has the department received complaints from members of the community in relation to the settlement services provided in the Newcastle-Hunter area? How many complaints did the department receive? Will you make public the results of both the departmental review and the other review that you have undertaken, and will those reports be made available to the parliament?

Just another question on settlement services, particularly with regard to Western Australia. Earlier this year, there were reports of local parishioners being asked to provide rental properties for humanitarian settlement in the community. Can you give us an update on how many community placements have occurred in Western Australia, how that particular program is going? Also, how you expect to accommodate the community humanitarian program, considering there are considerable housing shortages?

There was another report, relating to settlement outcomes of new arrivals, also released on the eve of the royal wedding. That report found that only 40 per cent of humanitarian entrants had a job after five years. Why does the department think that this is so, and what strategies are being considered to improve this number? What employment prospects and employment pathways does the department provide?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were a number of questions incorporated in that contribution, and I will do my best to answer them, although there are some that I will take on notice. In relation to the arrangement with Malaysia, the costs of resettlement were outlined in the announcement. That does include, under the normal arrangements, all the costs that go to resettlement, including support through other government agencies. That has been factored into the costings, and the fact that we are resettling 4,000 people enables a per capita cost to be calculated from that.

In relation to Navitas, that contract was entered into in April this year, as I have previously announced. It is important that that Navitas contract in the Newcastle region is a different one to the previous one and involves a different housing provider. As I understand it, Navitas itself is doing the housing, as opposed to Resolve FM, which previously undertook the housing in Newcastle.

The honourable member asked whether I can release the three-, six- and 12-month reports. I will need to take that on notice to consider whether that is commercial-in-confidence. I will take advice on that. If it is possible to release them then I will, but I will take advice on whether it is prudent, appropriate and legal.

In relation to the other reviews, I will take on notice whether the forensic audit will be released. That is a matter which may well have some commercial-in-confidence elements to it, but I would have thought that there should be some public commentary on its results. As to whether the full report is released, that is something that I will consider once I have received it and once I have received the appropriate legal advice.

The honourable member talked about the 'other review'. I assume she was referring to the Richmond review of contract management. Again, I take the view that I will make public commentary about that and will release what is prudent, appropriate and responsible to do in the interests of transparency.

The honourable member asked me how many employees of Navitas have been referred to the New South Wales police. I must express some caution here. I have not indicated which company have had employees referred to the New South Wales police. I have indicated that there have been referrals to the New South Wales police. I would caution the House that we need to be careful about making broad and sweeping statements about who has been referred to the New South Wales police. It is a small number, but nevertheless they are obviously very serious incidents. Not all of them have necessarily been recent. Some of them were over a period of years some years ago, but nevertheless they are very serious matters. As I said to the House before, I am not in a position to update the House on the results of that police investigation. If I was advised by the New South Wales police then I would take steps to make that public, but it is now a matter for the New South Wales police as to how they deal with it.

So there are a number of matters there which I will take notice, and I will report back.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

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

Is the member for McMahon willing to give way?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to reinforce, before the minister finishes his statements, that the question he has glossed over is: can the minister confirm that all children transferred to Malaysia will be sent to school for the entire duration of their stay? I would not want him to miss that one.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that the government has been in discussions with the Malaysian government and the UNHCR about appropriate arrangements.

In relation to the honourable member's question about community detention, I can provide an update on that. I cannot provide an update in relation to the numbers in Western Australia. I will take that on notice. I have the national figures in front of me. Since the announcement made last October by the Prime Minister and me that we would move the majority of children and families into the community by the end of this month, I have approved community detention placements for 1,309 people. This includes 631 adults and 678 children, of whom 432 are accompanied minors and 246 are unaccompanied minors. Of the 1,309 people approved for community detention, of course, some have subsequently been approved for a permanent visa, so they now no longer count in terms of the total for which a majority should be in the community. Of those, there are 249 people who have been granted a permanent visa, including 100 adults and 149 children. There are 707 people currently residing in the community and there are 352 people being moved into the community in coming days, after my approval of their being moved into the community. This has been quite an undertaking, but I am very pleased and proud of the fact that we will meet our commitment to move the majority of children into the community by the end of this month. I would like to thank the Red Cross, Life Without Barriers and other organisations, including church groups who have been providing accommodation. There is a former monastery not far from here, for example, which is being used to accommodate children, and that is a very good thing. I thank and congratulate all the organisations who have been working very proactively with the government to meet that commitment.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,045,593,000

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

From the outset—through you, Minister—can I pass on my congratulations for what I thought was an outstanding summit last week in Cairns for the China-Australia Summit. However, there are more pressing matters that I need to deal with. Minister, I refer you to your government's decision to cut funding for Tourism Australia by $16.2 million in real terms. Minister, how will cutting funding for Tourism Australia help tourism operators facing a high Australian dollar, less flexible wages and a crippling carbon tax? Will the minister explain why he supports the government spending double the annual budget of Tourism Australia on providing pensioners with overpriced set-top boxes? Minister, do you consider the government's overpriced set-top box giveaway to be more important than bringing tourists to Australia? I refer the minister to the government's decision to cut funding for the Tourist Accommodation Survey. Will the minister explain how cutting the funding for tourism research will help hotel operators place their investment decisions?

I refer the minister to his answer to question in writing No. 58, where on 25 November 2010 the minister said there were nil corporate costs savings identified but not yet implemented in Tourism Australia. Minister, therefore, if there are no corporate cost savings in Tourism Australia, what marketing programs will Tourism Australia cut to meet its $6.2 million efficiency dividend? I refer the minister to his press release of 30 April 2010, where he detailed seven measures he was committed to implementing by 30 October this year. Minister, given that your department told the most recent Senate estimates that not a single one of your seven priority measures had been successfully implemented yet, how are you going to implement them with just 77 days to go? I should remind the minister that in the next 77 days, in order to meet the commitments he outlined in his press release, he needs to have chefs included in the skilled occupation migration list, implement national uniformity through responsible service of alcohol, seek the inclusion of tourism in the Commonwealth Enterprise Connect program, undertake destination management pilot projects—plural—to identify the gaps in research and dissemination, restructure the National Tourism and Aviation Advisory Committee, release the study of economic impacts of the carbon tax on tourism, and enhance Indigenous employment by scoping out opportunities for inclusion of tourism in existing government programs. I should note that, on the last point, the minister's department told Senate estimates: 'We are pretty light on in that area at the moment.' Does the minister agree with his department's assessment? Minister, it is going to be a very busy 77 days for you—or will you break your word again?

I refer the minister to the government's election commitments to deliver $40 million for the government's TQUAL Grants program, and $6 million for the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy. Will the minister confirm that after the election the government decided to deliver just half of these commitments in the current parliamentary term? I refer the minister to the government's decision to increase the passenger movement charge by 24 per cent, and note that the revenue from the passenger movement charge for the first time will exceed $800 million per annum, an increase from just over $400 million per annum when you were first elected to government. I note that the minister said when he was the shadow minister that the passenger movement charge was 'ripping off the travelling public', and then in his first budget as minister he wacked it up by 24 per cent. What kind of rip-off is that, Minister?

Will the minister explain to tourism operators why, at the very time the Gillard government are increasing tourism taxes to record levels, they are cutting back on passenger facilitation services at international airports by $34 million? Will the minister confirm that the government's decision will mean an additional 26-minute wait in the queue for Customs service for our international tourists when they arrive? Minister, what sort of welcome mat do you consider this to be for those coming to Australia?

Minister, I also want to place on the record, for future reference, that you have two of the largest income-producing portfolios for this nation: tourism, and resources and energy. Why are you allocated only 30 minutes in total for these two very large portfolios? Minister, if you cannot answer these questions here today, I ask you to respond in writing. If they are not responded to today or shortly, I will give you notice that they will be placed on the Notice Paper to make sure that we get an answer.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I fear that this—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are we going to have some order, Mr Deputy Speaker, or are we going to allow the minister to run the show?

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

The member for Groom has the call.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about this process.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr Deputy Speaker, for about the fifth time: I am concerned that this process will allow the minister to pick and choose his way through these questions. I will put them in no particular order, because I fear I am going to get answers in no particular order as well.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I learned off you, Ian!

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We did not have this process, Martin, so you did not learn this off me, mate. Could I ask the minister: on what or whose price and volume assumptions were the MRRT figures in the budget derived? Secondly, can I ask the minister about the breakup between large companies—and I am talking BHP, Rio and Xstrata in particular—and the midcaps and juniors as to how the MRRT will be paid. Does he agree with the economic modelling that shows that large mining companies with multiple projects will not pay MRRT for perhaps, in some cases, 15 to 20 years?

On the issue of the carbon tax, can I ask the minister, in light of his statement yesterday that, 'No-one can rule out a mine or two closing'—and that is the exact quote, Martin, you do not have to check it—whether any of the following mines are the mines he was referring to when he said that one or two mines would shut: Helensburgh, mines in the Lake Macquarie area, the Anglo American Capco mine in central Queensland, the Anglo American Murrumba North mine in central Queensland, the BHP mine at Broadmeadows, the Peabody Pacific mine at North Goonyella, the Vale mine at Carborough Downs and the Xstrata mines at Newlands and Oaky Creek. Can the minister outline what drop in net present value is being experienced by coal mining projects proposed for Queensland and New South Wales in regard to the implementation of carbon tax moving to a carbon trading scheme?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For some time there has been concern in the community about what we will do to ensure that the wealth generated by the mining sector will be distributed through the community to provide us with long-term benefit. In terms of the minerals resource rent tax, there have been different models floated—for example, the idea of putting forward this sovereign wealth fund as a way of locking up the wealth that is generated through the mining boom, as opposed to what we are planning to do through the MRRT, particularly in terms of what we will be able to with respect to funding the increase of the SGC from nine to 12 per cent. This will provide an even greater pool of investment funds for business to tap into and a long-term basis for wealth generation through higher returns. This will ensure that people who retire in the years to come, and the generations that follow us, will be able to have a sustainable income in the years to come. Small businesses will be able to tap into asset write-offs through what we are flagging. I note in particular that a small business owner in my electorate told me the breakdown of his refrigeration equipment would impact on him severely and he would have to take a dent in his cash-flow to replace it. These are some of the things we can fund through the MRRT that we would not be able to do through a sovereign wealth fund. This model will provide something sustainable for the future of this country, and I see that we are now close to being able to bring it to fruition. But, even at this late stage, there are people speculating in the media about the design of the MRRT. Minister, even in the last 24 hours people have been making comment on the design of the tax. I am wondering whether you are able to update us on some of the comments and opinions that have been advanced on what I think will fundamentally be a key economic reform for this country.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A range of questions have been raised by those who are participating in this debate and I will seek to cover some of them. Obviously time is not of a long duration because we adopted the same approach to the House of Representatives committee stage processes for the budget as was the longstanding practice of the previous Howard government over almost 13 years. So if the shadow minister has some complaints he ought to take them up with the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard.

Putting that aside, I am disappointed that the member for Paterson, having made a long-winded contribution of no substance, could not stay in the chamber, because perhaps he could have learnt something about the challenges the tourism sector in Australia is facing at the moment. Let us be very frank, the Australian economy is going through a process of change at the moment because of the pressure of the mining and petroleum sector and the strength of the Australian dollar. This is reflected in the challenges I confront as Minister for Tourism, and it is also reflected in, for example, the challenges facing the manufacturing industry, for which Senator Kim Carr has responsibility.

Putting aside the endeavours by the member for Paterson to undermine, there is terrific activity in the tourism sector at the moment to survive with respect to both international and domestic visitation. The tourism industry is, to some extent, holding its own in very difficult times. Earlier today the member for Paterson asked me for a briefing—and I am surprised he has asked for that so late after the budget—on the activities of the department, budget initiatives and Tourism Australia. I have already spoken to my staff today about arranging that briefing, and we will seek to meet his convenience. Perhaps prior to this process next year he might seek a similar meeting. If he had done that this year, we would not have had the waste of time of his long-winded intervention of no substance earlier today.

I will now go to the latest tourism forecast, released on 26 May, which should answer some of the issues on tourism. I note that, despite oil prices, natural disasters and the high Australian dollar, Australian tourism is actually demonstrating resilience, which is very important to the member for Groom's home state of Queensland given the recent natural disasters, including the impact in his own electorate. Tourism consumption, interestingly, is forecast to increase by 0.4 per cent to $98.4 billion, with inbound visitation forecast to increase 3.1 per cent to 6.1 million in 2011. The committee also forecast that the modest growth in domestic tourism shown in 2010 will continue through 2011. I really hope for the sake of this industry that it actually does occur, because this industry employs, directly and indirectly, just under one million Australians. Domestic nights—and this is a factual report—are forecast to fall by 0.3 per cent to 259 million nights in 2011. Spending, importantly, is forecast to decline by 0.7 per cent due to the impacts of floods, cyclones, the high Australian dollar and, because of the nature of the times, the somewhat close-fisted consumers. Domestic trips, however, remain resilient and are forecast to increase by 0.5 per cent in 2011. Consistent with other growing economies, including China and India—and I appreciate the positive feedback from the member for Paterson about the positive outcomes in Cairns last week in terms of the first ever Australia-China Tourism Summit—China is our real growth opportunity, with currently 470,000 tourists, at a value of about $3.6 billion, expected to double by 2020 and, from a tourism perspective, earnings for Australia, just out of China, of about $6 billion to $7 billion. These economies are very important to us.

I simply say, I suppose, in a very honest way to the member for Paterson that there has been no endeavour to wind back the capacity of Tourism Australia, TQUAL, or our commitment to implementing long-term tourism strategies because we know we have to work with the tourism industry. It is resilient and it is doing its best to actually survive in these difficult times.

I now go to, I suppose, a more considered intervention from the member for Groom. Perhaps he ought undertake a tutorial with the member for Paterson as to what these processes are really about rather than make inane interventions of no consequence or which do not contribution in the long term to the operation and quality of this parliament.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley correctly raises the issue of the coal industry. (Extension of time granted). I had ministerial responsibility for resources and energy in December 2007. If I had been asked to give an undertaking that no mine would close on my watch, then I would not have given that undertaking and nor would I give a similar undertaking now, with or without a carbon tax. I will give you a few examples why. I actually took phone calls during the global financial crisis from a range of mining companies in Australia, including from a range of coalmining companies, which, because of the impact of the global financial crisis decided, for whatever reason, to actually close coalmines in Australia. I also recall actually going to Ravensthorpe, in Western Australia, in partnership with BHP and having the opportunity to be part of the opening of a huge investment by BHP in the new nickel mine operation in Western Australia. Within the space of 12 months it was closed.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the minister that the question related specifically to high-gas coalmines. Whilst I know he has an enormous understanding of the industry, I would like him to answer the question specifically asked.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Groom would only be patient. As I was indicating, if he were sitting where I am sitting at the moment, he could not give the Australian community an undertaking that all existing mines will remain in operation, with or without a carbon tax. I can say to the Australian community that I am confident that the coalmining industry in Australia has expanded and will continue to expand and that we will create a wealth of job opportunities as a result of that expansion over the foreseeable future. Let us deal with a few hard facts in terms of mining industry employment in Australia at the moment. Mining investment has skyrocketed, including the coal industry, from $35 billion last year to $51 billion this year, to an expected $83 billion in 2011-12.

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—

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

The member for Groom will resume his seat. I call the minister.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a tutorial.

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—

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

The minister will not respond to the interjections from the member for Groom.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is 23,300 mining jobs over the last 12 months, compared to 2.1 per cent for the whole economy—12.8 per cent, because of our success in attracting additional investment in Australia, be it in petroleum, iron ore, coalmining or whatever. I acknowledge that, in terms of the future of the coalmining industry, which goes to the heart of the question posed by the member for Groom, exploration expenditure for coal is estimated to increase by 12 per cent, to around $360 million in 2010-11.

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—

You should ask that question of me in question time. I would like to put it all on the record. In the six months to April 2011—I am waiting for the question on this in question time—we have seen three major coal projects completed, with a combined total capital expenditure of $1.5 billion. Jobs, jobs, jobs—that's what I like! And I know that is what the member for Groom likes. There is a range of other potential investments in this very important sector of the Australian economy, though its production has been seriously hindered over the last six months because of the serious floods and the cyclone in Queensland. But it will fast recover from those events.

But, being very serious, the member for Groom and I know that the coalmining sector has got some gaseous mines. He was the one, in November 2009, because he was one of the principal architects of the CPRS, who basically said—when we offered an assistance package to the tune of $1.3 billion, in terms of the future of the coalmining industry and its capacity to remain in existence—as to the result of that package, which I am seeking to adhere to very strictly in terms of the current negotiations, that that was the best thing since sliced bread for the future of the coalmining industry in Australia. I might also say that he made some very glowing statements along similar lines as to the future of the electricity industry in Australia.

When it comes to the potential loss of coalmining jobs in Australia, I remind the member for Groom that direct action is about very much reducing coalmining employment in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. His direct action plan is directly focused on reducing employment opportunities in coalmining in Australia. He should not forget that. It is a plan specifically targeted at taking away coalmining jobs in Victoria, in an area that needs assistance in terms of the transition that has to occur.

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

The member's time has expired. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the member for Groom.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am enjoying this so much, even though he is providing no information, that I move an extension of time.

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

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the minister.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He raised broader questions, not only going to the huge opportunities from coalmining in Australia but also the potential operation of the MRRT. I hope he took the opportunity to actually attend these proceedings when the Assistant Treasurer was in appearance, because obviously responsibility for all the tax issues and the modelling associated with the MRRT rests in that portfolio. So, if he has not had the opportunity, he should seek—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's Joe's job.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He should seek to have that discussion with the Treasurer. But, more seriously, in terms of who pays what taxation: I simply say that the mining industry wanted a profits based tax. Yes, it has been complicated—trying to get to this point where we can land this outcome. Industry will only pay taxation at a federal level in terms of when they are receiving super profits.

