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

I move:

That the order for consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to on Tuesday, 2 June 2011 by the Main Committee be varied by considering the proposed expenditure for the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio after the Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio.

Question agreed to.

Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,157,267,000

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, it was confirmed at estimates that the industry department is doing a range of work on carbon tax and its impact on industry. In that context can you confirm the carbon tax will only be applied to fewer than 1,000 emitters? Can you guarantee it will not be applied to other businesses or other industries? On what basis is the government providing 52 per cent compensation to households and 46 per cent to industry under the carbon tax? Given that the CPRS as it started was supposed to provide only around 41 per cent to households, how much of a decline in compensation from that scheme would a level of 46 per cent represent for Australian industry? Isn't this just purely a front for an exercise in wealth redistribution? What detail can you provide industry about the proportion by which the tax will rise and what the level of compensation change will be beyond year 1? Has the government set a ceiling price beyond which the carbon tax will not escalate? If so, what is that?

Could you also please inform the House if either of these two statements is wrong. The first one is that every dollar that is raised by the payment of a carbon price by the companies that are emitting large amounts of pollution will be used towards supporting households. The second comment is that the carbon plan which we are now developing will involve additional support for manufacturing. Has the government requested briefings from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research or any other government agency about the steel industry's legal action against the EU in that jurisdiction over the implementation of its ETS? If so, which agencies and on what dates? Has any consideration being given to the implications for Australia? If so, what are these implications?

What consultation and work has the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the government more generally done on border tariff arrangements for the carbon tax? Are there any considerations for the introduction of border tariffs or any like actions with regard to the introduction of a carbon tax?

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 her questions. On the question of a carbon tax generally, the government has been very clear about the process which is now underway to determine the most appropriate way of pricing carbon in the Australian economy. The member will be aware that there is a climate change committee that is involved in consultation and discussion with the government and that the government will bring forward that proposal once the processes for consultation have been concluded. The member will also be aware that there has been significant consultation with industry, and that has been the hallmark of the government's approach to delivering a price on carbon. Those consultations are varied and diverse but I can assure the member that consultation with industry has always been and will remain one of the important principles that this government follows in relation to a reform of this kind. I will refer now to a couple of the specific questions that the member put to me, which I will take on notice. The questions relate to whether or not there has been any research, consultation or interaction on the question of border tariffs. I might have slightly paraphrased the question that was put to me by the member, but it is on the record. We will take that particular question on notice. Again, I think it is appropriate to take on notice the question of whether or not there have been any briefings or advices sought in relation to legal action being taken in respect of the steel industry and issues around them more generally.

On the question of whether or not the government has come to a view about a ceiling price for the carbon tax, again, I refer the member to both my earlier comments in answer to her question and also to the comments made by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, by the Prime Minister, by the Treasurer and by others on numerous occasions, including in question time, pointing out the processes that are underway and the principles that underpin the government's approach on climate change.

I will make one observation to conclude this answer, and it is simply this: many businesses agree that a price on carbon is the most efficient way to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most climate scientists are unanimous in agreeing that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to stabilise the climate so that we do not suffer the expensive impacts of dangerous climate change. The long-term sustainable prosperity of our nation, including in respect of our industrial base, our innovation, our research, our development of new technologies and industries and the like, is very much linked to our capacity to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the most cost-effective way for us to do that is to have a price on carbon. Economists are of a single view about that. Members of the party of the member opposite are of a single view about that. And, in order to have a price on carbon introduced into the Australian economy we need to agree on the way in which that particular scheme will be brought forward.

I am very confident that the process of consultation and negotiation that is underway, not only with industry but with all of the other players in this substantial reform, is being conducted in a way that enables the government to have a clear view about the most effective way for us to introduce this important reform. For those of us who are genuinely interested in innovation and genuinely interested in building a low-carbon economy, the introduction of a carbon price is a much needed element.

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

It is my pleasure to firstly congratulate the government and particularly the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr—and I understand that the minister here is representing Senator Kim Carr today in relation to questions on his portfolio—on what the government has been doing to support businesses and enterprises across this country, including in my electorate. I also congratulate the government on acknowledging the importance of supporting industry innovation and on the range of programs that this government has implemented, not just in this budget but in previous budgets, to support innovation and R&D to help businesses build their enterprises and expand, hopefully, into exports as well.