As the member for Groom has raised the interventions of his very good friend Andrew Forrest yesterday, let me deal with some of those issues. It is appropriate that this is put on the record—despite what I thought was a xenophobic attack on key investors from overseas during the course of his visit to Canberra yesterday. I remind the House that we are a nation built on the back of foreign investment. And if foreign investment, in the form of Hunan, to the value of about 17 per cent, in Fortescue Metals is appropriate, then it is also appropriate that it occurs with respect to other mining and petroleum companies in Australia. I only wish I could attract some similar investment in new hotels and accommodation opportunities in the tourism sector at the moment. I will never shy away from defending the right of Australia to chase foreign investment, and I think the opposition should also stand up to Mr Forrest over his xenophobic attack on non-Australian-based companies yesterday, because where would we be as to the strength of our economy without foreign investment? I await the member for Groom's intervention—his response—which I think should be dignified, in the same way as I made a dignified response to Mr Forrest yesterday.

Let us go to the issue of Mr Forrest. The draft MRRT legislation implements the heads of agreement and the PTG report's recommendation, consistent with the government's undertakings with industry. The government will not breach its commitment on the heads of agreement or the PTG report on key design features of the tax. Fortescue and all companies are able to have input into the legislative consultation process and the details of those reforms. The starting base is an issue we raise. It is an important feature of the MRRT to recognise the market value of past investments irrespective of which company made those investments. All companies with assets in place as at 10 May are eligible for a starting base to recognise past investment. There is no exception in terms of the particular application to FMG.

I also note that on 29 June last year Mr Forrest asked for doubling the recognition of past capital. No deduction is provided for interest expense against MRRT liability because that would undermine the purpose of a rent tax on the value of the resource. Further, the uplift rate is provided on losses effectively market to debt cost deductible. Providing a deduction of interest would engage companies using debt-to-finance projects. Deduction of interest is allowed under company taxation.

Mr Forrest's third issue goes to a technical issue he can make in a submission to the Treasury so as to clarify, as I encouraged him to do yesterday.

On the range of issues raised in terms of the public consultation process on the MRRT, I simply want to say—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't ask that question.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You made an intervention and I thought it was appropriate that I responded in a factual way. I challenge the coalition to make sure very publicly that it does not support Mr Forrest's xenophobic attacks on foreign investment and the rest of the petroleum and mining industry in Australia. It is un-Australian because we depend on that foreign investment for the purposes of our economic future.

The question of savings in Australia was also raised as part of the MRRT. I remind the House that a lot of sectors in Australia are doing it tough. The proceeds of the MRRT are going to be well invested. Cuts in company taxation will support small business to actually purchase new capital equipment and I might say encouragement of superannuation savings— (Time expired)

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have one last question and I hope it does not end up in a tutorial. I remind the minister that during my time in his portfolio I was one of the greatest exponents of foreign investment in Australia and in fact spent a great deal of time travelling explaining to particularly our friends to the north how welcome they were in Australia. I continue to do that, can I say.

Minister, in regard to the carbon capture and storage flagship program where the government is following the coalition's lead of reducing the allocation there and asking the coal industry to increase their contribution to that program, what projects do you expect to see from that program in the next three years and at what stage does the government decide whether or not this is a program that they wish to continue with?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Groom for the question. I acknowledge that he has appropriately indicated to Mr Forrest that he totally disagrees with his intervention yesterday in terms of foreign investment. I challenge him to actually make a request to the Leader of the Opposition to make the same position very publicly clear, because I think it is very important to the future of Australia from an investment point of view. On both sides of politics we need to very clearly say that foreign investment is welcome in Australia, unlike the view of Mr Forrest.

The issue of clean energy carbon capture and storage is an important component of it. Up until budget difficulties on the other side of the House in the lead-up to last election I might say that the member for Groom was a very strong supporter of carbon capture and storage technology opportunities. Last Saturday in Perth, in partnership with the West Australian Minister for Minerals and Petroleum, I announced the first commitment in terms of the Collie hub. We put $53 million on the table to take that project forward. It is aimed at trying to assess appropriate storage capacity for the purpose of storing industrial CO2. That was very much welcomed by industry and very much welcomed by the Western Australian government. To be fair, when you look back over the history of adopting this program one would not have thought that the Collie hub would have come through as the first investment from a Commonwealth perspective. Beyond the Collie hub and if that actually succeeds we will potentially make a contribution to the tune of about $330 million. We are in ongoing discussions with the Queensland and Victorian governments. I also note, and this is reflected in the budget papers, that we have made an amount of money available nationally to work in partnership with state and territory governments and the private sector to assess storage capacity around Australia, because the key to carbon capture and storage is proper assessment of storage capacity. That is pretty important. My own assessment is that there is good potential storage capacity in Queensland, and Victoria is obviously well placed because of its proximity to Bass Strait. Victoria is also well placed, from a commercial point of view, because it does not have long pipeline distances, which add to cost. We will continue to work through our processes to try to shore up projects in Queensland and New South Wales. I hope that we succeed, because we are a nation that very much depends on fossil fuels. Clearly, there are difficulties with legacy power stations in Victoria. Both sides of politics appreciate the difficulties involved with power stations such as Hazelwood, which is a very high emitter. Whilst there are different approaches to making that transition, one way or another we have to front up to it.

We have to try to make a breakthrough on clean energy, be it carbon capture and storage, solar thermal, geothermal or whatever. But it is about reliable baseload power. I hope the breakthrough comes sooner rather than later, because, while Australia has been historically energy secure because of its energy resources, the complication now is that we have to put technology in place which reduces CO2 emissions. We should not forget that we will have the biggest commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage on the Gorgon LNG project, which hopefully will produce gas for export purposes in 2014-15 or a little bit later. Carbon capture and storage is not an unproven technology. The real issue is how you reduce the cost of commercial deployment. I remain committed to trying to test this technology in the same way that I remain committed to pursuing a breakthrough on solar thermal, geothermal or whatever, as I am expected to be. We as a nation have to invest in R&D, because we have a responsibility in terms of our domestic emissions and our future export opportunities. We are getting wealth out of our energy sector; hence we have to invest in R&D and pursue the clean energy strategy.

The debate about climate change, from our point of view, is about a market driven system. We have a difference between the major players with respect to how you determine a price on carbon. We both support a renewable energy target of 20 per cent. Under it all, both sides support the need to invest in clean energy technology. There is somewhat of a difference at the moment on carbon capture and storage, but we should not give up on it as a nation, nor should the global community. As the International Energy Agency says, fossil fuels are going to continue to be a very important part of our international energy mix. Hence our responsibility as a major exporter to invest in R&D and innovation. If the shadow minister, Mr Macfarlane, is looking for any further briefings on this or any other program, his staff have only to contact my office and they will be facilitated, as they have been previously.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Proceedings suspended from 13 : 03 to 16 : 00

Attorney-General’s Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $3,799,557,000

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to ask the Attorney a question regarding the deferral of expenditure of the confiscated assets account which has been detailed in this year's budget. I want to refer him to the case of David Hicks, who has published his memoir Guantanamo: My Journey, which, staggeringly to me, has sold a reasonable number of copies. Therefore it would stand to reason that he would have made a significant amount of money. I have heard estimates that he might have stood to have earned of up to $350,000 under the initial print run of this book. I want to refer the Attorney to part 2-5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act which provides for the making of a literary proceeds order where a person has committed an indictable offence against either Australian or foreign law and the court is satisfied that the person has derived literary proceeds in relation to the offence.

The offence to which Mr Hicks has pleaded guilty under the Military Commissions Act clearly falls within a definition of a foreign indictable offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act. I therefore would like to ask the Attorney why the government has not referred this case for investigation under the Proceeds of Crime Act; and would he like to comment about whether he believes it is appropriate for a man who has admitted support of a terrorist organisation, in this case Lashkar-e-Taiba, and admitted committing offences in relation to his involvement with that organisation—an organisation, I might add, that has literally killed hundreds of people, including two Australians—to make money out of his crimes?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I specifically will not advance my opinion on the matter of David Hicks. I advise the honourable shadow minister and the Main Committee that the Australian Federal Police have conducted an investigation in respect of this matter. I am on the public record as indicating a brief had been provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I think the Director of Public Prosecutions in responding to a question from Senator Brandis, the shadow Attorney-General, in Senate estimates concluded by saying: 'Watch this space.'

In those circumstances, given that these matters may well be considered by a court, it would be potentially prejudicial if I advanced my own personal opinion on those matters. Firstly, I think it is required by law that the matters are investigated by the AFP and the final decision made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In terms of deferring the amounts from the proceeds of crime of, I think, $8 million, can I indicate that, as a result of steps that have been taken by the government—including, to his credit, the Minister for Home Affairs—and the establishment of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, there are already very significant advances in the amount of proceeds of crime recovered. For instance, in the year 2009-10—that is the financial year 2009 and 2010—there were about $18 million of funds that were restrained since the establishment of the task force, which commenced in January of this year. There has already been over $40 million in assets restrained. That task force is not as yet fully up and running. In particular, we will be taking steps to ensure that the task force has its own legal representation, which will significantly give it that additional firepower. We are very optimistic that the proceeds that will be restrained through the task force will be very significant, and that is a very, very significant impediment to crime, because, as you know, crime is undertaken by weighing the risk against the gain. If we attack the gain, we take away a significant incentive for crime to occur.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you are aware, I have had a long interest in law enforcement and, more recently, I have been involved with the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, as well as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. One of the things that I have come to understand over many years is that not having a significant terrorist action in this country is not simply good luck; it is a product of good management. I understand, particularly because of my involvement with the Australian Federal Police, the amount of intelligence gathering that takes place, which has paid great dividends in protecting this nation. But, Attorney, there is one thing that does cause me some concern. That is in relation to managing the possible risk of chemicals that could be used by terrorists in respect to manufacturing security issues within this country. I know that a lot has escaped from science fiction theatres in terms of binary fluids and all the rest of it, but what we do know now is that the extent to which terrorists use chemicals for the manufacture of explosives and toxic weapons is beyond doubt. Could you explain what the government is doing to manage the risk posed by terrorists using chemicals of security concern.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question and I note his longstanding interest in matters of security generally, certainly in policing. In 2008 the Commonwealth government and the state and territory governments around Australia reached an agreement to properly assess, monitor and control chemicals of security concern. There is no doubt that chemicals continue to be sought by terrorists to conduct attacks with the potential to cause significant harm to Australians and Australian interests. There have been a number of attacks over the past few years and in the recent budget the government allocated $10 million over four years to continue the important work of managing that risk.

The Australian government is actively working with the states and territories, as I have indicated, to reduce the risks from chemicals of security concern. My department has already assessed the security risks of several of the highest threat chemicals and will continue to assess further chemicals of potential interest to terrorists. I and the Minister for Home Affairs were provided with a demonstration where readily available chemicals were mixed with readily available supermarket materials to produce a highly explosive device. So these are very, very serious.

As I have said, work is underway with the states and territories, and also industry, which I should acknowledge here is being tremendously cooperative, to identify measures to treat the risk identified from some of these chemicals. Governments will continue to consult widely to decide how best to treat identified risks from chemicals of security concerns. That 2008 agreement I referred to was to establish a chemical security management framework which outlines the agreed approach by all levels of government.

The chemicals security area in the Attorney-General's Department is responsible for coordinating the implementation of that national framework, and the department is progressing that work by developing chemicals security policy and supporting industry reference in government advisory groups raising community and industry awareness of the risks posed by chemicals of security concern and mapping supply chains for identified chemicals for security concern and assessing the risk of each such supply node. In accordance with that Council of Australian Governments report, initial priority has been given to precursors to homemade explosives and chemicals transported and/or stored in bulk. Security risk assessments have been finalised for hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, sodium chlorate, potassium chlorate, sodium perchlorate, potassium perchlorate, ammonium perchlorate, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, nitromethane and sodium azide. The public awareness campaign aims to inform and build vigilance across the target audience to assist jurisdictional police and security agencies in deterring and also detecting the potential use of these chemicals. It is intended to be a low-key but informative campaign with a focus on educating and fostering relationships with industry to assist them in strengthening their security arrangements and communicating broadly with the community.

The Australian governments have agreed to the publication of the list of identified chemicals of security concern. That list, developed by Australian governments in consultation with industry and informed by data from the Australian intelligence community, represents those chemicals that can be used by terrorists to produce an improvised explosive device or toxic weapon. Publishing this list is aimed at helping industry and the community to be more informed and vigilant. If any person has a security concern about the inappropriate use of chemicals, they should call the National Security Hotline on 1800123400 to report their concern.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it is a longstanding practice for people to ask ministers these Dorothy Dixers—I am not having a go at these two particular ministers, because I know it has been happening in here for a long time—but it does strike me as passing strange that these two Commonwealth ministers cannot answer questions for an hour without us having to go through this rather elaborate farce. This is not a practice that I will be pursuing should the government change and I get the opportunity to serve in that capacity.

I think my question is probably best addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs. I want to ask specifically about arrangements in relation to the Malaysian people swap deal, if it does go ahead, and the role the AFP might play in making sure that there is security on flights from Christmas Island to Kuala Lumpur or some other point within Malaysia. I want to see whether the minister can explain what actions would be taken or what protocols would be put in place if detainees refuse to get on the plane or stage a protest in response to being sent to Malaysia.

I also want to remind the minister about the events surrounding the Oceanic Viking.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't remind me!

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the minister does not need reminding! As members will recall, the asylum seekers refused to take instructions from the Customs officers who were in charge of that vessel. What transpired was a stand-off, with the Indonesian authorities refusing to act and the Australian authorities refusing to act. Clearly it would be a deeply unsatisfactory situation if that were to happen again in relation to a flight from Christmas Island to Kuala Lumpur when detainees are either embarking or disembarking.

Minster, how many AFP officers will the government allocate for the transfer of asylum seekers on those flights? Who will be responsible for security on those flights? Presumably it will be officers of the AFP. When will Malaysian authorities take responsibility for security? At what stage will the Australian Federal Police hand over to their Malaysians counterparts? Presumably, it will be once the planes have landed in Malaysia. If there is a stand-off on a plane and asylum seekers refuse to disembark, whose responsibility will it be to end that stand-off? Will it be the responsibility of the Australian Federal Police—if they are the ones accompanying the asylum seekers—or will it be the Malaysian authorities because this will be occurring on their soil? And I want to know what guarantees the Malaysians authorities will give that they will treat detainees in a humane manner in these circumstances. I think that just about covers it. Essentially, I want to know at what stage the Malaysians will take over and what guarantees we have about their behaviour in these circumstances.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Stirling for his question. I am not sure I agree that it is farcical for government members of parliament to be able to ask ministers questions. Indeed, some would argue that government members ask much more rigorous questions then shadow ministers. His question sounded like a Dorothy Dixer to me, and I appreciate the shadow minister asking it, because it is an important question.

On 7 May, the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of Malaysia announced the fundamentals of an agreement to ensure that we undermine the model that is being sold by people-smugglers to lure people onto unseaworthy vessels for perilous journeys which, in some cases, lead to maritime tragedies. We do not want to see that happen again, and that is why we are dedicated to ensuring that we realise and finalise this agreement. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is leading the government's negotiations to resolve that with Minister Hishammuddin from Malaysia.

In relation to the operational side of this agreement, this country and, indeed, the Howard government has had some experience in transferring refugees to particular places, including Nauru and Manus Island. It would not be the first time we would be facilitating the passage of people offshore, so there is some precedent and convention that our law enforcement and other agencies can consider when they determine the way in which the operational dimension of this agreement will be handled. I am well aware that we need to clearly delineate between agencies' work, and I mention a number of agencies in that regard: the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, with their role around asylum seekers aboard vessels, and the Australian Federal Police and the role they play. I accept it is important that we clearly define and delineate the respective roles of our agencies vis a vis the role of agencies in Malaysia.

The shadow minister can be assured that there is a good relationship between the Australian Federal Police and the Royal Malaysia Police. We work hand in hand with that country to fight transnational crime, as we do with other countries in the region. With respect to this agreement, we will make sure that there is clear demarcation between the roles of both of the law enforcement agencies and the other agencies of each country so that we are prepared for any eventuality. We would not want to see people in any way unduly affected by this transfer of people seeking asylum to Malaysia. We want to do that in a professional way and I have great confidence that the Australian Federal Police and their counterpart in Malaysia will be able to carry this out. I think it is important that these matters are finalised. I can assure the shadow minister that they will be finalised and articulated by the government upon agreement being reached between our two countries, and I am very happy to indicate to him that this work is being undertaken. It is not finalised, but the work continues. There is engagement between our agencies here and those in Malaysia.

Insofar as the role of the AFP is concerned, I assure him that, when the agreement is struck with the details incorporated, the responsibilities of the Australian Federal Police will be very clear. They will of course have a significant role in this agreement. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police is well aware of that and he will ensure that his role is outlined, as indeed will the Customs and Border Protection Service and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. I am confident that the law enforcement and other agencies in Malaysia will have done the same. We want to make sure we do everything we can to prevent any incident occurring that might cause anxiety or concern for those people we will be transferring. I am confident that all of those matters will be determined and a date will be announced when the two countries reach an agreement with all the details enclosed.

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

My question is to the Attorney-General. Recently I was pleased to join you at the youth centre at Hume City Council in Melbourne, Victoria, to discuss a groundbreaking local project being developed to help mentor young people away from extremist ideologies. The Hume Anti-Violent Extremism Youth project, or the HAVEY project, is one of the inaugural recipients of a community grant under the Australian government's Building Community Resilience Youth Mentoring Grants Program. The Australian government provided the Hume City Council with a $200,000 grant to run the HAVEY project, which will focus on supporting young people through individual and group mentoring. The project will comprise of: mentoring by cultural leaders, youth workers and police youth liaison officers; training sessions on topics such as social connectedness, discrimination, advocacy and developing positive relationships; promotion of cross-cultural understanding between young people from different ethnic groups; and participation in community events and recreational activities.