One of those programs is the $34.4 million Buy Australian at Home and Abroad initiative, which was recently announced. This is the one I would particularly like the minister to address. It is great that the government acknowledges that some suppliers are missing out because of established global vendor lists and the trend towards pre-assembled modules. Having said that, major resources projects provide significant opportunities for Australian suppliers, and it is my understanding that that is what this initiative is about—taking advantage of those significant opportunities that will be before Australian suppliers and helping them to grow. Minister, perhaps you could advise the House how the $34.4 million Buy Australian at Home and Abroad program is going to provide that support and assist those businesses to take up those opportunities and deal with those many challenges that face them. I understand that will include new Enterprise Connect business advisors. I know the new Enterprise Connect business advisors that are operating around the country have been working very well already. If I understand correctly, that will be expanded through this program. I am interested in hearing some more about that and how it will help suppliers across the country.

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 that question. It goes to the heart of this government's commitment to make sure that we have long-term opportunities for Australian businesses to continue to build their business both here and abroad. Certainly it is the case, as the member reflects, that the major resources projects do offer significant opportunities for Australian suppliers, but it is also the case that some are missing out. The budget commitment, which I think is an extremely important one, of some $34.4 million over the next four years will ensure that these Australian suppliers directly benefit from the growth we are seeing in the resources sector, particularly by more effectively linking the suppliers with the project opportunities that are out there and enhancing industry capabilities as well.

The fact is that the viability of Australian manufacturing depends not only on its ability to integrate into global supply chains but also on its ability to improve productivity and to innovate. That is at the heart of the challenge for our manufacturing, so facilitating access to supply chains and enhancing industry capability is extremely important for this government.

I am very pleased to inform the member that the government will invest $27.6 million over four years for Supplier Advocates and Enterprise Connect to enable them to work with Australian firms, identify opportunities and secure those opportunities. I have had some experience with Enterprise Connect already. I think it is one of the most outstanding and visionary initiatives of this government, and it is one that I know industry itself has been particularly pleased to see delivered.

The new Supplier Advocates will be deployed in the resources sector. That is where we are seeing such an increased tempo of economic activity now. They will be able to identify and lead practical industry development projects like supply chain improvement programs, risk management training and the like. It is intended that they be respected industry representatives and that they will provide leadership to address some of the issues and some of the barriers that we know are out there and are faced by industry. It is important to recognise that the Australian Made Campaign Ltd supply chain advisor will also be appointed. This is an opportunity to provide linkages and collaboration between Australian companies and Australian Made Campaign Ltd itself.

I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House that a Resources Sector Supplier Advisory Forum will also enable the bringing together of major resource companies, Australian suppliers and, importantly, unions to make sure that they identify the opportunities and the potential barriers to Australian industry participation in major resources projects. The key thing here is to have a thorough, comprehensive, targeted and focused effort to ensure that Australian businesses can take up the opportunities that are presented by the significant resources boom we are seeing take place right around the country, particularly in states such as Western Australia and in the Northern Territory. I conclude by saying that I think the minister has taken absolutely the right steps in recognising the challenges that Australian manufacturing and industry face, identifying that there are significant opportunities, given the increasing activity in the minerals sector, and enabling people to work cooperatively together to deliver those kinds of solutions to make sure that Australian manufacturing can continue to prosper.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what has been achieved in practical terms by the Food Processing Industry Strategy Group? Is the modelling of the Australian Food and Grocery Council right when it says that food and grocery prices should be expected to rise by between three and five per cent under the proposed carbon tax? Is Citigroup right when it says a carbon tax will impact on the profitability of supermarket retailers by between two and four per cent? If not, why are these figures refuted? Has the minister or anyone from the department met with the Australian Food and Grocery Council to consult on the impact on food and groceries of a carbon tax? Have either you or Minister Carr seen or asked for any Treasury modelling of the impact on food and groceries?

Regarding Commercialisation Australia: do you accept as correct the evidence given to us at estimates by officers of Commercialisation Australia that collectively 137 staff and case managers have been employed as part of the program during the two years of its life, yet if you add together the grants made in those two years you will see that there have been just 116 of them—in other words, this program effectively employs more staff than there are grants?

Regarding science education programs and the internationalisation of science: how much more money in this year's budget did the Primary Connections and Science by Doing science education programs, respectively, need in order to achieve their aims? How much was sought by the Academy of Science, and what advice was provided to the government about how much extra funding would be required in order to make the programs fully self-sustaining? Given the funding has been completely scrapped, is it the government's assessment that these programs were not effective? On what basis was the International Science Linkages program abolished in the budget? Has the department or the minister's office received representations from embassies and/or high commissions in Canberra in relation to the termination of the program? If so, can you be more specific about how many and what representations have been conveyed to the government or any department about the decision?