We know that this program is working extremely well. At the time we were there it was great to have young people there and some of their mentors involved. We were all very keen on what the government was doing and we were shown results from the trial. Could the Attorney-General please explain what other initiatives the government has funded in order to counter violence and extremism as part of the government's all-hazards approach to national security?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for the question. Certainly he agrees it was very uplifting to see the program in operation. The Building Community Resilience Youth Mentoring Grants Program is part of the government's $9.7 million investment in the counter-radicalisation initiatives. Of that $9.7 million over four years, about $2.6 million has been allocated for 2011-12. The program funds activities to directly support young people in moving away from intolerant and radical ideologies and encourage positive participation in the community. We received some 98 applications for the program, and that reflects a strong interest in the communities to identify localised solutions to address violence and extremism in youth within their own communities. I am certainly heartened by the result because it signifies the willingness of those communities to be proactive in addressing the serious issue of violent extremism among one of our most vulnerable groups, and that is young people.

The grants program to be piloted in New South Wales and Victoria promotes the use of alternative narratives directly to vulnerable youth as well as providing an opportunity to explore pathways other than those leading to violence. Activities suggested through the communities' applications include training for youth to become mentors, leadership training programs, participation through sporting activities and the development and dissemination of counter narratives, as I have mentioned.

We have consulted the New South Wales and Victorian governments and also other federal agencies to ensure these programs complement their existing mentoring programs. I thought I should note some of the organisations that have received funding under the program—the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria, the Australian Multicultural Foundation, JobQuest, Anglicare, the Spectrum Migrant Resource Centre, New Australian Media and the Hume City Council, which is the subject of the question. I know that the members for Melbourne, Melbourne Ports, Chifley, Greenway, McMahon, Blaxland, Lindsay, Grayndler, Wills, Batman and Calwell share the enthusiasm of the member for McEwen with regard to the potential of these programs. Research shows that a range of personal experiences can make young people more vulnerable to extremist messages and to being victimised by those who would seek to exploit them—for example, issues of discrimination, feelings of prejudice and marginalisation, social isolation and worries about employment and educational opportunities. Through the program in the electorate of McEwen, which was the subject of the question, we want to help young people develop skills to deal with these issues in a positive way, while at the same time reducing the appeal of extremism and radical ideologies. We have a rich and vibrant mix of nationalities in Australia. We all benefit from a more inclusive and resilient community. Projects like this demonstrate the way in which the government can work in partnership with local communities to achieve those goals.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Since I was in the AFP, and also since I worked on the Olympics in 1999 and 2000, I have had a good appreciation of closed-circuit television. I still remember that day over at Ballajura. My invitation to that event to do with the CCTV was probably lost, but in the future we will see where that all goes. My question to the minister is: will he provide five CCTV portable trailers for deployment within Cowan so that future crime or antisocial hotspots can be targeted, with not less than one CCTV trailer dedicated to the City of Joondalup suburbs of Warwick, Greenwood, Kingsley, Woodvale; two trailers for the south ward of the city of Wanneroo; a trailer for the city of Wanneroo suburbs north of Gnangara Road to Joondalup Drive; and a dedicated CCTV trailer for the City of Swan areas of Ballajura and Malaga?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. I agree with him that closed-circuit television can be very important physical security infrastructure for local communities. That is why the government has been dedicating its resources to provide support in communities in Western Australia and other states around the country. Indeed, I have spent some time in the electorate of the shadow minister, Mr Keenan, talking to the City of Stirling, where there has been some really good work done by that municipality and work that we have done with it. I also commend the state police of Western Australia.

I see this as a three-way partnership: the federal government providing the resources based on some very strict requirements; getting local governments involved and engaged, because they are closest to the people and deal with the concerns of the community, particularly in relation to public spaces; and seeking the advice of state law enforcement agencies, who understand the crime hotspots, including some of those areas that the member has referred to.

I cannot give an answer now as to whether we can deliver five CCTV cameras to those areas, but I can inform the member that the government takes seriously crime, preventing the likelihood of crime and preventing the fear of crime, which is as much an issue about quality of life as anything else. If members of our communities cannot feel safe in their own streets, in their own public spaces or in their own homes, of course that corrodes their quality of life. For that reason we do everything we can to ensure that we provide support.

The Safer Suburbs Plan is funded under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Since December 2007, I can advise the member, over $43 million has been provided—$23 million to support community based crime prevention and drug treatment and diversion programs, and $20 million to government agencies for law enforcement projects. We have a combination of the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Safer Suburbs Plan. They are not huge resources, but the funding has to be based on the merits. I would happily take any submission made by community members from the honourable member's electorate, whether it came from local government or other organisations about the merits of his request. I can assure him that we determine these matters based on the merits of the submissions and the effectiveness of the delivery of the important physical infrastructure that we can install. I should add that it is not just about the installation of physical security infrastructure; it is also about trying to prevent crime. That is why we also dedicate resources to diversionary programs—for example, to stop young people from engaging in antisocial behaviour and to prevent people from falling into improper conduct or perhaps criminal behaviour, which causes problems in the community.

I take the member's question seriously. I am happy to consider any submissions he makes. I should add that it is a dedicated and limited resource, but we always take those types of requests seriously and I understand he has an interest in this matters. As I say, I have dealt with other members in Western Australia and other parts of the country around these initiatives. They are very popular. People see that the federal government is working hand in hand with local government and state police. We will continue to do that because we believe we have a role to play in providing resources to other governments in order to prevent crime and, as I said earlier, prevent the fear of crime.

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

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. We have heard many reports recently of racial vilification in attacks on different schools that are religiously based et cetera, which is very unfortunate. What programs are in place via your portfolio to assist those schools that are most at risk of racial, religious or ethnically motivated vandalism or property crime and harassment? What are we doing to prevent these very unfortunate attacks?

Also, an allocation of funds was made for some CCTV cameras in my electorate of Hindmarsh in the local government area of Glenelg or the Holdfast Bay local council area. I wonder if you could give us a progress report on what is happening with that and how it will prevent crime in the western suburbs of Adelaide.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. He refers to the Secure Schools Program—and what a timely appearance has just been made in the chamber by the member for Melbourne Ports, who was engaged in this very important initiative as well. The Secure Schools Program is about dedicating resources to those schools where there is a relatively high level of threat against students or school communities. The purpose of the Secure Schools initiative is to ensure we provide security wherever possible to mitigate such threats. We seek the advice of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to make decisions and we engage very fully with the schools' constituencies in order to talk with them about the best way to mitigate these threats.

This initiative has been in place since 2008 and I am glad to inform the honourable member that we continue to dedicate resources to this program. We believe all children in this country have the right to be educated in a safe and secure environment. That is why we have dedicated over the next three years a further $15 million to continue the Secure Schools Program, which I believe illustrates the government's interest in this and concern about providing safety for students, teachers, carers and others who may work within the confines of these schools.

Funding assists schools most at risk of racial, religious or ethnically motivated vandalism, property crimes and harassment to increase security measures to better protect students, teachers and support staff. It is a very important initiative that has been very well received by school communities. I have had the great fortune of visiting a number of schools in four or five states. They have been very appreciative of the government's response to their concerns. We do it in a low-key way. We do not want to attract attention and talk about the particular schools because we think that, paradoxically, that could lead to potential problems for those schools. But I can say it applies to some Jewish schools, some Muslim schools and some government schools that have had some issues. We will continue to dedicate resources based on the relative need, based on the perceived threat as advised by our agencies.

Turning to the second part of the question by the member for Hindmarsh, I can say to him that, as I understand it, the grant that is dedicated to Hindmarsh, to the Glenelg area, will be provided to the council very shortly, within weeks. The installation of CCTV in that precinct will commence very shortly thereafter. I know you have taken a direct interest in this, speaking with not only your council but Neighbourhood Watch. I have had three meetings, I think, with the South Australian police on this issue, so that they could provide us with advice about where the crimes occur and where the more dangerous areas are.

These are public spaces and I know some people have some issues about CCTV. I think those issues are valid, but equally I believe people should not have to be concerned or alarmed about walking the streets, walking in public spaces. I believe that the lighting and CCTV can provide extra assurance. As I say, the fear of crime is a quality-of-life issue. People should not feel that anxious in their neighbourhood. I believe this assists. It is not a panacea, but it certainly does provide assistance for police, for governments and for others to ensure that people feel more secure and indeed are more secure in their communities. I commend the member for Hindmarsh for his advocacy for the initiative and for bringing together all the constituent parts of the community to talk to me about this issue. I would be very happy to return when we are looking to install the physical security infrastructure in his electorate in due course.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, if the Attorney-General will just bear with me. It is a bit of a long and winding road, but there is a question at the end, surrounded by 3,000 other questions. Is the Attorney aware that Townsville's population of some 180,000 is growing by between two and four per cent per annum? Would the Attorney agree that, as a city becomes bigger, the need for a stand-alone Family Court increases with that size? Would the Attorney agree that a Townsville based Family Court judge would be the best positioned jurist to service North Queensland from Mackay north out to Mount Isa and on to Darwin? Is the Attorney aware that the current Family Court judge, Justice Monteith, has been struck with a series of crippling back injuries requiring multiple operations and long periods of convalescence? He has been struck with some incredible injuries and he is still on convalescence. Will the Attorney assure the people of North Queensland that the statistics will not be used in any decision relating to the future of a Townsville based Family Court? Can he reassure North Queenslanders of the importance of the position to the residents in Townsville?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. I know that the area is a growing area and that, with growing areas—in particular areas with younger families—there can be a need for family law services. We have contributed a significant amount of funding generally to family law services and in particular to a continuation of the former government's program of family relationship centres. I have visited the centre in Townsville. In the period since we have been in office, the Attorney-General's contribution to family relationship dispute resolution services has increased by some $32.96 million, or 25 per cent, and the contribution of FaHCSIA, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, has increased by $133.5 million, or 179 per cent, amounting to a total of an additional $166.46 million, or an 80 per cent increase, for those family relationship service programs around Australia, including in that region. They have actually resulted in a reduction in filings in the Family Court by about 18 per cent generally.

But I am aware of the circumstances of Justice Monteith and the court. In fact, I had a meeting with the Chief Justice to discuss the allocation of court resources generally. The court allocates its resources within a budget, but obviously there is a discussion between the government and the court to ensure that services are provided, including services to regional Australia. I understand that the assistance being provided to the region is being welcomed by practitioners. Embarrassingly, the name of the judge escapes me, but I understand that he is doing an outstanding job and being well received by the community up there. Justice Monteith's circumstances are regrettable. Obviously these things, insofar as they cannot be helped, are regrettable, but it does place an additional burden on the court. All I can say to the honourable member is that I note his advocacy on behalf of his constituents. I will revisit that matter about the services to North Queensland with the court and obtain some additional information which I can provide to the honourable member.

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

My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney-General, a few days ago it was 19 years since the Mabo decision on 3 June 1992, so here we are in our 20th year since that decision. It was an important decision by the High Court, obviously, but more important than the High Court's decision was the response by the Keating government in turning the court decision into a legislative policy that was rolled out and has changed the lives of many Indigenous people around Australia. I go forward a few years to 13 February 2008, my first day at work in Parliament House. An apology was given by Prime Minister Rudd to the stolen generation, fine words indeed—world-famous words, in fact, that people from all around the world have spoken to me about and that were very significant. But more important than that has been the action since then in engaging with Indigenous people. It is not so much the words but the actions that follow in closing the gap.

I go back to my home town of St George and see many of the Indigenous people that I went to school with. Too many of them have been to prison, have had troubles with the law, have had all sorts of challenges. In my travels around as a union organiser I used to regularly go to Woorabinda, to Wadja Wadja High School, a private Aboriginal school, just talking to families and kids. So many of the decisions that would flow later in their lives would come from their sense of safety in their community, from their feeling safe in their bed at night—and sadly, for many folk, it would be actually having a bed or somewhere to sleep that night—or having a house that was a safe place to go to. Attorney-General, could you outline the measures in the budget which will provide assistance for Indigenous Australians, especially in the much-needed area of community safety and justice, because we know that so much about having a safe community and a just community sets up folk for having opportunities later on in life?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. Firstly, he referred to the famous Mabo decision and, of course, the native title legislation that arose from that. I have to say that the Federal Court of Australia has been making some real inroads, and I will just take the opportunity to commend them. The government legislated to give the Federal Court of Australia stronger case management powers, and the judges have actively engaged in this process. For instance, two years before these powers were granted in October last year, I think nine claims were resolved. In the year before, 13 claims were resolved. Since those powers were given to the court in October last year, 37 cases have been finalised and there look like being an additional 43 cases by the end of this year. So the court is making some real inroads by cutting through some of the nonsense that can occur in this area to get the parties to focus on the real issues involved in the cases.

But the issues of Indigenous justice are very significant and are indeed, I think, some of the crucial issues confronting the government of Australia of whatever political persuasion. The government has invested a considerable amount of resources in closing the gap—that is, in terms of health, education, employment opportunities and the like—but the reality is that, if communities are not safe, they are not going to prosper, and in fact it will be difficult to get those community workers there in the first place.

The statistics about the involvement of Indigenous adults in the justice system are very concerning, and as a nation we need to do something to turn this around. The statistics are alarming. In 2010, Indigenous adults were 14 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous Australians, and they constituted 26 per cent of the prison population. Of those in prison, 74 per cent of the Indigenous prison population had a prior imprisonment, compared to 49 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians—in other words, indicating that the period of imprisonment was not effective as a deterrent. And in 2008 Indigenous young people were 29 times more likely to be detained and constituted 50 per cent of the juvenile detention population on any average day, despite constituting a much smaller proportion of the population.

While the states and territories have general responsibility for criminal law enforcement, it is clearly an issue that the Australian government wishes to take a lead on in setting some standards. In the budget there were some specific allocations in the area of Indigenous justice, but the reality is that any amount of resources, if not properly targeted, is not going to address those issues and turn around those alarming statistics. That is why the federal government is working with the state governments on program evaluations to assess whether the diversionary and rehabilitation programs can be improved and to assess which are working and which can be considered best practice. The first stage of the evaluations, including a total of 20 programs, is focusing on four areas: Aboriginal courts and conferencing, offender support and reintegration programs, diversion programs and night and community patrols. That evaluation will be completed by the end of the year. The purpose of the evaluation is to build the evidence base about what actually works to reduce offending and recidivism and improve community safety. Currently, quite frankly, not enough is known about what is really working. To make a real dent in the rate of over-representation of Indigenous Australians within our justice systems, we need to invest in programs that make a difference. The Commonwealth government is working with the state and territory governments to identify those programs so that we can renew and redouble our efforts to turn around those alarming statistics.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask the Attorney about ASIO. I note that ASIO received a funding cut in real terms in this budget, but I specifically want to turn his attention to the $6.9 million that was slashed from ASIO for security checks on asylum seekers. I want to find out whether those checks will subsequently be outsourced to another agency or will to continue to be conducted by ASIO. What kind of risk based assessments will be made to determine whether a security check is undertaken or whether everybody will receive a security check—and, when I say 'everybody', I mean on an individual basis? And, if that is the case, how many security checks will this equate to? Will ASIO continue to conduct these security checks on an individual basis, or will they look at moving to a model where the security checks are conducted on a regional basis, so that they will just be able to say, 'We've got a dozen people from Helmand Province, and this is the security assessment that we think is appropriate for people coming from that particular province,' as opposed to looking at them all on an individual basis?

Again, I would just note that it is a relatively brief question and if the Attorney could get straight to the point of what I have asked him I would appreciate that.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. Firstly, in terms of the savings measures, they do not address the issue of illegal maritime arrivals, which I think was the subject of your question. But I will turn to that process in particular. I indicate that the resources of ASIO have been increased significantly. In fact, from 2001 to the current time ASIO has received an additional $352.4 million, and that is a 562 per cent increase. Just in our period in office, since 2007-08, ASIO has received an additional $123.6 million, or a 42.4 per cent increase. In the context of that resourcing, I can tell you the resourcing is justified. I see their work on a daily basis. Of course, it is necessary to persuade the community that their funds are being used appropriately.

The savings measures over the next four years of those amounts will total $20.9 million, but I should add the government will be injecting $122 million by way of capital contribution to their new building. So there is an increase in their overall budget. But, of those savings, $8.8 million over four years will be addressed through risk based reprioritisation of overseas training. There will be $5.3 million over four years for more accurate recoupment security assessments carried out on applications for maritime and airport security identification cards—in other words, increasing the charge. In terms of the issue of security assessments, before I come to the issue of illegal maritime arrivals, there will be savings of $6.9 million over four years achieved through risk based targeting of additional security checking for visa applicants other than unlawful maritime arrivals. I should say unlawful maritime arrivals will also be the subject of mandatory security checks, but that saving measure does not relate to unlawful maritime arrivals.

To address the specific subject matter of the member's question in respect of ASIO's involvement in undertaking security checks on unlawful maritime arrivals, as all members are aware, unlawful maritime arrivals are subject to health, identity and security checks. ASIO has been working with DIAC, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, to do what it can to speed up the process. That is effectively by undertaking a triaging process. It is a security process that has been designed and is managed by ASIO. ASIO is still involved in all steps of the process. Essentially, it enables ASIO to focus more closely on those cases that require attention, and that is what is occurring.

There has been some reference in the media to ASIO imposing time limits for these assessments to occur. That is not the case. There will be some assessments that can be undertaken quite quickly because the issues are not complex, given the nature of the circumstances, but there will be other circumstances. Given that it is not uncommon for these people to arrive without papers—indeed it is probably more common than not—there can be significant work in undertaking a proper security assessment. ASIO makes no apologies whatsoever for the fact that some of those assessments will take a considerable period of time. While they work hard to undertake those as quickly as possible, the bottom line is that they do not take any shortcuts when it comes to properly evaluating someone's security, and that is entirely appropriate.

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

I work on the basis that some things can be true even if the coalition says they are true. Under the previous conservative government, the previous Attorney-General was well known for his requests for members of the public to approach the security hotline—in fact, he was rather mocked over that issue. Nonetheless, I would ask the Attorney-General: what is the government doing to encourage the community to report suspicious behaviour to the National Security Hotline, and what are the issues that are involved from the government's point of view?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member. For the record, the former government's initiative has unquestionably been a success and has been continued by the current government. When it comes to national security, law enforcement agencies do rely on the public to report suspicious behaviour. It is often the smallest detail that makes the biggest difference, in that it can often tie pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together. That is why the government continues to support, and raise awareness of, the National Security Hotline. This year the government has allocated $600,000 for continuation of the public information campaign about the hotline.