The budget papers further indicate that the department is going to be employing 96 more staff over the next year. Can you please provide details and explain where in the department and in what capacity those extra staff will be employed? What is the progress of the implementation of the Inspiring Australia program? What has been put in place in practical terms so far?

Regarding the R&D tax credit: when the Greens signalled their agreement to the government's R&D tax credit legislation, this week, they said it would address the alleged problem of a small number of companies taking a large share of the total funding. But wouldn't you agree that the rules are such that any company's eligibility for the concession makes absolutely no difference to anyone else's and that it is in fact an entitlement scheme, rather than a competitive scheme? Why has there been so little public consultation on the government's new laws, when will the opposition be able to see the new wording in the bill and why have the crucial feedstock provisions in the bill never been the subject of public consultation of any kind? Why hasn't Treasury modelling of the changes been released? Will you make a commitment to the House that this modelling will now be made available, more than two years after the government first announced its plans in relation to this legislation? Now that the government has said it is supportive of the idea of making quarterly cash payments to some of the recipients, can you clarify why?

If it is such a good change, why isn't it being introduced until 2014? And no matter when it is introduced, doesn't the whole nature of how these kinds of tax arrangements work mean that a structural change like that will inevitably create all sorts of logistical and administrative problems in its practical operation?

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

The member has asked a series of questions. I am not sure that I got each and every single one noted down, but certainly those questions that I do not address directly here I will take on notice, as is the appropriate process in this consideration in detail.

In relation to a question that the member has asked around the Food and Grocery Council and a set of figures that she has referred to from Citigroup, I will take that particular question on notice, as I represent the minister, as I will the questions she raised about whether or not there has been any Treasury modelling done in relation to that question that she asked. I have seen some of the commentary from the Food and Grocery Council. We recognise that, like other major stakeholder groups, they play a legitimate role in putting a view into the debate around the price on carbon and other related issues. However, we are particularly mindful that the high Australian dollar and the higher input costs do produce some pressures on the food processing industry.

One of the most important things that we as a government can do is to assist in innovation, to develop an innovation strategy. I note that the minister has announced the establishment of a food processing industry strategy group, and also of a food industry support network, operating through Enterprise Connect, to enhance business development and innovation services provided to the sector. This is clearly something which the government is addressing and is mindful of, and the government does intend to consult key stakeholder groups during coming months in relation to those issues—not only on those issues that the government knows are important to the Food and Grocery Council and the food industry generally, but also more generally, in relation to making sure that our industries have the best opportunity they can to respond to the challenges they face.

The member has asked me questions in relation to Commercialisation Australia. I will take those questions on notice. In relation to the questions that the member has asked me about the R&D tax credit, I make the point to the member opposite that the purpose of the R&D tax credit is to replace the existing R&D tax concessions, which was strongly recommended by the review, as the member would know, of the National Innovation System. This is an important review, it is long overdue, and we are committed to delivering it. The government has made clear that the new R&D tax credit is to focus assistance on activities that are likely to deliver economy-wide benefits—that is the key here—that would not be enjoyed otherwise in the absence of public support. This will mean that there is an extension of government support for genuine research and development, encouraging many more Australian companies, especially smaller firms, to invest in research and development. Again the member has asked questions in relation to Treasury modelling, and again those questions specifically will be taken on notice. I would make the point that the new R&D tax credit is not a cost-saving measure. Eligibility criteria have been rationalised, yes, but the key intent of this tax incentive is to improve Australia's innovation and productivity performance, and that happens by us having the opportunity to deliver something which will support genuine research and development. It is intended to assist genuine research and development activities, and it does not discriminate against any industry sectors. I commend the minister for his very good work in this area.

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

I wish to ask the minister questions relating to the funding for innovation in Australia. It is an issue that is particularly important for my electorate of Fraser. People often think of the ACT as being fundamentally a government town. I think of it as being an innovation town, a place where new ideas are generated in public policy but also in our educational institutions. There is the Australian National University, which is producing ideas across the gamut from the public policy centres of the HC Coombs Policy Forum to the Crawford School of Economics and Government and the excellent research being done on China and South-East Asia, as well as by my former colleagues in the Research School of Economics. There is also a variety of cutting-edge physical science research being done at the Australian National University.