The government will be funding additional advertising activity via the national security public information campaign during this coming financial year and will again direct people to the number I have referred to previously today: 1800123400. The campaign will focus on metropolitan and regional radio and online advertising. It is worth noting that the Australian National Audit Office recently did a report on the National Security Hotline including on what dividend advertising of that hotline delivers. It found that advertising of the National Security Hotline leads directly to an increase in the total number of calls received and also in the number of calls that are useful to stakeholder agencies—in other words, there is a spike or an increase during those advertising campaigns.

Market research has found that, aside from television, advertising on radio and the internet are the most effective communication channels through which to reach the campaign target audience of Australians—people over 18 years of age. Although the current campaign will not include television advertising, arrangements are in place for a campaign to be launched on air at short notice should the security environment change.

The campaign has been active since 2002. The current phase of the campaign, 'Every detail helps,' highlights that it is often, as I have said, the smallest detail that makes the largest difference. The National Security Hotline statistics indicate that the campaign helps to maintain and increase the volume of information calls. Since 2002, almost 155,000 calls have been received by the hotline. And, in answer to the question from the member for Melbourne Ports, almost half of the calls have provided useful information to Australian and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The campaign's activities will, of course, be undertaken in accordance with the Australian government's guidelines on information and advertising. I am pleased that the campaign has attracted bipartisan support, having been endorsed by both sides of parliament—including, obviously, the initiatives of the former government. But I will conclude by commending the member for Melbourne Ports for his contribution to the national security debate and the preparations of this country.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make it brief. I refer the minister to the most recent violent riots on Christmas Island that occurred last week and involved approximately 100 detainees. Will the minister confirm how many AFP officers responded to that particular incident, how many AFP officers were on the island at the time, how many remain on the island, and whether any additional officers were flown in?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his question. I do not have the specific number. I can inform him that the AFP responded quickly and professionally to the disruption on Christmas Island and I am happy to provide him with the number of officers in relation to the most recent disruption. I am also happy to indicate that the disruption has been quelled.

It has been a concern to us. This is not the first time we have seen disruptions in detention centres. There has been a series of disruptions in recent times—indeed, in June 2000, under the Howard government, 600 broke out of mainland detention centres. These are issues that are quite challenging for law enforcement agencies. The AFP, however, have dealt with these issues very well.

Only recently—I think it was on Sunday—the AFP announced that 18 people will be charged for a series of alleged offences as a result of the disruption that occurred in March. That was a quick response by the AFP to ensure that there are consequences for people breaking state and federal laws. That matter will now be determined, as is proper, by the courts. The AFP are a very professional outfit. They have done great work and shown great judgment in determining exactly how they should respond to these matters, no matter how difficult it has been. I am relieved that there have been so few injuries, despite the breadth of some of these disruptions. I think that is in no small part is due to the professional response of the AFP and officers.

I will provide the specific numbers to the member for Stirling, but I should also indicate that the AFP do have a contingency. There are always people ready to fly to Christmas Island in the event of a need to increase the number of Australian Federal Police officers on the ground there. There are people who are in the position to do so from Perth—the member for Stirling's own home city—and that is to ensure that, if there are any subsequent disruptions, then they will be dealt with appropriately.

I remind the member that these issues are challenging for all governments. We saw 600 people break out of mainland detention centres in June 2000. These are issues that are challenging to law enforcement agencies and to other agencies, including the department of immigration and their contractor Serco. I am very happy that this matter has now been quelled, that the AFP have done their job and that normalcy has resumed on the island. That is a very good thing for the clients, the contractors and the departmental staff who work in the facility.

Propose expenditure agreed to.

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $5,838,368,000

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the foreign minister relates to the portfolio budget statement at page 25. It refers to the contribution that will come from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade budget and go to efforts to counter people smuggling. I ask the foreign minister in relation to Papua New Guinea: what discussions has the minister had with his Papua New Guinea counterparts regarding the reopening of the Manus Island detention centre?

Has the PNG government or any one of its ministers requested that the Australian foreign minister become directly involved in negotiations or travel to Papua New Guinea to discuss that issue? Does the foreign minister accept the statement by the former PNG Prime Minister that the proposal would be made to work if the foreign minister travelled to PNG and took control of negotiations? I note that in media reports a spokesman for the foreign minister said that he has no plans to travel to PNG in the near future. Why not?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her questions. As I think honourable members would be aware, what we have currently in PNG domestic politics is a high period of fluidity. PNG politics historically has gone through these phases from time to time, but given the long-term illness now of the Chief Minister, Sir Michael Somare, we see a high degree of public debate and public controversy concerning what will happen in the future—in particular, if Sir Michael ceases to continue as Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, what set of political alternatives would then exist within PNG politics? This also falls within the background of PNG elections being due, I believe, in 2012. Therefore there is a robust and combustible cocktail of events. Therefore I think it is very important that all members understand that, in dealing right now, at this very time, with the Papua New Guinea government, a great deal of care and sensitivity needs to be displayed, given the uncertainties about who will form any successor administration in PNG should Sir Michael step down.

The second point I make in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's questions goes to conversations between me as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the PNG government concerning the question of asylum seekers in general and detention arrangements in particular. These matters were canvassed in the broadest terms in discussions I had with Sir Michael when I visited him prior to his surgery in Singapore. We had an extensive discussion which covered a whole range of internal matters within PNG and a whole range of foreign policy interests where Papua New Guinea and Australia have common concern, as well as this matter, of course. But I emphasise to the honourable member that this conversation was held at a high degree of generality with a view to specific negotiations then occurring in Port Moresby itself. We know that officials from both the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship have been actively engaged in those discussions.

The third point that was raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition goes to any particular request from PNG government ministers for me to visit Papua New Guinea. In response to that: I am unaware of any such request from any of the ministers with whom I am dealing. That, of course, includes both the then foreign minister and the now Acting Prime Minister. I have seen the public statement by the former Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea Rabbie Namaliu suggesting that I visit Papua New Guinea. What I have said on the public record through my office is accurate. I do not have any plans immediately to visit Papua New Guinea, because I am deeply concerned about the current fragile state of domestic political debate within that country. We have to be very mindful of the particular profile which Australia has within that country and therefore acutely mindful of any impact that we would unnecessarily have as they work their way through their own constitutional and political processes. It is for those reasons that in the very immediate future I do not propose to visit. I am always open to the possibility of visiting. I have many friends and longstanding colleagues right across the Papua New Guinea government. I have been engaged with that country for many, many years. But, because of that, I am very mindful of when it is wise to be there and when it may be wise not to be there.

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

Minister, over the period from January this year to March, there was a set of rolling consular emergencies involving Australians overseas. This seemed to begin with the unrest in Egypt in January and was followed by the unrest in Libya, which resulted in the closure of our consulate in Tripoli and the evacuation of Australian nationals, including our diplomatic staff. At the same time as the Libya crisis was unfolding, there was an earthquake in Christchurch followed by a tsunami in Japan on 11 March which led to a nuclear situation at Fukushima power plant. Minister, from the inquiries that I received at my electorate office, which were overwhelmingly laudatory in terms of the conduct of your department in those posts, and supported by reports in the electronic and print media, I would be interested to know how the department responded to this unprecedented set of consular emergencies.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question, and I know, having dealt with him, that he is acutely engaged as a local member with any of his constituents who end up in trouble around the world. We had a fair bit of that in the last 12 months or so. Also, we have sought through the department and my office to respond as rapidly as possible to any concerns raised by any member of parliament concerning their constituents who find themselves in difficulty abroad.

Beginning with the consular crisis in Egypt, this was a serious challenge for the department. Our embassy in Cairo acquitted itself well. The crisis operations centre on Egypt ran from 28 January to 14 February in support of Australians caught up in that crisis. In the case of Libya, an operations centre ran from 22 February to 7 March. In the case of Christchurch, a centre ran for an extensive period as well. It is important to bear in mind the number of calls for information which the department has had to respond to in this period of time. DFAT's emergency call unit received 26,000 calls from concerned loved ones and made a similar number of calls in seeking to confirm the safety of Australians. Over 400 Australians assisted to depart crisis areas, and that was on chartered flights from Egypt. We provided financial assistance to some 400 other Australians, including to assist them to depart the crisis zone. Over 11,000 Australians or residents were confirmed as safe.

In addition to that we deployed, of course, our own staff. In total, for these various consular crises we have deployed 89 additional DFAT staff from other posts, and this has made it very possible for us to undertake the task with which we had been charged. I also commend the department's increasing use of social media to provide advice to Australians where it has been possible to do so given that in some cases—namely Egypt—there were interruptions to the ability to deliver social media services.

In answering the honourable member's question, I will underline again what I have said previously in the parliament about the superb quality of our consular operations centre. They are a first-class group of professionals, and at a peak response time you had over 120 people working on the crisis each day, roughly the equivalent of two DFAT divisions. It is worthwhile saying at this point also in response to the honourable member's question that, when we surge for a major consular crisis around the world, what happens is that we actually take people from their regular responsibilities. As a result, you have a skeleton staff dealing with the normal functional and policy responsibilities of the foreign ministry, while everyone basically rallies to the pump to deal with the challenge of the day. When I visited the consular crisis centre myself during the major consular operations in Egypt and elsewhere, including in Japan, I saw staff who were drawn from policy level, the administrative level, the consular level itself and administrative assistants, frankly deployed from hither and thither, from the most senior to the least senior, all staffing the phones in order to do the right thing by Australians. So I would take this opportunity in this consideration in detail to underline the absolute professionalism of what our consular staff have done.

For the future—and this is where it is important as well for us to bear this in mind—I go back to one of the appropriations that we have sought additional support for in the 2011-12 budget, and that has been provided. That is additional funding of $4 million for the upcoming year to improve our consular services, and we will use those resources to more widely extend our use of social media. Finally, if we look to the year ahead we should be very mindful of the rolling instability in the Middle East, very mindful of developments in Syria, where I am advised we have a number of Australians who are in that country, continued instability on the Arabian Peninsula, most acutely in Yemen, and other parts of the Middle East as well, whereby our capacity to surge would again be put to the test.

Lastly, I say in response to the honourable member's question that the test of us all is this: when a natural disaster, not just a man-made disaster of the type we have seen in the Middle East, hits we have absolutely no warning at all. When a natural disaster hits, the ability to rapidly deploy puts all the department's resources into the field and we need to be constantly in mind of what further supplementation the department needs in order to undertake that in the future given the rising spate of natural disasters right across the East Asian hemisphere.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to my last question relating to the issue of DFAT's contribution to whole of government efforts to bilaterally and regionally counter people-smuggling, I ask in relation to Malaysia what discussions has the foreign minister had with his Malaysian counterparts regarding the government's plan to send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia and receive 4,000 in return? In particular, did the foreign minister speak to his Malaysian counterpart at the recent Asia-Europe meeting in Hungary? If so, was the government's proposed immigration deal discussed? If not, why not? Has the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provided advice to the minister of reported human rights abuses among asylum seekers and refugees in Malaysia? Is it proposed that Australian high commission staff or other Australian staff will provide ongoing support and oversight under the so-called Malaysian solution to ensure that the human rights of these asylum seekers are upheld? Has the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advised the foreign minister that additional resources will be required in the high commission to manage the asylum seeker arrangement, and if so how much? What mechanisms will be put in place for our high commission staff to respond to any reports of any human rights violations?

Just on another topic but in relation to the United Nations Security Council bid, according to information obtained under freedom of information the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has recommended that ministerial attendance, and that includes prime ministerial attendance, at multilateral meetings and an active program of visits by special envoys be undertaken. How many multilateral meetings have government ministers attended to discuss Australia's UN Security Council bid? What cost is associated with attendance at these meetings? How many multilateral meetings have special envoys attended to discuss Australia's UN Security Council bid and what is the cost of those meetings? According to the budget papers, the final phase of the UN Security Council bid has only received $10.5 million over two years in additional funding. Can the foreign minister explain whether all costs associated with this bid have been included in the budget papers, and if not why not? Where would the rest of the funding be coming from?

In relation to the recent announcement on the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, was the decision to increase Australia's contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation by $150 million approved by the cabinet? Where in the budget papers is this money allocated specifically, or in AusAID's portfolio budget statement is this increase in funding set out?

I have got some time to ask you, Minister, about Fiji. I note in the portfolio budget statement that the government intends to promote and actively support international pressure on Fiji's military regime to return the country to democracy and the rule of law. Can the foreign minister advise where this international pressure will come from given that the United States, Japan and New Zealand have all expressed their concerns and interest in ending the diplomatic stand-off with Fiji?

On the question of travel, can the foreign minister indicate how many Pacific Island countries he has visited since being appointed to the position of foreign minister after the election? Given the importance of the region, I want to ask: is it the case that the foreign minister has only travelled to three of the 10 ASEAN countries since the election?

In relation to PNG, is the foreign minister aware that the Queensland Health Director-General, Michael Reid, has written in a letter that Australian authorities have agreed the package of measures contained in the government's portfolio budget statements has failed in terms of Queensland Health? Can he please explain that concern?

Finally: why has the government closed down tuberculosis clinics in the Torres Strait when an increasing number of PNG nationals and Torres Strait Islanders are seeking medical treatment?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for that happy list. Let me try and deal with it seriatim.

She has dealt with, I think, five sets of topics; one concerning people smuggling; the second concerning the UNSC; the third concerning GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation; the fourth on Fiji; and the fifth, old faithful, my travel.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And PNG health.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sixthly, PNG health. Firstly, on people smuggling, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked specifically about Malaysia. The first thing I would say in response to her question is that the Malaysian government was actively engaged with us—that is, me and the foreign minister of Indonesia, Marty Natalegawa—in the Bali process and the Bali discussions and negotiations that occurred in the conclusion of the regional framework agreement, which we were able to produce as a co-chairman statement in March of this year, I believe—certainly in the first quarter of this year. That was a breakthrough agreement, and the reason it was a breakthrough—I am advised by persons within the UNHCR—is that there are some 13 regional attempts to form a regional framework agreement in other parts of the world at present. Most regions and the countries within them have reached the very practical conclusion that it is not possible to deal with asylum seekers and unauthorised people movements simply by dint of the effort of an individual national jurisdiction; it requires a regional response. That is where we have engaged Malaysia on a whole range of matters, which were reflected in that outcome. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be familiar with the details of that framework agreement.

The deputy leader also asked me a question concerning my specific engagement with the Malaysian foreign minister at the recent meeting of ASEAN held in Budapest. I had a conversation with the Malaysian foreign minister about the negotiations which were underway between Australia and Malaysia. We both concluded that these negotiations were best advanced through our respective immigration ministers or those responsible for that set of portfolio issues. That of course is where the matter lies, between the ministers and the officials. These negotiations are ongoing, which goes to the points she raised at the end of her questions concerning the observation of international legal standards. In the case of how asylum seekers are treated in Malaysia, and any ongoing role for the Australian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that these negotiations are ongoing and once they are concluded with a detailed agreement I will be happy to comment further on them.

On the second point she raised, which concerned the UNSC, she asked specifically about the use of special envoys, among other things. On the use of special envoys, my recollection is—and this is not a complete rendition—that we have used so far Tim Fischer, our current ambassador to the Holy See. We recently dispatched Tim—who is doing a first-class job as Australia's ambassador to the Holy See—to the Non-Aligned Movement meeting recently conducted in Bali. I was not able to attend, because parliament was then in session here in Canberra. We are also using a separate special envoy to francophone West Africa where Australia does not have any diplomatic representation. From time to time we have also used Bob McMullan, former parliamentary secretary here in the Australian government with responsibilities for international development assistance, as Australia's representative at a number of development conferences. The most recent one that I recall was the Conference on the Least Developed Countries held in Istanbul in the last couple of weeks. The purpose of special envoys, which has been used by previous bids and by previous governments, to simply to convey a message to those governments with whom we do not normally have regular, systematic bilateral engagement.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me specifically about what multilateral meetings ministers, including myself, had attended. My answer to that is: a truck load. I would be very happy not to attend many of them, but this is part and parcel of the consequences which flow once you undertake seriously a bid (Extension of time granted). The attendance at such multilateral meetings provides for an opportunity to participate in the full multilateral debate as well as engaging bilaterally with various governments.

If I could give the honourable member an example. Last Friday I was in the United Nations in New York where Australia did an excellent job in co-chairing the UN General Assembly high level conference on HIV-AIDS. That conference had the representation from several dozen heads of government from around the world, 40 or 50 foreign ministers as well as the permanent representatives right across the United Nations system. We were there to do a substantive piece of work—we did. I would draw her attention to the final declaration of the UN General Assembly. It achieved significant progress particularly in one area, committing the nations of the world to a new and I believe deliverable target if we could all collectively get our act together: to reduce maternal to child transmission of HIV-AIDS to zero by 2015, and through the proper deployment of antiretrovirals around the world we are capable of doing that.

Why have I used this as an example? Simply because not only have we done substantive good work in that multilateral conference, and I pay particular commendation to our permanent representative Gary Quinlan for his first-class work, it has the consequence in terms of Australia's credentials to undertake other responsibilities within the United Nations system that people look long and hard at what Australia has done and say this is a commendable multilateral effort.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised the question of GAVI. I attended the launch of the GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, in London on Saturday. This was a conference convened by the British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. The British government together with Australia are two governments around the world which are currently increasing their overseas development assistance, contrary to the trend that you see in many other European countries off the back of the global financial crisis, and I publicly commended the British government for so doing. British ODA currently stands at 0.56 of GNI; Australia's has now risen to 0.35 of GNI. Particularly on this initiative of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, Britain announced a further contribution of $1.3 billion at the conference, which I attended, while I indicated that Australia would increase its allocation from a previously announced A$60 million to A$200 million, which is now worth a bit more in US dollars, as we all around this place know full well.

The impact is terrific: this is one of the most effective aid delivery mechanisms around. The experts in the field advise that, through the contribution of A$200 million we fund 7.1 million vaccinations; that is, by interventions on the normal trajectory of these diseases that are covered across the pentavalent spectrum and the new vaccine categories dealing with pneumococcal against pneumonia and secondly rotavirus against diarrhoea we through the Australian effort will save the lives of 200,000 children. The next time you go to the MCG, look at all those faces at the ground and multiply it by two. That is the number of kids whose lives are being saved through these Australian taxpayer dollars. The further question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition goes to my authorisation for making such an allocation. That lies within the discretion of the minister responsible for Australia's international aid budget, and I so exercised that discretion and I believed exercised it in the correct direction.

The fourth set of questions which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked goes to the matter of Fiji. Fiji is a complex challenge for Australian diplomacy. I think both my predecessor in this position, Stephen Smith, and his predecessor, well known to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, found it a continuing challenge. Namely, how do you maintain global and regional democratic norms against a military coup which has done the following: first, suspended the constitution; second, sacked the independent judiciary; third, incarcerated various people who give the regime difficulty; fourth, suspended elections and said that they might hold them in 2014; and fifth, on top of that, breaking up conferences of religious leaders because they are seen to be a threat to the regime. We continue to maintain contact with the Fijian regime through the normal channels. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that our policy is isolated. It is one which is supported in terms of the suspension of Fiji from the Pacific Islands Forum and from the Commonwealth (Time expired).

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in January this year, southern Sudan voted to secede from the north amongst violence and much political tension. How did the Australian government assist the southern Sudanese in their push for independence and are they receiving any ongoing support?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Banks for his question, because Southern Sudan will be born into the international community of nations as a new nation state early next month on 9 July. This follows a protracted period of more than half a century of civil war in the Sudan between what is essentially a Muslim north and a Christian south—an Arab north and an African south. This has been the dividing line of tensions within that country for decades. As a consequence, a peace process was initiated over the course of the last decade which finally resulted in a resolution on which the community of the southern Sudanese, from memory some 10 million voters, voted both within Sudan and included the Sudanese community around the world. By the way, in the great tradition of Australian democracy, the Sudanese community here were the single largest voting bloc of Sudanese citizens outside of Sudan. The bloc here voted like they did in Sudan: 99.9 per cent for an independent state of southern Sudan, and we are still tracking down the others. As a consequence, this new nation state is coming into being.

On the practical ways of assistance we have done the following: $136 million in humanitarian development assistance since 2004 to Sudan as a whole with $71 million for Darfur, $50 million for the southern Sudan and $13 million for neighbours who have had to absorb refugees from Sudan. We have also contributed to UN peacekeeping operations with 17 ADF and 10 AFP deployed with the UN mission in Sudan, UNMIS. Eight ADF were committed but not deployed to the African Union-UN hybrid operation in Darfur because we have never been able to resolve visa issues with the regime in Khartoum. Furthermore we will continue our bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts. In addition, in 2010-11 Australia contributed $23 million to southern Sudan: $4 million for the conduct of the referendum; $3 million to the UNDP; $1 million to the International Organization for Migration; and also some assistance for Sudanese voting within Australia. On the humanitarian front, we have invested $19 million: $5 million to UNICEF; $4 million to the UN Common Humanitarian Fund; and $10 million for international and Australian NGOs.

We in Australia wish this new and emerging state of Southern Sudan all the best for its future. As with all new and emerging fragile states, we wish to be its partners for long-term development and for long-term peace and we will continue to stand by them. In conclusion, it should be borne in mind that a number of the southern Sudanese who have been taken in as asylum seekers in this country, have been granted permanent residency status and have been educated in Australian institutions will now be returning to Sudan to form parts of the administration of this newly emerging democracy.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the question about the visiting of the Pacific Islands since his appointment. I also ask why he has only travelled to three of the 10 ASEAN countries since the election.

I began some questions on PNG health and would like to finish those. In the 2011-12 portfolio budget statement the government listed health services in PNG as a priority area for development. I asked a series of questions about the closing down of the tuberculosis clinics, so I ask the foreign affairs minister to answer those questions. Is it correct that the Queensland government is seeking an additional $15 million to continue to treat sick PNG nationals? If so, when did the Queensland government first raise with this government its need for additional funding for that purpose? Is the foreign affairs minister aware that the Queensland Nurses Union wrote to the Minister for Health and Ageing in February 2009 with their concerns about a lack of clarity as to whether the federal government intended to increase funding to Queensland Health in order to meet the needs of PNG nationals? If that is in fact the case, why has no decision been taken by the government after such a long time on what is an extremely crucial issue? Would the minister explain why the government is seemingly refusing an additional $15 million to help PNG nationals seeking medical assistance yet the minister was able to use his discretion to commit an extra $140 million to the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation.

It has also been reported that officials from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship are under pressure to turn away PNG nationals who arrive on the islands in need of medical assistance. Is the foreign affairs minister aware of that? Is the minister able to advise how many PNG nationals have been turned away for that reason? Has the minister received any representation, or is he aware that the government or the department has received any representation, from the PNG government about this decision to refuse access to medical treatment for PNG nationals?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her questions. They go, I think, in a sequence from ministerial travel to PNG health, with all the subsets around what she asked about PNG health.

On the question of travel, I think it is important to put in context the travel in which I have engaged in recent times in the region and the travel which has been engaged in by my Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, the Hon. Richard Marles. In terms of my own travel in the Pacific, in recent years I have travelled to Papua New Guinea twice. I have travelled to the Solomon Islands once. I have travelled to Niue. I have obviously travelled to New Zealand on a number of occasions. I travelled to Niue and Cairns for the Pacific Islands Forum, and as a consequence I have spent a lot of time engaging with South Pacific colleagues in regional deliberations.

Secondly, regarding the period I have been Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have mentioned before my engagements with the Papua New Guinea Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare. I am also seeing the Prime Minister of Samoa in about 20 minutes time. I have been to New Zealand for discussions with my counterpart, Murray McCully, as well as with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key just after the New Zealand earthquake, where much of our discussion focused on developments in the South Pacific, including in Fiji.

I would also draw attention to the fact that, in the South Pacific, the first country that I visited abroad as Prime Minister, I believe, was Papua New Guinea. I did so quite deliberately to emphasise the critical and strategic importance of that country to Australia.

In terms of our engagement across the region, the honourable member may not be aware that a core priority for us has been the following: to renegotiate all of our aid relationships with the Pacific island countries in what we now call Pacific Partnerships for Development. What are they? We have changed the inputs measurements that we have traditionally attached to our aid relations with the Pacific island countries into outcomes measures, which in turn align with the Millennium Development Goals. The truth is that, when the government secured office at the end of 2007, most of the South Pacific region was performing appallingly against the Millennium Development Goals, so we had to make some changes there. On the question of ASEAN: over the last several years I think I have visited certainly the majority of ASEAN countries. As foreign minister I have visited, I believe, most recently, Indonesia on a number of occasions. Certainly I have spent time in Vietnam. I have also spent time in Singapore. I have also used regional meetings to catch up with the foreign ministers or deputy foreign ministers of most other regional countries. The foreign minister of the Philippines will be here tomorrow in Canberra, and I look forward to catching up with him as well. We attach high priority to our relationships with the ASEANs.

On the question of PNG health which the honourable member raises, I simply refer to advice provided to me by the department. I understand that the department provides $4 million a year to Queensland Health to offset the costs associated with providing cross-border health assistance to PNG nationals in the Torres Strait. This includes the management of about 60 PNG nationals with tuberculosis. In addition, $13.8 million over four years was committed to the Torres Strait Health Protection Strategy in the 2009-10 budget. The only sustainable solution is to improve the capacity of health services on the PNG side of the border, PNG remaining one of our most substantial recipients of Australian ODA. The Australian government works closely with PNG to improve health services in the Western Province of PNG. A comprehensive approach to the management of TB and other communicable diseases is being developed. Improving TB services at Daru General Hospital is a priority. AusAID is now investing $40 million each year to improve health services within PNG, and this investment is delivering results. The national TB detection rate has increased from 22 to 31 per cent.

Finally, the honourable member asked me about the relative prioritisation of what we do with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation and our health priorities within PNG. The bilateral program with PNG is already substantial. (Extension of time granted) I think it is the second largest recipient of our ODA. And it receives vaccination assistance as well.

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

Minister, I take the opportunity to raise Australia's efforts to reduce nuclear risks—that is, risks posed by nuclear weapons as well as by civil nuclear accidents. My question is in two parts, and it is quite detailed. I note in this respect that Australia and Japan created and closely supported the work of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. The report of this commission made a timely and valuable contribution to shaping outcomes from the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I would be interested to know the specific follow-up action taken by the government to implement recommendations from the NPT review conference.

On the second part, about civil nuclear accidents, I note also that Japan suffered a serious accident at a civilian nuclear facility—we all noticed; the whole world noticed—earlier this year and that the effects of that accident continue to plague that country. This incident has amply demonstrated, 25 years after Chernobyl, that more needs to be done to improve nuclear safety standards and crisis response mechanisms. Before I get to the question, I would just like to add that today I met with diplomats from the Japanese mission. They were doing courtesy calls in the parliament to thank us for how we had responded throughout the crisis that they have suffered, which was very nice.

Mr Rudd interjecting—

Hold on, I haven't finished the    question. In this regard, the second part of the question—

Mr Rudd interjecting—

Hold your horses! The second part of the question is this. I read an article by you, Minister, in the Australian on 2 May—

Mr Rudd interjecting—

yes, I did read it—in which you outlined some forward-leaning proposals for international action. Could you please advise how you will seek to advance and advocate for those proposals?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank very much the member for Page for her continued engagement in Australia's foreign policy broadly and its international development assistance policy more narrowly. She asked two sets of questions, one concerning non-proliferation disarmament and the second concerning civil nuclear safety. On the first, the honourable member would be aware that in 2008 the Australian government, together with the Japanese government, commissioned a report by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, which goes by the remarkably attractive acronym 'ICNND'—and if I ever track down the diplomat who gave it that acronym we will have an appropriate exchange! ICNND now has a certain international status and, of course, one of the co-chairman of ICNND was Gareth Evans, the former foreign minister of Australia.

For those honourable members interested in the whole challenge of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, this report represents the single most comprehensive bible on the non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament agenda worldwide. It is not just thoughtful, it is practical. Unlike many such reports, it goes down to the nuts and bolts of what changes need to be made through the established mechanisms of the international community—for example, the Committee on Disarmament et cetera. But most critically it contributed to the conference which the honourable member referred to, which was the 2010 review conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The ICNND report was of great significance in focusing the debate at the NPT review conference, to the extent that it assisted in shaping 64 sets of recommendations adopted unanimously—remarkably—by the international community meeting at that conference.

Of course, the problem then becomes one of how these recommendations are to be acted upon and actioned in the international community—and those who have followed arms control and disarmament negotiations around the world will know that it often ends up as a process of 'watching paint dry'. However, together with the Japanese government again, at the last meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York in September last year we commissioned a new group made up of foreign ministers from middle powers—Australia, Japan, Korea, Germany, Poland and a range of others—to advance the recommendations put forward by the NPT review conference. We have met on two occasions—once in September and secondly at a meeting co-convened by us and German Foreign Minister Westerwelle in Berlin a month or two ago.

There are two specific outcomes that we are now working on, and one relates to the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. The FMCT is a treaty which deal specifically with how we bring to an absolute halt worldwide the production of nuclear fissile material and nuclear weapons material more broadly. That is what the FMCT seeks to do, and there is a reference for it to achieve this ambitious proposal through the Conference on Disarmament, which meets in Geneva. Enter, the Conference on Disarmament—at a gallop; it has basically been in a stationary position for 15 years. If you go into the Conference on Disarmament and ask what has been on the agenda recently, the answer is not much. In fact, it is one of the rolling disgraces of the international community. And the reason is that consensus has not been achieved in bringing specific recommendations from elsewhere in the international community, such as the NPT review conference, onto the formal agenda of that body. So what we have done, through the non-proliferation and disarmament initiative group of foreign ministers co-chaired by me and my Japanese colleague, is issue a statement making it plain to the rest of the international community that, if the CD does not achieve an outcome on this by year's end, we will formally seek to move the FMCT negotiations to a different forum. This does not often happen in the international community, but that is what we are proposing to do—whether it is the UN First Committee or elsewhere.

The second recommendation goes to the development of a standard nuclear reporting form by the nuclear weapons states so that, consistent with the international obligations they have given under various disarmament obligations around the world, they provide a regular report card on the current status of their stockpile. And we will be presenting that as a joint effort between ourselves and the Japanese soon.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, when will you release your response to the independent panel of review into AusAID and do you expect the 2011-12 budget to be revised upwards as a result of the independent panel of review into AusAID?

Also, I would like to continue with some more questions on PNG. What will be spent by AusAID specifically in PNG on health infrastructure and programs? What will be spent by AusAID in the western province to prevent PNG nationals with TB coming to the Torres Strait? Has Queensland Health provided AusAID with information on the patients with TB and cholera who up until now they have been managing? What does the minister expect the additional cost to AusAID will be as a result of Queensland Health closing the clinic in the Torres Strait?

On the issue of scholarships now, I would like to note that $362 million has been allocated in the 2011-12 budget for education scholarships. This is separate to $480 million on basic and secondary education. How were these scholarships awarded? Recently an ANAO report on 26 May noted that:

… nine of the top 20 recipients of country program aid did not have approved country strategies.

Why were scholarships awarded to countries that do not have an approved country strategy in the aid program? Can the minister detail the decision-making process in which countries are chosen or how individuals are awarded scholarships? What post-scholarship follow-up is undertaken to make certain that the individual returns to their country of origin and what monitoring processes are in place to evaluate the total effectiveness of the scholarship program and also individual effectiveness? What are the completion rates of these scholarships? Are there countries that have lower completion rates? What processes are put in place to address low completion rates? I also note that there has been a decrease in aid funding to Burma. That has been reduced in the budget. Yet aid to Latin America has increased by 23 per cent. What programs are expected to be undertaken and what will be delivered for this massive increase? What will be the result of the program cuts to Burma?

On the question of UN Women, $19 million has been allocated to UN Women over three years. Does Australia currently have a position on the board of UN Women? If not, do we expect to have one soon after investing $19 million? How will we advance the cause for women in our region without a place on the board? What activities will the money be spent on this year? Who administers the particular money associated with UN Women? Is there an expectation that there will be reasonable input from Australia and the Pacific region in the process, given particularly that in the Pacific region only two per cent of all elected leaders are women? Recently ACFID called for the creation of an ambassador for women's rights. Has the department considered this particular position?

Back to scholarships, how many were awarded in 2010-11 and how many do you expect to award in 2011-12? I do not think I asked for recipient countries. Who are they?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, the honourable member asks about the independent review of aid effectiveness. I thank her for her question. The government commissioned this independent review because there has not been such an independent review conducted of the entire Australian aid budget since 1996. Fifteen years is a long time between drinks and we thought it was time to have a go at this and put together a body which would evaluate the program from top to tail. It has presented its report to the government. We expect to make our response to the report known in due course after we have examined all of its recommendations and what it means for any structural changes in the future direction of the aid portfolio.

It is an important exercise. I thank Sandy Hollway in particular for chairing it and also acknowledge participation from the likes of Margaret Reid, a former senator of the Australian parliament and President of the Senate and a distinguished representative of the Liberal Party. We look forward to making our response to the independent review of aid effectiveness in, as I said, due season. The second part of the honourable member's question goes to whether it would result in adjustments to the currently budgeted aid allocation for 2011-12. We do not foresee that occurring. We have indicated what we would do in the budget. We have obviously made provision for the one thing which often presents us with real challenges in a given year, which is the spate and intensity of natural disasters that are always unpredictable. But absent something catastrophic occurring within that category, we propose to adhere to the budget which is already outlined in the budget papers.

Thirdly, the honourable member asked again about Papua New Guinea health and I appreciate and share her concern on that matter—as a loyal son in my case and daughter in her case of Queensland. This has been an historical challenge faced by successive federal and Queensland governments dealing with the health policy issues that arise with the number of PNG nationals entering the Torres Strait at a given time. Her specific question to me related to the investment which we are making into health services within PNG. My understanding is that we are investing in the vicinity of $40 million within the overall framework of a program between $400 million and $500 million to PNG. I stand to be corrected on whether that amount includes the significant program we have on HIV-AIDS.

As the honourable member will be aware, there are significant HIV-AIDS infection rates, particularly in the west of the country in and around the mining communities. It is very difficult to obtain official statistics other than that infection rates there are potentially frightening. I have said this in the past, when I was on the other side of the aisle and Foreign Minister Downer was in office, that I make no particular criticism of the challenges which have been encountered on the ground in the implementation of the HIV-AIDS program in particular under the period of the conservative government and under our government. This is difficult and hard work, because we are dealing with fundamental attitudinal changes particularly on the part of males.

The next set of questions which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised went to the question of scholarships. She would be familiar with the robust and honourable history of the Colombo Plan. We actually think, though this was established by 'Pig-Iron Bob', this was a very good thing for Australia. Most things are fully accounted for in the full course of history; this was a good thing. It started in the 1950s under Menzies and was rolled out through until effectively the end of the 1970s. The problem was subsequent to that, and this is no criticism either of the previous Liberal or Labor governments, it languished.

This is what we sought to do: in a policy statement by me as Prime Minister in 2009 we launched what is called the Australia Awards. The Australia Awards are the next generation Colombo Plan awards. Our intention is to make Australia Awards available across all countries which meet DAC eligibility, because it is the simplest and most effective means to provide support world wide to countries that can benefit from an award program. They are designed to be flexible with shorter term and longer term scholarships. We see this as a very effective form of assisting with capacity building within these countries and developing good relationships with Australia across the generations.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the foreign minister. Globally around 30 per cent of women and children experience physical or sexual violence during their lifetime. The Australian government has zero tolerance for violence against women and has committed to reducing violence against women in Australia as well as contributing to international efforts to end violence against women in our region and globally. I know from conversations with the foreign minister that he personally has taken a big interest in this area. Can the foreign minister provide examples of how Australian aid affects women on the ground in developing countries.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Kingston for her question. It is an important question in the overall task of development.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Sturt will cease interjecting.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! Members to my left will cease interjecting and interrupting the proceedings of the chamber.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The member for Sturt is warned!