I have visited some of the research facilities, including the solar thermal dish, which you can see as you drive along Parkes Way towards the city, and there is also the research being done at ANU looking at different ways of generating solar cells—ways of ensuring that solar cells are produced as cheaply as possible, which of course has big gains for Australia. The cheaper that we can make our solar cells, the quicker that we are able to move to renewable technologies. A price on carbon is going to substantially drive that innovation. I know that you, Minister, representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, will be able to tell me something about some of the research that is being subsidised by the government, investment which will lead to more clean tech opportunities for Australia.

Minister, I would also like you to provide us with some information on the square kilometre array. I know that yesterday Senator Carr met a group of primary school students on the Parliament House lawns. The square kilometre array bid is already inspiring and engaging young Australians with science and innovation. Minister, are you able to tell us how the square kilometre array funding will help secure other projects for Australia? I know that these sorts of projects can often have spillovers, much as we know has happened in many of the ideas hubs in the world. Silicon Valley spills out of Stanford, and the Boston Route 128 tech corridor spills out of Harvard and MIT. I would appreciate some insights from you as to how the government expects that some of this new investment around the square kilometre array will lead to more innovation in Australia. Of course, to the extent that that is located in the national capital, that will be a great pride to me.

The University of Canberra has a range of different research centres doing really important, cutting-edge work around the health sciences, in public policy and in the physical sciences themselves. The Australian Catholic University and UNSW@ADFA are also fine research institutions in the Fraser electorate doing really critical work which will improve living standards for future Australians as well as providing jobs in those high-tech industries. Good jobs of the future are being assisted through these science research institutions.

And of course we have Questacon now providing science education to so many young Australians. It will soon be using the National Broadband Network to allow Australian children who are not able to come to Canberra to access many of the good ideas available at Questacon. Questacon is an institution in the ACT that does the nation enormously proud. The work being done at Questacon complements the scientific research at Australia's key universities, many of which are located here in the ACT.

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 his question. He would well know, as is clear from the content of his question, how crucial innovation is not only to this government but also to the electorate that he represents and to this city in which the parliament is located. It is the case that we have a number of outstanding research institutions here, operating through the two universities, the University of Canberra and the ANU, but we also have a significant CSIRO presence. I too am a great fan of Questacon. I think it provides immeasurable benefits, not only in its research but in its communication and education functions, which are very highly developed and which many young Australians benefit from.

The fact is that the government's spending on science and innovation increased by around 43 per cent from 2007-08 to 2011-12. The government recognises that innovation is the key to making Australia more productive and competitive. All of the big challenges that we have ahead of us, but particularly climate change, social disadvantage and health problems, can be better managed if we have a strong innovation drive coming through our industries and our economy. We have introduced a number of important and crucial initiatives. I referred to one of them in my previous answer to a question from the member opposite—the new research and development tax credit. There is also Commercialisation Australia, the Super Science Initiative and further support for the venture capital industry. There are new initiatives including Inspiring Australia and Clean 21.

The budget has a number of important measures that the government decided to provide specific support for in science, industry and research. There is support for the bid to host the square kilometre array radiotelescope with New Zealand. The member has asked me a question about that and I will return to that in a moment. There is the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad measure. There is support for the implementation of the National Construction Code—a great opportunity for innovation in the built environment, where we know that there is so much leakage of greenhouse gas emissions. There is also Science for Australia's Future. In particular, there is funding for ANSTO to allow it to continue to decommission obsolete facilities, facilities which have reached the end of their useful life. We are proud of the commitment that we have made to innovation. We are providing considerable support.