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question. Firstly, if we are concerned about international development we must be equally concerned about the role of women in development, and that is across the entire spectrum.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true. I do not say this as a partisan comment. I am just saying it is real and central, because unless you have women and girls educated then, frankly, the international community and developing countries are deprived of a huge asset in economic productivity, employment growth and overall economic development. Secondly, that will never happen unless girls are properly educated, and they are not being properly educated in so many developing countries around the world. Thirdly, it does not happen if women and girls suffer either the threat of or the reality of physical and sexual violence. This is a problem of great significance across many countries which are recipients of Australia's overseas development assistance.

It therefore is in these critical areas that the Australian government seeks to focus its funding not just through the institution which was mentioned before by the honourable member for Brisbane—that is, UN Women; in fact, that forms a very small part of what we seek to do globally. But within our bilateral programs and in a range of other UN programs, we are supporting this on the ground. For example, if we are to look at the particular challenges of women and violence in the South Pacific, we are seeking to augment our programs in that region, as we are in Africa. When I visited the African Union at the beginning of this year and met with the executive of the United Nations operation for East Africa and with the woman who leads that organisation, I indicated then that we would be expanding our assistance for their operations in Africa so that she would have the resources to deal with the program responsibilities which she has on paper but lacks the effective resources to go out and do. So we intend to partner with her and her institution into the future.

More broadly, we also will be engaged with a range of other international institutions to deal with, as I said, violence against women, to deal with education of girls and also to deal with the challenge and opportunities of women and development. On the question of education of girls, which relates to empowering women with the knowledge of how to deal with threats of violence as well, the Australian government's current allocation is something like 18 to 19 per cent of the entire aid portfolio allocation for education. We regard this as No. 1 in terms of what Australia can productively do in the world, and within that the education of girls is right up there.

For example, if we are looking at threats of physical and sexual violence, let us look at one particular example of young girls growing up in certain parts of regional Indonesia. That is why we are rolling out a $1 billion program, begun by the Howard government, to construct 4,000 schools to invest massively in the teacher training associated with those schools, in training the principals of those schools, as well as in reforming the curriculums of those schools, in partnership with Indonesian national organisations such as Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, because this fundamentally affects the empowerment of girls and women in our next-door neighbour: Indonesia, population 240 million plus, half of whom are women. And so many girls in parts of rural Indonesia are not given any opportunities at all. If those girls and those women are empowered by giving them for the first time the opportunity for an education, it affects their ability to also stand on their own two feet in dealing with challenges of violence as well. Therefore, our response must be holistic. Economic empowerment through microfinance and microcredit is also important.

For honourable members interested in this subject, I would draw their attention to an excellent article in the Sydney Morning Herald of a couple of months ago which pictures a beautiful young girl aged 13, 14 or 15 for the first time entering a secondary school funded by Australia under this program—under Howard, under us. It is the right thing for Australia, because unless we get the challenge of girls and women around the world right on violence, on sexual violence, on trafficking, on education, as well as empowerment through governance and women obtaining greater positions of responsibility, the development challenge of our world will not be met.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My final question to the foreign minister relates to the World Conference against Racism and in particular the third meeting of the World Conference against Racism which is to be held in New York later this year. Is the minister aware that the United States administration has recently announced that it will boycott this conference. Given that the previous two conferences, known as Durban I and Durban II, have been marred by anti-Semitic speeches and bias against Israel and that keynote speakers have included Colonel Gadaffi and President Ahmadinejad, will the government also boycott this conference, presumably to be known as Durban III? If so, when will the government make that decision and when will it be made public?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I have not yet been advised of Colonel Gadaffi's travel plans for the upcoming conference! On the question of this conference against racism, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rightly says, it has an appalling history, Durban I and Durban II. In consultation with our good friends around the world, our friends and allies, including Israel, our attitude to the Durban II conference was to attend up until such time as we could not bring practical influence to bear to change the conference documents decisively. I think it is generally regarded and accepted by participating countries, including a number which the honourable member has just referred to, that the influence which Australia had on the early parts of the draft of the declaration of Durban II, any positive influence was exercised by us physically around the table. However, when the inimitable and inevitable Ahmadinejad took to the podium Australia did, as we have always done, withdraw from the gathering. What we do at the UN General Assembly each year is that when Ahmadinejad stands up and as soon as he begins a racist attack on the Jewish people we, together with other Western states, participate in a walkout. In fact, we usually lead the walkout. Certainly in the case of the Durban conference, once Ahmadinejad took to the stage I am advised, given that I was not there, that we not only exited the conference on that occasion, we exited the conference period. I stand to be corrected on the absolute detail.

The point of the honourable member's question goes to the upcoming Durban III conference. We have not made a decision at this stage but our approach will be very much the same as Durban II. We will seek to work with the process and will seek to influence and shape it to the extent that we can. If it heads in the same direction as last time we will exit the process as we did last time. I do not believe that Australia's efforts in that particular respect were subject of any legitimate criticism by those around the world who defend the interests of the government of Israel and the Jewish people. As I said, we have taken no firm decisions on this that I am aware of and I will certainly keeps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well informed.

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

The debate on this portfolio is adjourned until the next sitting in accordance with the agreed order of consideration of portfolios.

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $6,636,901,000

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

I am pleased to be in the Main Committee for the consideration in detail with the next leader of the Labor Party. I do not think the member for Hotham ever got the chance he deserved as leader of the opposition. I certainly supported him back then against the member for Werriwa but it looks like he will get the chance next time and I am very pleased. He was the only Labor leader never to be able to face an election and was a very cruel cutting-down too early in an otherwise glittering political career. So I look forward to his opportunity to rise to the top of the podium.

Today is for consideration in detail of education matters so I will not delay the House. I do have a series of questions and the minister might choose to answer them today or take them on notice and respond accordingly. I think the time limit for each of these contributions is five minutes, and I will probably take more like about 10. Maybe it will be five, but I will get started. These questions are about the Building the Education Revolution program, which the minister represents in the House of Representatives. The first question relates to the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce interim report of August 2010. Recommendation 1 of that report was:

In the interest of transparency and public accountability, the Taskforce recommends that each education authority publish school specific project cost data related to BER P21 in a nationally common structure with consistent definitions.

The department, in response, indicated that the government would:

… put in place a nationally common structure with consistent definitions. If education authorities agree, this structure will be published by December 2010.

My first question is: when will this data be published? My second question is: if data has not been published as recommended by the taskforce, why has it not been published and when is it expected to be published? My third question is: if any education authorities did not agree to publish the data, could the minister indicate which education authorities have not agreed to publish it? Finally, why will the minister not put the data on the My School website? Do you want to answer them one after the other, Minister, and then I will come back? Or do you want me to ask all my questions now?

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

Does the minister wish the member for Sturt to continue asking questions so that he may respond in total, or are you happy to—

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

Perhaps I will keep going?

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

We might get lost. He started off all over the place. He might end up the same way, given that his obvious talents—

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

Who is lost now?

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

were never recognised by the Howard government in promoting him to what he obviously considered was a well-deserved position on the front bench and in the ministry.

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

Fair comment.

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

It is a fair comment in your assessment. Obviously there were better judges in charge of the way portfolios were allocated. But I am delighted to see that he has at least made the front bench in opposition and well may he stay there for some considerable time.

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

The minister has indicated that he would like—

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

I was the minister at the time the August report of the taskforce was handed down. As the member would probably be aware, we accepted all of the recommendations of the Orgill report. There was an issue at the time—Victoria was resistant to putting information out. Its argument was that the information Brad Orgill was seeking was commercial-in-confidence or could have affected the contracts—I forget which specific reason they gave. Nevertheless, at the time I insisted that Victoria make that information available and they did.

Thereafter, the question for Mr Orgill was: once you have it, why do you not simply publish it in the raw form? His argument was that it needed to be put in a form that would enable proper comparisons. I know, for example, that comparisons were made about what one hall cost versus another. But if you actually looked at the detail, whilst both might have been referred to as 'gymnasiums', some places chose, because of the sort of work that they were doing, to have sprung floors—they were entitled to have that provided it fitted within the budget. So the unit cost of that type of thing compared with another was clearly going to be different. What Mr Orgill was very keen to do was to make sure that he got a nationally consistent position. I have not held the portfolio since then, but I am advised that the framework was published in January and that the costs for 3,200 schools have been published so far. All 22 education entities have published and will continue to do so.

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

There are 3,500 schools that have been published, but there are 9,500 schools across Australia that would be affected. I look forward to the minister providing further information about the other 6,000. My next question is also about the BER. Recommendation 8 by the task force suggested:

The Taskforce has not been satisfied by the various explanations as to how value for money has been calculated by many jurisdictions. The Taskforce recommends that a forum of education authorities be convened to develop a more consistent set of definitions and measures of value for money.

The department indicated in response:

The Government will develop through the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) a set of national definitions and measures of value for money for education infrastructure.

And:

DEEWR, through the new unit, will develop a paper for the Minister to take to MCEECDYA in the new year. The paper will examine the issue of value for money, the variety of definitions that currently exist and a possible way forward.

I have four questions. Has the minister taken a paper to MCEEDYA? If so, what is the date this was raised? How have MCEEDYA decided to develop the nationally consistent definitions? When will this occur?

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

I will have to take those on notice and come back to the member as to the specifics about what has gone to the committee.

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

I bring to members' attention something which is very close to my heart and to my constituents' hearts. Specifically, it picks up on an answer you gave in question time today. Yesterday, the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011 went through the New South Wales upper house after a very truncated debate. In fact it was gagged, which is unprecedented in New South Wales history, and it is set to be rammed through the lower house and become law very shortly.

I followed the New South Wales election campaign very closely and did not see where Premier O'Farrell received any mandate to declare jihad on hard-working public servants in New South Wales. I see that Premier O'Farrell has no mandate to gut the security of hard-working teachers, fire fighters, bus drivers and nurses in New South Wales. I see that the Premier of New South Wales has no mandate to gut the power of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to set wages. Nor do I see Premier O'Farrell having a mandate from the people of New South Wales for his government to have the power to stipulate public sector wages and conditions and then require the IRC to consent to government policy. This is a national disgrace, and I know that the minister understands that clearly.

Plainly, from the feedback that I have received on what has happened in New South Wales, the conservatives have learnt nothing from the verdict which was given at the federal election in 2007, when the industrial relations agenda of the Howard government was repudiated. Minister, I would be very interested to know your views, on behalf of the government, on the draconian legislation that is set to become law in New South Wales, that will go to the heart and soul of hard-working public servants in New South Wales and that will severely affect their security. I would be very grateful if the minister would bring us up to speed, because I see that the conservatives have learnt absolutely nothing. They would doubtless return to that agenda if they were ever to occupy the treasury bench in this place in future.

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

Before I call the minister, I want the member for Sturt and the member for Farrer to know that there is a lot of noise coming in this direction and that I had difficulty hearing the member for Reid because of their conversation. I do not want to impede the conversation, but I want to inform you that the level of noise is significantly high enough to prevent hearing. I am informing you, that is all.

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

I just observe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is always noise coming from that direction, regardless of where he sits. We are used to the prattle, not worried by the content, just unfortunately—

An honourable member: Neither are they.

I do not think they are, and I think that is why he never got to the front bench when they were there with a government.

I thank the member for Reid, because I know his concern. He has raised this with me. Whilst I would not go so far as to say it is a national disgrace at this stage, it is certainly a state disgrace. It has the potential to become a national disgrace if the same crowd ever sit on the treasury bench in the national parliament. I think it is really important to understand the significant policy reforms that have been put in place by this government to lift the prosperity of the people who work but also to secure and sustain the prosperity of the nation. One cannot do that unless one makes the investments in the essential drivers of productivity—in education, in skills, in infrastructure. We came to office with a massive deficiency on all these three fronts and we set about redressing that. The global financial crisis gave us a very important opportunity through the stimulus package to put money into these areas that underpin the growth of a nation—importantly, into training, infrastructure and skills development.

But it is also important that we have harmony in the workplace. Labor governments have consistently sought a framework in which that partnership is encouraged in the workplace through the enterprise, and that requires core fundamentals in terms of the industrial relations framework. It requires the recognition of the right of employees to collectively bargain. It requires the recognition that, in a bargaining framework, that bargaining must take place in the spirit of good faith. And it requires, if it is to really work, that in the absence of agreement through bargaining in good faith there is resort to an independent umpire. They are fundamentals, and we will fight till the last drop of our blood to ensure that those principles are always secured.

Unfortunately, whilst this has demonstrated itself to be an important benefit to the nation, it does not have bipartisan support. We saw that when the Howard government were last in office, because they introduced Work Choices, which did not recognise the requirement to bargain in good faith, did not recognise the role of the independent umpire and did not really recognise the right to collectively bargain. They were defeated, and an essential element of the cause of their defeat was Work Choices. People woke up to what it was doing. It was taking away their dignity. It was stripping their standards of living. We campaigned on the basis of changing it and we won. We set about changing it and introduced Fair Work Australia. Since that time, despite their dire predictions of job losses, wage outbreaks and breakouts in industrial disputes, none of it has happened. In fact, the opposite has happened: strong job growth and strong reduction in industrial disputes.

But the O'Farrell government, in the member for Reid's own state, despite never having sought the mandate on changing the arrangements, are setting about restoring Work Choices mark 2, doing it at the state level and doing it with their own employees—and that is a disgrace. They are seeking to introduce a piece of legislation that will allow them, by regulation, to determine the conditions, stripping away the right to collectively bargain and turning the independent umpire essentially into a rubber stamp. That needs to be fought in the state of New South Wales, but we will ensure that this government exposes the opposition for what it really believes in. It says Work Choices is dead, buried and cremated but given half a chance would bring it back tomorrow.

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

I rise on a point of order. I simply point out that this is supposed to be consideration in detail of the federal government's appropriations and I am not sure why talking about industrial matters at the state level could be regarded as being relevant to this debate. While I understand that the minister is filling up his time with these kinds of irrelevancies in order to avoid having to be questioned about the budget, I would ask you as chair to draw him back to the fact that this is consideration in detail of the government's appropriations bill. I would not have pointed it out except that he was so unkind to me at the beginning of his last contribution! I was prepared to let it go before that!

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

I am inclined to ask the member for Sturt to proceed with his questions.

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

I have two other questions. The third is that recommendation 9 by the task force suggested:

If comprehensive historic benchmarking data about cost of school building construction had been available, it would have provided a valuable resource to assist in the assessment of value for money. The database, BER-CAM, being built by the Taskforce to provide data about the cost of BER projects should be housed long-term with an appropriate custodian (such as a university) to ensure that it is available to assist in future benchmarking. The Commonwealth should support and fund the implementation of this initiative.

The minister's department responded:

The government will commit up to $3 million to support the BER-CAM database at a university to be determined through an open tender process. Funding for this commitment will be fully absorbed by DEEWR, consistent with federal Labor's commitment to return the budget to surplus by 2013. We note that historic benchmarking is a complex exercise and would need to take into account regional variations, and DEEWR has commenced preparation of documentation for the open tender process to determine the custodian of the BER-CAM database. The handover will coincide with the termination of the task force in 2011.

My questions are, first, has $3 million been committed for the development of the BER-CAM database, or has more funding been allocated for this purpose? Second, has an open tender commenced? Third, how many tenders have been received to date? Fourth, when will the tender close? Fifth, when will the project commence? Sixth, when will the database be completed? Seventh, which authorities will have access to the database?

Because of the perfidy of the member for Reid in taking my time before, I will ask my next question, in case we run out of time. Recommendation 12 by the task force suggested:

The Taskforce was impressed by school master planning clarity at many non-government schools, which focused on educational outcomes and stood them in good stead to more rapidly commence BER projects. The Taskforce recommends that the government education authorities review their approach to school master planning and engagement of school communities in this process.

The minister's department responded:

The government will encourage this review of approaches through MCEECDYA and its national reform agenda for Empowering Local Schools and DEEWR, through the new unit, will develop a paper for the minister to take to MCEECDYA in the new year.

First, has the minister taken a paper to MCEECDYA? Second, what was the date this was raised? Third, did MCEECDYA agree to review their approach to school master planning and engagement of school communities? Fourth, what was agreed or decided? Finally, when will this occur?

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

In terms of the member's preamble to that series of questions I would point out that it is a serious matter of detail if our industrial relations system has the potential to be undermined, given that what we have put in place has served the country well, as is evidenced by the 740,000 increase in jobs, by the reduction in industrial disputes, by the fact that even though we are the only developed country in the world to have avoided the recession we have still been able to sustain effective non-inflationary growth, and, thirdly and fourthly, we have also been able to do it by lifting the living standards of workers. If that detail causes concern to the other side, there is something wrong with them. But it is also a level of detail that is seriously under threat because of the pattern of behaviour by the same political party that sits in New South Wales and that sits opposite us in the opposition.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: if it puts the minister out of his misery, given that he clearly does not know the answers to these questions, I am happy for him to come back and report to the House on the detailed answers to what are, admittedly, questions that take some knowledge of the portfolio; it is quite possible that he does not have that knowledge.

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

I think the member for Sturt has made his point of order. I also remind the member for Sturt that the previous Deputy Speaker has warned the member for Sturt—that is just a reminder.

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

And I would make the point that his question was prefaced by this very point. He also said that the only reason he was forced to make those comments was that I was being unkind to him. Well, I always thought that accurate descriptions were very kind. and I think that the member should reflect.

Let me go to the questions. I have now got the answer to the one that was asked before that. There has been a discussion with the education authorities—the government has met with all 22 education authorities—and a paper is being finalised for tabling later this year. On recommendation 8, the EOI or expression of interest is at market now, and DEEWR has absorbed the costs.