We are very excited in particular about the SKA project, which the member referred to earlier on. What tremendous benefits there would be here. We would have the biggest telescope in the world in our backyard. What a coup this would be for Australia as a driver of innovation and science in this country. We think that this project has the potential to bring substantial economic benefits to regional communities, to Indigenous people. It will bring high-skilled jobs, major construction, significant operation contracts, technology transfer, and innovation and technology focused support industries. All of these mean that Australia can be the location of the world's largest, fastest and most sophisticated data processing and transport network. I think this is a project that we are going to hear a great deal more about, not only in the parliament but more widely afield. The funding we have put in place means that we can make a competitive bid to host this project and really take our place as a major partner in one of the most significant scientific endeavours of the 21st century. What do we see as a government and what does the minister identify as absolutely critical in terms of potential benefits? Clearly it is technology spin-off and commercialisation opportunities, as valuable potentially as the globally used Wi-Fi technology already developed by CSIRO and technology that emerged from radioastronomy research. What a tremendous example for us that can tell us where the square kilometre array project might take us. We think the opportunities here are really significant, and I am absolutely pleased that the government has been able to provide the funding to support a competitive bid for a project of this scope and possibility.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has paid out $149 million under the Green Car Innovation Fund for a project with the Holden Cruze. Can you confirm the car will have all its engines imported, two from South Korea and one from Austria, and that it will also have all its gearboxes made overseas and probably its on-board computers and many other components too? Given that it received $35 million under the fund, can you inform the House which parts of the hybrid Camry are Australian made and what the figure is for the proportion of locally and overseas made components for the car? Given that it received $40 million under the fund, can you inform the House which parts of the green Commodore are Australian made and what stipulations the government has made to ensure there will be a high percentage of Australian components in the car? Isn't it correct that the Euro 6 emission targets announced by Minister Albanese on Saturday are unachievable unless there are radical changes to Australian fuel quality and standards and that no Australian refinery will actually be able to make the necessary changes without enormous ramifications for their operations?

On a further matter regarding car industry policy, what is the government's response to the series of revelations in recent days about the serial rorting of the luxury car tax rules? Do you agree there has been sustained tax evasion occurring? If not, on what basis do you reject those conclusions? If you are unsure about this particular information, what action is the government taking on this issue and what advice has it sought?

Regarding the cooperative research centres, the government has now slashed funding for CRCs by another $33.4 million. In the wake of these cuts I have got statements that inform us that CRCs have been instrumental in promoting public-private research partnerships, and others opposed to cuts say that funding should be improved to ensure CRCs deliver the best possible outcomes for researchers, industry and the entire Australian community. Are those sentiments correct and appropriate? Why has the government chosen to slash funding for CRCs, and aren't people who are arguing that these cuts are ill-considered absolutely right?

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 her question. In relation to the specific questions she has asked about the relative proportion of imported parts within those cars identified as receiving support from the Green Car Innovation Fund and the question she asked additionally about the Camry and the green Commodore, I will take those questions on notice. I would make one basic point, though. This government has provided support because it knows that across all levels of our economy, including across automotive industries, we need to get on a path to a more sustainable future and motor vehicles have their role to play just as a number of other industries do in being able to take an innovative and a purposeful approach to actually reducing emissions over time. This is something which was not contemplated in any significant way by the coalition when they had those opportunities. The fact is that we do have a suite of measures in place to foster innovation across all industry sectors. We are specifically committed to the long-term future of these industries and the minister is particularly aware, as is the government, that there are significant competitive pressures that face the Australian manufacturing sector. We have put in place a range of measures to make sure that we can provide appropriate assistance to enable these industries to be globally competitive. What is A New Car Plan for a Greener Future, with a $5 billion commitment in it, if it is not evidence of this government's commitment to supporting innovation in the automotive industry? I cannot think of any other statistic that can provide that opportunity. In particular, there is the $3.4 billion Automotive Transformation Scheme to reward research, development and investment in technologies that will, as the name suggests, help transform the industry.

The fact is that the Green Car Innovation Fund made around half a billion dollars available to the industry and has leveraged around $2 billion in total investment and assisted the local industry to weather the kinds of storms that they have faced in the global financial crisis. I think there are significant achievements here: helping Toyota secure the investment for the locally produced hybrid Camry—what a significant achievement for the minister and for the government. This is a motor vehicle that we will increasingly see on our roads—a motor vehicle that is more efficient. Other achievements include enabling GM to invest in the local production of the Holden Cruze and assisting Ford towards introducing the fuel-efficient EcoBoost engine for the Falcon. These are extremely important supports and they are ones that are going to pay significant dividends for both consumers and the country as a whole in the future.