As for his final question, in relation to recommendation 12, the master planning: the paper is under development. It has been discussed with the education authorities during early drafting. I might say that that was a recommendation I was particularly interested in. I think it is fair to say that the best value for money was obtained in circumstances in which there was active engagement between school communities and the appropriate education authorities. If one looks at what happened in Tasmania, or in South Australia—the member's own state—and mostly in the state of Victoria and certainly in Western Australia, this sort of engagement was very effective in getting value for money. I think it is also fair to say, in terms of the reports, that, where problems existed, they were mostly in New South Wales. We think it is a very important part of the ongoing process to engage the school communities, but there has to be an overall framework in terms of what we expect them to respond to. So that is the paper that is being discussed. I would also just point out that, of the 9½ thousand schools and the 24,000 projects, only a little over 300 complaints were received by the task force set up for the whole purpose of investigating complaints and recommending to government how the program could be improved for the future.

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

In response to the member for Sturt's barb about not giving him the floor in this chamber: firstly, I make the point that all of us are entitled to ask the minister questions relating to the budget. That is the very reason we are here. Secondly, for the benefit of the member for Sturt, if he checks the Hansard record he will see that I extended him the courtesy, before I jumped, of giving him the benefit of two jumps in his series of questions which were directed to the minister. Thirdly, if he checks the Hansard he will see that I did not absorb all my five minutes, which I was entitled to absorb, when I made my speech and asked my questions of the minister.

I will now move to a couple of questions I want to ask the minister, directly related to the budget. They concern the Building Australia's Future Workforce package, which was announced in the budget and was very well received in my electorate of Reid. Firstly, I would like the minister to outline for the benefit of the House the government's thinking behind that initiative. Secondly, I note that that package includes changes to allow jobseekers on youth allowance to keep more of what they earn, and some adjustments to the taper rates for Newstart allowance, and I would be grateful if the minister could elucidate how that works.

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

I again thank the member for Reid for his question. I talked before about the stimulus package that we as a government entered into and which saw this economy, the only developed country in the world, avoid the recession. Part of the reason for that stimulus package was to invest in activities that in part were about creating job activity. The BER program was an important part of that, comprising some $16 billion of the $42 billion that was spent.

I make that point because investing in education is one of the most important investments a country can make. As a government we have made a commitment to lift year 12 retention rates and we have made a commitment to lift the proportion of people with diploma qualifications and with higher education qualifications. Why are we doing this? Because all the evidence suggests that a nation lifts its productivity if its lifts its educational attainment. There is a productivity dividend for such an investment. So physical infrastructure is very important because these are the buildings in which people get taught and learn. It is not just the BER program and the big investment through the secondary schools in science and language labs, which you would be aware within your own electorate, but also the trade training centres, which the minister who will come after this session will be able to talk about as well.

In this budget we also committed to an important package for skills development. We invested $560 million in the National Workforce Development Fund, which will give industry a decision making capacity for substantial Australian government investment in workforce development. Why is this important? Because we know that, having avoided the recession and still on the wave of a significant resources boom, one of the capacity constraints we have to avoid is skill shortages. If we do not equip ourselves to train people properly here, the only other alternative is to look at doing it through migration programs. It is far better for a country to use the physical facilities to invest in the training activities being undertaken. This is a significant investment in working with industry to identify the skill shortage areas and then seeking to address them. I might also say that in my portfolio responsibility of regional development we want to take that exercise local. So there will be active engagement by Regional Development Australia, the bodies at the regional level, to help us identify what the skill shortages are in the particular regions and develop packages accordingly. That is a very important development.

I was also asked about the changes to allow job seekers on youth allowance to keep more of what they earn. I can advise the House that the initiatives presented in the budget included allowing young job seekers on youth allowance to keep more of what they earn through increasing the income free area from $62 to $143 per fortnight, increasing the working credit from $1,000 to $3,500 and in addition providing a more generous income test taper rate for single principal carers on Newstart allowance from 1 January 2013. This means that parents will be able to earn up to $400 per fortnight, on top of the $946 per fortnight that they currently earn before their income support payment is taken out.

In relation to the problem of young people who are neither working nor studying, we do not want young people to be unemployed. The option for them is either work or training. Unemployment should not be an option. There are important new initiatives in this budget that will help secure that outcome for them—good for them; good for the nation.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister about a specific budget announcement contained in Budget Paper No. 2, page 32 for reference. It concerns the Building Australia's Future Workforce program, which we have mentioned in this session, and in particular the wage subsidy for the very long-term unemployed. This announcement states that employers will be encouraged to hire the very long-term unemployed—two-plus years—by offering to give employers the amount of Newstart payment that the job seeker would have otherwise received, and this payment will be offset for six months.

Minister, I have a couple of questions around this issue of payment to the employer the sum total of a Newstart payment for a six-month period. What assurances can you give us that this will not involve the turning over, the churning, of workers given that we see these examples all around us now with traineeships being suddenly abandoned after the necessary—usually six-month—period is over. The amount of money that will be offered, this six months of Newstart, is quite significant. My first question concerns assurances that there will be something to prevent exploitation of what could be seen as quite a lucrative exercise for some unscrupulous employers.

My second question concerns part-time work. Are the provisions for this employment under this program to be for part-time work or would the employer that took advantage of it have to hire the person on a full-time basis? Let us assume that there is provision for part-time employment: will the payment be pro rata or will the business still receive the full wage subsidy at the rate of Newstart for six months? It is simply not clear. If you hire a part-time worker or a three-quarter-time worker, would you get a similar pro rata amount of Newstart? There are my three questions around this particular budget measure.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your questions. We are incredibly proud of the measures in this budget which are specifically aimed at the very long-term unemployed. We know that when we head towards projections of a 4.5 per cent unemployment rate it spells great promise for many Australians, but we want to make sure that people are not left out.

As you correctly identified, there is some $227.9 million in this budget aimed specifically at the cohort of the very long-term unemployed, those who have been out of work for some two years or more. One of those measures is the provision of 35,000 wage subsidies. I think I will take the second question first. The amount will be the equivalent of the Newstart payment approximately, but it is flexible and we can work with those needs around part time and full time and for how long that subsidy is required.

Your other question was: how do we ensure that there are not turnovers? We already operate wage subsidies at the moment. We operate wage subsidies under the JSA model and we have in place a series of protections. We obviously monitor the employers who are accessing this. We monitor the job seeker, where they go and how they continue post wage subsidy. We have in place strict protections to make sure that we do not see the sort of turnover which the member referred to. Does that mean that every job seeker continues on in that role in the long term after the subsidy ends? No, it does not. Some of them do not see it through for the six months. But it does mean that we monitor that through our department. We put in place every protection that we can.

The other thing that I should say on these wage subsidies which I think is significant is that we have extended these subsidies so that they are available to job seekers who are going through both Job Services Australia and also the Disability Employment Services. This is really important and it comes back to the question around part time and full time and the capacity to work. We will have these subsidies at an equivalent rate. It works out at around $6,000 for each job seeker. The way that that is put in place is obviously going to differ from position to position. The other measure which complements this is the $133 million which we have put into increased participation requirements on the very long-term unemployed. We know that not everybody is job ready, not everybody has maintained the skills, the confidence, the discipline and the whole range of things they need in order to step straight into employment. That is why we are extending the participation from six months to 11 months. We want to make sure that we are training up, that we are skilling, that we are preparing and getting job ready all of these job seekers. We know that the wage subsidies have been proven, through the model that already exists and through the wage subsidies that we already operate, as being one of the most effective ways that we can move the very long-term unemployed into employment.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Picking up where the minister left off, which concerns the changed requirements for the very long-term unemployed and their being given work activities for 11 months: given those increased participation requirements that are due to commence in the middle of 2012, would you expect that job service providers will have to commence increased Work for the Dole activities? How might that be funded and how might it work in practice? The current level of Work for the Dole activities—as I will call them generically—is extremely low. If not, what types of work experience activities do you think will be utilised to make sure that that number of long-term unemployed job seekers actually does have an opportunity to meet their mutual obligation requirements?

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Going back a tiny bit, I think it probably helps members if I just expand on the fact that when we moved from the Job Network to Job Services Australia, we introduced into the system a whole lot more flexibility, so that employment providers could judge what is best and what best suits the needs of each individual job seeker. I know that the opposition like to speak about Work for the Dole as the participation requirement. Under our system, Work for the Dole is one option, and it means that in addition to Work for the Dole people can participate through skills-based work experience. My colleague has already talked about the major investment that we are making in skills. People can participate in job trials, they can participate in work experience or they can participate in Work for the Dole. That will be funded through $133 million. We recognise that it does take money to provide participation activities, which is why we are providing that money per job seeker who will be accessing that. We expect that, of course, some of that money will go towards Work for the Dole.

I might take this opportunity to point out some of the statistics that we have about Work for the Dole since we have moved to Job Services Australia. We do know that, whilst we continue absolutely to support Work for the Dole, our focus is on making sure that we are getting people off income support and into jobs and that we are using the best activity and the best participation requirements to get them to do that. December 2010 data indicates that over 60 per cent of job seekers who have undertaken education and training activities are in a job or studying three months after completing that activity. By comparison, only 35 per cent of job seekers who have participated in Work for the Dole have moved into work or further study. So we think it is really important that we actually look at the evidence and that we recognise that Work for the Dole has an important role and it will continue to have an important role, but it is not a one-size-fits-all solution and we need to make sure that there is flexibility in the system for employment providers to come up with the best activity to match those needs. That is the reason why this money will be provided in the same flexible way that the employment service providers will be able to absolutely direct that money into Work for the Dole, or they will be able to choose to direct it into other participation activities which they think might be more beneficial to that job seeker.

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

I have some questions flowing on from the earlier comments from both ministers dealing with the Building Australia's Future Workforce package and the particular reference they have made to the youth allowance. I commend both ministers on their endeavours in this area, particularly their faith in that labour market and understanding it is, after a downtime, to make sure people are prepared to come out of the bad times so that the labour market is trained and ready to go. I think we have learnt from some of those errors in the past—rather than just let the market rip. It is good to see that people in this parliament do have faith in markets as the way to achieve some of these things. I say that particularly as a Queenslander, because certainly some of the Beattie government's focus on that 'earning and learning' message is something that has translated into actions in this parliament.

I particularly note Minister Ellis's comments on the long-term unemployed. Some of those figures are a shock to see. Whilst we are the envy of the globe in terms of having unemployment with a four in front of it, some of those long-term unemployment figures are still going up, which is obviously something we need to change. We need to move the dignity of work into the households in some of our poorer suburbs. I can think of suburbs in my electorate where people are almost getting into the third generation of unemployment. There are no positive role models, no opportunities to break free.

With that preamble, I want to ask Minister Crean a question about these measures touched on in the youth allowance. They have been designed to confront the problem of young people who are neither working or studying; what figure does the government have to show the extent of the problem in these respects?

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

I thank the member for his question. The very long-term unemployed have been a nagging problem for this country. I was the minister responsible in the Keating government, and the Working Nation program was actively engaged in getting these people back into a workforce, while the nation was recovering from a recession. This exercise should be relatively easy in comparison, given that we have had no recession—in fact, we are the only developed country that avoided the recession. Nevertheless, these figures still show that there is a consistent problem there with people who have not had engagement with the workforce. It presents another barrier to engagement with the workforce.

So we have this conundrum. We have a potential skills shortage looming. We have a demand side and we have a potential supply side. To give you an idea of the extent of the figures: as at October 2010, 10.7 per cent of 15- to 24-year-olds were not in employment, education or training. That is around 320,000 people. Of those 320,000 people, 170,000 have not been in employment, education or training for 12 months. That is a wasted resource, given the challenge that we are facing.

In the Indigenous population, it is around 10 per cent—that is, 10 per cent of those not in employment, education or training are Indigenous. Of those figures that I have talked about, the over 11 per cent youth unemployment is much higher than the national average, as you pointed out. Almost half of young Australians who left youth allowance in September 2010 have been on these payments for more than a year.

So the challenge for us is: how do we better match that supply potential with the demand? That is why the budget concentrated on these measures to improve study and work incentives. There has been, as a result of the budget, greater incentive to work. I talked about that increase in youth allowance recipients in the income-free area. There will be greater incentive to study. That is important because we want to lift the retention rates. There will be more responsibility to complete year 12. We think again it comes back to this concept of mutual obligation. If we are prepared to commit the resources, those for whom they are targeted have a responsibility to take them up; they do not have the responsibility to stay away from work opportunities or training. We also have more incentives in there to give people the chance to attain basic skills. There will be more support out of this budget to transition to employment; there will be more support to manage the challenge of teen parenting, because this becomes an important issue in terms of family relationships; and there will be more support for families with children to help them stay at school.

This is a truly comprehensive package. We are doing it for two reasons. We are doing it because we believe that everyone should have the opportunity not just to enter the workforce but to be equipped with the skills to have a greater array of choice when they are exercising the opportunities for employment. So it is important for opportunity for the individual, but it is also important for the nation. If we are to avoid the constraint of skill shortages which have bedevilled us in the past, it is an absolute requirement for government to ensure that, for everyone who is capable of working, who wants to work, or who cannot work because they do not have the skills, every one of those categories is covered, and the suite of measures contained in this budget do just that.

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

Time is an issue, and the Committee will now consider the tertiary education and skills and school education, early childhood and youth segment of the portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration.

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

I am pleased to have the minister in the chamber to consider the budget in detail, as I did with the previous minister, who did not answer my questions in detail but preferred to engage in rhetoric, which was unfortunate. I assume that this minister will have a better grasp of the portfolio than his predecessor in the consideration in detail. I have so many questions I could ask the minister about his unravelling portfolio, but I intend to start with the Australian Baccalaureate. I have a series of questions which I will ask for five minutes, and then he might want to answer them or take them on notice and answer them all at the end. Each minister usually makes their own decision about how they wish to handle it.

The fact sheet on the Australian Baccalaureate, 'A world class qualification for a world class education', claims that this certificate is needed for 'high-performing students who want an internationally recognised qualification that measures a variety of achievements'. My questions are: was a research report, feasibility study or any other type of report commissioned before this announcement was made that a new certificate for high-performing students was needed? Secondly, how is this certificate intended to benefit students? Thirdly, why is an Australian Baccalaureate needed when there is an International Baccalaureate offered by schools for high-performing students, and won't the Australian Baccalaureate compete for the same cohort of students that currently undertake the International Baccalaureate?

Under this initiative, high-performing students would be 'electing to be certified for the award, similar to the way students can currently elected to undertake the International Baccalaureate'. My questions are: has there been any contact between the government and the International Baccalaureate's head office in Geneva to obtain details on how students elect to undertake the IB? Secondly, have any potential patent issues been discussed if the Australian Baccalaureate is to emulate the IB in this respect or any other respect?

The concept of one national senior secondary certificate is not a new idea. In 2006, a detailed research report to government, Australian Certificate of Education: exploring a way forward, examined the feasibility options for the introduction of a national senior certificate. The report looked at various options, including whether such a national certificate should be modelled on the International Baccalaureate. The ACER recommended against developing a baccalaureate-style certification in Australia, given the 'obvious implications for current state and territory certificates':

Schools and students wishing to go on to tertiary study would be faced with a choice between the ACE, the state/territory certificate, and the IB … Program. If the ACE were to become a preferred qualification for university-bound students across Australia, then existing state certificates are likely to take on a lower status as qualifications for other students participating in the senior years of school. Such an outcome may be undesirable.

My questions are as follows. First, has the nature of expert advice provided to government changed since 2006 such that it has led your government to decide that a baccalaureate-style certificate in Australia is desired? Second, how will the government ensure that existing state and territory qualifications are not be seen to be of a lower status after the Australian baccalaureate is introduced? Third, if the Australian baccalaureate is to provide at a price tag of $7.3 million rigorous certificates that are academic in nature only for high-achieving students, what are the benefits for other young people, who do not intend to pursue tertiary study?

Fourth, the ACER found in 2006 that it was unlikely that an Australian certificate of education would ever become an international certificate in the sense of an IB diploma program, so my question is: how is the AB proposed to be internationally recognised—formally or informally and with what countries?

Fifth, it appears that I am not alone in having difficulty understanding why this new voluntary baccalaureate-style qualification is needed. The Australian Secondary Principals Association's president, Sheree Vertigan, said:

… she was unsure if the certificate would flow naturally within the school system.

"The certificate has been developed for students looking to further their academic learning and is designed for high-achieving students" …

Specifically, she asked, and I ask on her behalf, why doesn't the national curriculum address that need rather than introducing another thing on top?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. I think that our commitment to introduce an Australian baccalaureate and our reasons for wanting to do that go to the heart of the significant and bold education reforms that this government is undertaking.

I turn to the specific questions that the shadow minister has put to me. I will take on notice the questions about research and patent information and whether there has been interaction between the department, the government and others and the baccalaureate organisation in Geneva.

On the shadow minister's other questions, I make the following points. I was recently lucky enough to spend time with principals and teachers who are very aware of the fact that in years 11 and 12 they have students who are contemplating study at institutions or universities in other parts of the world and/or who have been subject to moving from country to country over time. It is the case that baccalaureates are offered here which have an international component but which do not specifically link in with the curriculum that we have in Australia and that an Australian baccalaureate is seen as being an extremely important initiative in order to meet that structural deficiency. The Australian baccalaureate will be developed by ACARA, and the shadow minister would be aware of ACARA's achievements to date—they are considerable. They will develop that baccalaureate in partnership with the state and territory education authorities.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you sorted yourselves out over there?

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

We're very well sorted out.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you pay some attention, you might get some understanding of this answer. Pay some attention over there, Chris.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Pay some attention. As I was saying before I picked up on the hubbub coming from the shadow minister, the fact is that ACARA will work in partnership with existing state and territory education authorities, and the qualification will sit alongside existing senior secondary school qualifications. That will mean that Australian secondary students are able to acquire a credential of international standard similar to national certificates such as the British A-level and the French baccalaureate.