The member has asked me to make comment about reported—I think she used this expression—'rorting' of the luxury car tax. I will take that question on notice as well. What I would say is that we totally understand how important it is to provide appropriately targeted support in innovation, in supporting industry and in building sustainability across the manufacturing sector. The fact is that the member opposite and her leader have plans to make massive cuts to industry programs. They want to take half a billion dollars away from the Automotive Transformation Scheme that I have just referred to, a scheme that provides important co-investment in research and development and increases the competitiveness opportunities for the automotive industry, an industry we have consistently and strongly supported and will continue to do so. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,238,371,000

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

I ask the minister: if an age pensioner receives a one-off payment of $390.97 for assisting the Australian Electoral Commission on election day and notifies Centrelink of the payment, assuming they otherwise receive no form of income other than the pension, apart from this payment, how will their pension rate change?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Menzies for his question. I will get the specifics worked out for him but I am very pleased to be able to inform the Committee that the legislation for the new Work Bonus went through the Senate yesterday. The government is very pleased that it is able to offer age pensioners more support—certainly more support than ever even dreamt of by the previous, Howard government. In addition to the new work bonus that will enable age pensioners who want to get some employment income to keep more of that income, this government delivered the most significant increases to the pension in the last 100 years and introduced a new form of indexation to ensure that the pension keeps up with the cost of living for older Australians who rely on it. These changes were never introduced by the previous, Liberal government. The value of the pension did not reflect the increases in the cost of living that pensioners faced. It was up to this government to introduce a new cost-of-living index for pensioners. That now applies and has resulted in the delivery of higher increases to the pension through indexation. It was also this government that improved the wage cost index relationship for the pension, which once again is something that is benefiting pensioners. I am very pleased that the new work bonus has proceeded through the parliament. We made a commitment to it in the election campaign and it will be delivered from 1 July—in a couple of weeks time. I will get the specifics worked out for the member for Menzies.

While I am on my feet, I would like to highlight some of the other major initiatives in this budget for families, seniors, people with disabilities and their carers, people with mental health issues and very vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians. This budget really does deliver very significantly for all of those groups. In addition to the new work bonus passing through the parliament yesterday, I am very pleased to inform the Committee that legislation fulfilling our commitment to parents with older teenagers has passed through the parliament. For teenagers and parents of teenagers this too is a very, very significant improvement. One of the very important changes that we have tied to the increase in family payments for teenagers is the requirement that those teenagers must be in school or equivalent vocational education. It has passed through the parliament and is funded in this budget. It is, once again, an election commitment that the government made and has carried out. It is one that we are very proud of.

The bill that passed yesterday brought into force another election commitment that will benefit families, and that is improved and more generous advances. We know that, especially for those families who are doing it very tough and find it difficult to manage their finances fortnight to fortnight, there are occasions when families need extra money. It might be due to the fridge or the car breaking down. These advances can certainly be very important for those families, so I am very pleased that the legislation passed through the parliament yesterday—another election commitment delivered by this government.

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

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the minister on all the fine work she has done in her portfolio area. She has always delivered and has never lost sight of the objective of her portfolio. I do not think there is a person in Australia who could fault her performance. It shows that she is a person with longstanding experience in this area and really understands her portfolio and is totally committed to it.

I have a question for the minister about community mental health. But, before I ask it, I would like to emphasise just how important investment in community mental health is. Currently the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing is conducting an inquiry into youth suicide, and we intend to table that report prior to the end of this session. That inquiry has discovered how important the availability of community mental health services is and the fact that, if they are available, they can really help young people. Headstart is one of the programs that have benefited many young people.

In a previous life I worked in helping people with a mental illness live independently in the community, develop the life skills they needed and then move into employment. Unless you have the services on the ground, a person is not able to maintain their lifestyle or maintain living in the community, which leads to constant hospitalisation, homelessness and being interred in correctional facilities. It demonstrates just how important it is to have the right sort of community mental health services to maintain people living in the community when they have some form of mental illness and also lead them back to health.

Given the background I have just given, I ask that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs provide details of the government's investment in community mental health programs.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Shortland for her kind remarks. As I am sure all members are aware, the issue of mental health was a significant one for the government in this budget. There were many initiatives, some in the health portfolio, which I will not touch on today, and some in this portfolio. As the member for Shortland rightly indicates, it is very important that we provide support for people with mental illness living in the community so that they can continue to live in the community and get the sort of support they need.

I was very pleased to be able to go to Bendigo just after the budget with the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing to see the excellent work being done at St Luke's and to talk to people who live in the community with mental illness who depend on the local service provided by St Luke's. We are very pleased to be able to extend that type of service, so there will be an extra $154 million over the next five years for community organisations to employ an extra 425 additional personal helpers and mentors. The job they do is to provide one-on-one support, and that is why I think the words 'personal helpers and mentors' are appropriate, because they indicate that personal support is so critical.