I say to the member opposite that I am a great respecter of the research of ACER. I also know that the complete suite of measures that we have in place as a government are about our developing a national approach to education which suits our national needs. The fact is that, for many long years in government, the now opposition had the opportunity to take a national approach to education, and they fudged it completely—they missed doing it altogether. Our commitment, on the other hand, is a significant one in terms of doing that. As the shadow minister knows, we now have a national curriculum underway. We now have national standards for teachers. We now have the provision of an unparalleled level of information for the Australian public, who have a great interest in education and how their kids are progressing, through the My School website and the continuation of NAPLAN testing. We also have a most significant investment—nearly double the investment that we saw previously under the coalition—across a suite of education measures which were introduced by the Prime Minister when she was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, and it is my great pleasure to be able to continue with those reforms.

Now, the fact is that the Australian Baccalaureate is not intended to replace existing state and territory certification and credentialling systems; it will operate alongside them. It will not replace existing qualifications such as the HSC but it will enable Australian students, particularly those who are contemplating further study in other countries, to have a certificate which reflects their legitimate desires. I think this is something which most reasonable people listening to this debate would recognise as a very worthy measure.

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

Minister, on Sunday night I attended a multifaith church service at St Marks Anglican Church in Golden Grove where five new chaplains were commissioned for schools in the electorate of Makin. I spoke to almost everyone there on the night, and there were probably 100 people. Without exception, they all applauded the government's commitment of an additional $200 million-plus to the School Chaplaincy Program and were very pleased to know that the program is to be continued for the next three years. Minister, firstly, how is the program being received? But perhaps more importantly, what kind of feedback are you getting in respect of the chaplaincy service that is being provided in the schools and what kind of demand is coming back to you in respect of that service?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Makin for his question, which goes to the heart of the government's significant commitment of some $222 million to provide the opportunity for some 1,000 schools, including schools in remote areas, schools with high Indigenous populations and schools in disadvantaged areas, to take up the opportunities that the National School Chaplaincy Program provides. My experience reflects the member's experience, which is that there is a strong demand for this program. It is a voluntary program and schools need to determine whether or not they wish to secure the services of a chaplain. When they do that, the guidelines make it very clear that it is not the purpose of the chaplain to proselytise a particular position, dogma or faith but, rather, to provide pastoral support to students and additional support for teachers. A teacher may encounter students within the school community who are experiencing troubling times at home or whatever it might be, and the chaplains are there to take some of that burden from the teachers. The teachers are there to teach and the chaplains are there to provide pastoral support.

I was interested to see that, after the experience that the people in Queensland went through when they had the terrible flooding last year, we received some requests for additional chaplaincy services to be provided in schools in Queensland, particularly those where some of the kids were suffering trauma and upset as a consequence of the floods. The program is well supported and it provides pastoral care and support to students within the school environment, which is appropriate.

We have some 2,675 schools Australia-wide that are funded under the program, and around 43 per cent of them are located in regional and remote Australia. From 1 January next year we will extend that program to up to 3,700 schools, which I think is a significant contribution by the government. It is the case that a review of the chaplaincy program is underway, and I will consider carefully the advice that comes through to me in terms of the consultations that have fed into the review. One of the things I think it is important to say is that the work of chaplains should be seen as something complementary to, not a replacement for, the work of others involved in the school and looking after the wellbeing of students and school communities. It is important to make sure that schools are supported in looking after the wellbeing of their students, and that is what this program does.

I want to make one more point before my time expires. This government has provided specific additional support focused on schools which are in what we describe as low-SES communities, through the Smarter Schools National Partnerships, where we want to specifically identify the kinds of investments that can help teachers in those schools teach the students that are there more effectively. There are a range of initiatives that schools have undertaken. For example, in schools with a high proportion of students with English as a second language, some principals have chosen to use some of that support from the government to increase the number of ESL teachers. Some schools that have people who have recently arrived in Australia, people who may have come from really difficult home countries, where there may be conflict, difficulty and suffering, provide appropriate counselling and liaison with those communities. There are schools where making sure that kids have the opportunity to be able to read and write effectively as they come through their primary school and into high school—but they have not been read to a great deal at school—to provide support for these kids and to take them through personalised learning and reading.

All of these investments have been specifically targeted to make sure that we lift up all of these kids in Australia and give them the best possible opportunities to have a great education. The chaplaincy program provides pastoral support in those schools that choose to have it and enables those teachers to do that other very good work.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two questions for the minister for child care. One I do not expect an answer to because I have written to you about this, but I am concerned enough about it to raise it here. The other concerns the childcare rebate.

Regarding the first matter, I would like to quote from an email from one of my constituents, an email that was received by your department, DEWR, regarding his childcare contracts which are due to expire on 30 June and there is a new funding deed from 1 July:

Further to our conversation a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to let you know that due to some system problems, we have not been able to produce the variations to existing budget based funded services yet. From the information I have on-hand, it is my understanding that we are likely to send variations out mid next week, only if our IT problems are resolved.

Minister, I am sure you would agree that is completely unsatisfactory. The new contract is due to commence in just over 15 days time. I ask you to expedite the process and note that I have written to you. Given that we have members here asking questions, I do not expect an answer to that.

My second question is quite specific. The budget papers appear to make no reference to the childcare rebate. My understanding is that the rebate is now $7,941 per annum. Does the government intend to reintroduce legislation to cap the CCR at $7,500 or will the rebate stay at $7,941 until it is indexed next financial year?

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the first point: I am more than happy to chase up the IT issues on the contracts. I would agree that we absolutely want to ensure that the contracts are finalised. The member would be aware that such is our commitment to these budget base funded services that we massively increased the funding for them in last year's budget. We want to make sure that we lift the quality of care right across Australia, and this includes where these budget base funded services operate, which is in the most disadvantaged, most at-risk communities. So I will personally look into why those contracts have not been finalised. But I want to put on the record that this government has shown through last year's budget that we recognise that these services need to be improved. We want to make sure they are improved. We know that this is the best start in life that many of these children have. For members who are not aware, the budget based funded services are services which the government funds in their entirety. We build them, we pay all of the fees, and that is because we know, through all of the international and domestic research, that this is one of the best opportunities that we have to break the cycle of disadvantage. So our commitment there is strong.

With regard to childcare rebate funding in the budget, members should see that the forward estimates indicate that we anticipate spending some $20 billion over the next four years on early childhood education and child care. To put this into perspective, this is some $13 billion more than the Howard government committed. It is quite phenomenal that there has been a massive increase. We are proud of this. We know that it is really important in order to assist families with affordability and accessibility of child care at the same time as we are going about lifting the quality of child care across Australia.

In relation to our earlier announced election commitment with regard to the childcare rebate cap, the government policy remains in place. We have not had any changes of policy to that, and there have been no announcements that go along with that, so we would anticipate that that is where the government's resolve remains.

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

I would like to pick up, firstly, the question by the member for Sturt in relation to the Australian Baccalaureate and also the member for Makin's question to you, Minister, about the National School Chaplaincy Program. I would like to record the deep appreciation of the constituents of Reid, whom I represent in this place, for those initiatives. I would also like to say how appreciative my constituents were in relation to other initiatives that were announced in this place just over five weeks ago. Specifically I am referring to the government's More Support for Students with Disabilities program. I have a number of children in my electorate who have been suffering disabilities, some profoundly so. The principals of those children's schools and the families of the students of those schools have expressed to me their deep appreciation for the assistance that our government is giving to them. Also in terms of the payments for great teachers, I think that for a long time teachers who have done such a great job in educating the future citizens of our country have probably felt that they have been neglected by governments of all persuasions. That has been very gratefully received, as has the Teach Next program and any number of initiatives in terms of our Indigenous Australians and the efforts by governments to improve their education and employment opportunities.

I know we have a very short time, and I do not need to say much more, but I would like to know what feedback you have received through your department, through your ministerial office and also from your electorate when you have been out and about. I well remember when you visited our vocational trade training centre in Burwood last year, which is a state of the art trade training centre which was converted from a Christian Brothers college by the Catholic Education Office last year. Subsequent to your visit—I do not know whether you are aware—the Prime Minister also visited the centre, and the Catholic Education Office cannot speak more highly of then Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Gillard's initiatives in terms of that investment. If you could deal with those in the short time that you have got and give us an update on how we are going, I would greatly appreciate it.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Reid for that question and I am very pleased to be able to provide him with an update. I must say that I very much enjoyed the opportunity to visit the Southern Cross Catholic Vocational College trade training centre with the member on 4 November. We were able to see the extensive facilities that were being put in place to help these kids realise their dreams of working in vocations that they had a great desire for and a great interest in. That facility was particularly interesting to me because it was one where the Catholic system had also provided a significant contribution so that they could maximise the benefit of the investment that the Commonwealth had provided through the trade training centre program itself. They had looked at a suite of training potentials for their students and they had delivered not only a hospitality area but also a tremendous performing arts space. I was particularly impressed with the way in which they had worked closely with other fellow schools in their system. The Southern Cross trade training centre will provide a tremendous opportunity for kids who decide that they do want to go into higher education or who are not necessarily going straight into the workforce. They will be able to go into areas of skills and trades which will then allow them to go on and build sustainable working lives for themselves once they leave school. That is really important.

Members listening would know that there is an issue about apprenticeship completion. We do have a lot of young Australians who decide to go down a particular skills route. They might do a couple of certs; they might get halfway through the apprenticeship and then we may not see successful completion. The government addressed that in the budget, which had a very strong skills focus, by providing some $200 million—I think $101 million for the mentoring package for apprentices and another $100 million for the accelerated package. That is a way of really focusing on this particular issue. We do know that a better skilled Australian workforce provides us with enduring foundations for long-term sustainability; but it is also important for young people coming into the workforce who perhaps encounter issues or obstacles that they did not quite realise were there. To have mentoring in that situation would be terrifically useful.

The fact is that the facilities at Southern Cross Catholic Vocational College in the electorate of the member Reid are amongst the best I have seen in Australia. But all of the trade training centre facilities that I have seen thus far have been of a very high order. It does mean that the training that takes place in the school environment is training which can be immediately applied and used as people go on to their vocational training journey.

Just quickly also to pick up on the member's question to me, I was extremely pleased that we were able to see over half a billion dollars worth of initiatives in this budget. In particular there was $200 million of new funding for support for students with disabilities and special needs. Everybody listening to the broadcast of parliament and everybody reading the record of this debate will know that one of the greatest needs in our school system at this point in time is that felt by the school community wanting to be able to provide the necessary support in the classroom for kids with special needs and disabilities. I think that $200 million was one of the great moments of the education budget in 2011. It has been extremely positively received right across the education sectors from all of those who work in this area and who realise how important it is.

Some $425 million was committed to national awards for great teachers. We know that the teacher is the most important person inside the school gate when it comes to providing an effective education for kids. They are the single most important figure there. To develop a nationally consistent performance management system and recognise effective teachers I think is an absolute boon to the profession and it shows that we understand how important providing a great education is. There were many measures in this budget which showed our commitment to providing a great education, and we are proud of all of them. (Time expired)

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

Minister, students and families in my electorate have been very badly impacted by the changes to youth allowance and we are in an area that has been defined as inner-regional. As a result, we have families that are now trying to get two jobs, students actively deciding not to pursue higher education or training and those who have had to give up their higher education dreams and come home because they cannot actually afford to be in training or at university.

I really need to know: how many students from inner regional defined areas who have to move to study are receiving the full independent youth allowance payment? How do these figures compare to the numbers prior to the changes to youth allowance? Of the additional students now accessing independent youth allowance, how many are from inner regional areas and are actually receiving full youth allowance payments? What proportion of the new students accessing youth allowance are receiving independent versus dependent youth allowance?

I refer the minister to the review by Professor Kwong Lee Dow and want to know whether this will be reported by July, as promised? I also refer the minister to comments made by the member for Parramatta on 30 May that the government is committed to removing eligibility distinctions between inner regional and outer regional students by 1 January 2012: will this happen, and when? And will it be available to current gap year students?

Finally: yesterday the Assistant Treasurer stated that the government is also looking at changing eligibility criteria for youth allowance so that our young people who are 20 and 21 will get youth allowance rather than the unemployment benefit if they are at home. Will this come from the existing pool of funding for youth allowance or will additional funding be applied to the youth allowance program? And will this have an impact on the number of students able to access youth allowance and the actual amount they receive? Thank you.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of the specific request for numbers that the member has made, it would be appropriate for us to take that question on notice. As to the general content of her questions I will just make the following points.

In relation to the specific question that the member asked around the review that is being chaired by Professor Kwong Lee Dow: this review will report by 1 July 2012, and the report will be tabled in both houses within 10 sitting days. Members should be aware–

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

In 2011?

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

Kwong Lee Dow is in 2011?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

2011–I beg your pardon. It will be tabled in both houses within 10 sitting days. Members should be aware that Professor Lee Dow has conducted a number of consultations around Australia. Of the 21 roundtables scheduled, two-thirds of those have been held in regional areas. So organisations, students and families, including those from regional areas, have had a good opportunity to contribute to the review either by attending the consultations themselves or by making a written submission.

Following the review, I can advise that the government will bring legislation to the parliament this year to implement new eligibility arrangements for youth allowance, removing the regional eligibility distinctions with effect from 1 January 2012. We always said we would review the most appropriate mechanism for determining the eligibility. In fact, we did legislate for that.

I can also advise the member that we have seen significantly improved financial assistance to students from low socio-economic backgrounds, including regional students, as a consequence of the government's reforms. We know that the latest statistics show that there has already been a 29 per cent increase in higher education in dependent youth allowance recipients from rural and regional areas, and that the government's reforms have benefited more than 85,000 young people who now receive the maximum rate of youth allowance, a higher rate of youth allowance or a payment of youth allowance for the first time. For the member's benefit, this includes almost 29,000 young people from rural and regional areas.

I will make an additional point here to the member that there are a number of initiatives underway. You know what some of them are, including the additional students who are receiving scholarships. There are about 190,000 or so of those, with around 44,000 from rural and regional areas. We have additional initiatives which operate for regional students for improving their university participation: removing the cap in the number of students who can enrol in undergraduate degrees, which means that more students from rural and regional backgrounds will have the opportunity to attend university; establishing a new regional priorities round of the Education Investment Fund; and completing the Structural Adjustment Fund to assist universities, particularly in those regional and outer metropolitan areas, to adapt to the reforms in the demand driven funding system that we have in place. It needs to be clearly stated that the government has also established the $20 million Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund which will provide additional financial assistance to country kids from disadvantaged backgrounds—the first round to be distributed.

The point here is that not only are we conducting significant reform through the tertiary sector to provide greater opportunities for students right around Australia to take up the benefits of a university education but also those reforms significantly provide opportunities for rural and regional students.

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

But not for the families in my electorate.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the interjections coming from opposite, the fact is that you presided for a decade or more over a university system where the participation of regional students declined. That is a fact that needs to be acknowledged in this House. Let us remember that regional participation rates actually fell in 2007, they didn't go up. Here you are: you went to the 2010 election wanting to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from funding, which was actually going to get low income students coming into universities, capping the participation and equity programs, and so on— (Time expired).

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

The member for Riverina—sorry, I will go this side.

Opposition members interjecting—

I will decide, thank you.

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

You have already called the member for Riverina.

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

I have just made a decision. Thank you, I have tried to be fair to both sides. I was incorrect in calling the member for Riverina. I want to be fair to this side as well. I call the member for Robertson.

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

We are continuing?

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

Please. If the committee wishes to continue, it will continue.

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

Minister, obviously the trade training centres, which you have addressed to some degree, are critical in the reformation of access to education that is really engaging and relevant for young people. It has been a privilege to have the trade training centre in our area begin to do that work of engaging young people, who are finding talents in areas that might not traditionally be found in a school context. Your visit to the Central Coast over the last week has been well received. We also have a wonderful performing arts centre that has been provided at Green Point Christian College. But as a member who lives in the city and nearby region to a city, I am very interested in how trade training centres are changing access to opportunities for people from regional areas. I would be interested to hear what you have to say.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Robertson for that question. I am mindful of the time that we have at our disposal so I will be brief in my response. I very much appreciated the opportunity to visit Green Point Christian College with the member and to experience an extraordinary range of performances from students not only from Green Point but from Terrigal High and other schools in the area as well. There was some fabulous talent on the Central Coast that I heard on Friday last week.

If we are going to be serious with equipping young Australians for a lifetime of work and participation, they need to have the opportunity to develop those skills when they are still at school. The trade training centre program, which represents a $2.5 billion investment over 10 years by this government, is one of the most significant investments in vocational education and training that we have ever seen. At every single one of those centres that I visit I see firsthand what a difference it is making to students such as at the Southern Cross Catholic Vocational College that I referred to earlier. I was also able to visit the Bendigo trade training centre at Bendigo Senior Secondary College quite recently. These centres all show how the provision of first-class infrastructure and training facilities will enable kids to get on that trade training journey, whether it is in automotive, in electrical, in hospitality or in the creative areas. The fact is that these trades training centres provide the opportunity for us to meet the skills challenges that we will face in the future. In this budget we have significant investment in skills, including Building the Future Workforce, a $3 billion investment over six years. As well as that, we are equipping these young students with every opportunity to go out into a trade and build a fantastic life for themselves and their families and their communities. I very much applaud the approach that has been taken by these schools in making sure that they partner together and deliver a cooperative group to put in for a trades training centre. I appreciate very much the cooperation that we have seen from small business and the business sector generally in making sure that, when kids come from school and continue their training or go into employment, businesses have already been involved with the kids as they have been working and learning in the trades training centres.

In conclusion, as we develop the national trade cadetship we will see that we have a national cadetship which provides kids with every opportunity to think about how they want to train within a school, then go onto an apprenticeship, then go into a business and build a working career for themselves over their lifetime. We place a lot of focus on skills and participation in the 2011-12 budget, and that is because we know that the opportunities that come with training and learning are absolutely necessary and essential not only to make sure that Australian citizens have got meaningful, good, sustainable work but that we build prosperity in the future. We want to make sure that kids can gain skills that are relevant to the workplace when they are in these trades training centres, and the outstanding level of support that we have had from schools right around Australia tells me that this policy is one that is absolutely to be commended.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate adjourned.