Also included in the budget initiatives is $201.3 million over five years, which will be provided by incentives to the states to increase investment in two areas that we know are very important for people with mental illness who are living in the community. One is to make sure that there is adequate support for those who have housing difficulties—to provide housing and accommodation support—and the other is to make sure that some of that money is used in emergency departments. I think we would all be aware—and I would say this is true right across the parliament—of the pressure on emergency departments and the desire to make sure that people who present with mental illness to emergency departments are properly cared for and that their way through both the hospital system and the out-of-hospital environment is well managed. That is what this money is aimed at doing. We do know how important it will be to make sure that, where possible, people with mental illness are able to get work. So $50 million will be allocated to the Personal Helpers and Mentors Program to help people with mental illness get back to work. I was pleased to see people at St Luke's in Bendigo doing exactly that, with the support of Disability Employment Services. In previous budgets we have extended the availability of support through Disability Employment Services.

We are also providing additional funding—$54.3 million—for extra mental health respite services. I have met some of the older parents of adult offspring with serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, and they certainly need support. The carers need support—they need some respite—so we are very pleased to be able to provide that support.

The other area that is funded in the health portfolio but that is pertinent here is the support we are providing to bring all this together to make sure that care is coordinated, both in the community and across community mental health services and the health sector. I am sure that that too will make a big difference to both the individuals with mental illness and their carers.

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

When the minister comes back with details on the question I asked earlier, perhaps she could also indicate whether the example I gave is covered by the work bonus and, if it is not covered by the work bonus, whether she has plans to rectify that situation. Secondly, can I ask about income management. Who selected the income management trial areas that were announced in the budget? What criteria were used for the selection of those areas? Was there any community consultation involved in making the selection? Finally, I note that the member for Wakefield has been very vocal in calling for income management in his electorate. Why was his electorate not selected as a trial site?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I could just correct the last remark of the member for Menzies. It is correct that the member for Wakefield has been very vocal and very supportive of income management, and his electorate does cover the local government area of Playford. The member for Menzies might like to read many of the public comments that have been made by the member for Wakefield that have welcomed the introduction of income management into his electorate. I am not quite sure where the member for Menzies is getting his information. Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, you would also be aware that we have been very pleased to support the extension of income management into Rockhampton. Like the member for Wakefield, you have been a very strong advocate for income management, understanding the very significant benefits it has for individuals and families to better manage their money.

We of course took advice both from my department and from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, which are the two main areas. We are concerned about the very high levels of unemployment in certain parts of Australia. We looked at the differences in unemployment rates and we looked at the numbers of people on income support in those different areas. If the member for Menzies would like information about some of those numbers, of course we are happy to share them with him. Those areas are now going to have the opportunity of income management. That is how I see it. From the comments that have been generally made by the opposition, I was under the impression that the opposition supported the approach that it will be of benefit to individuals and families to help them better manage their money. Regarding the way we are going to introduce income management into the five areas, where child protection authorities recommend to Centrelink that a family—and particularly a child—would benefit from income management, Centrelink will be able to manage up to 70 per cent of their welfare payments. When Centrelink decides that an individual is vulnerable, Centrelink will be able to introduce income management. What we have found in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory is that there is great value in introducing voluntary income management, and that too will be done in each of the five locations. I am happy to talk further with the member for Menzies about the sorts of numbers that demonstrate why we have these areas, including things like very high long-term unemployment, which of course is a primary driver of our concern.

On the question of the work bonus, obviously we will look at the issue first. I will respond to the second part of the question once I have looked at the first.

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

In my electorate, Wesley Mission Homelessness and Support Centre at Ringwood will receive about $300,000 over the next three years for the continuation of emergency relief funding. That will make a great difference to local residents. I have visited Wesley on many occasions. I, along with the parliamentary secretary, was there recently to talk to them. The services they provide to local constituents are quite wide ranging. In particular, they provide food and petrol vouchers, clothing and emergency housing for people in crisis. The outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne have particular pockets of people with low income or very little income at all and many of them end up at services such as Wesley. It is not only Ringwood; an area in Croydon has similar issues. Many people end up going through one service or another, but without that type of support they end up literally on the streets.

The issue that has been run in the local press, particularly in the Maroondah Leader, over many years is about the crisis where people without enough income cannot find housing in the area and are able to receive support from an organisation such as Wesley. It is a vital support in the outer eastern suburbs. Wesley is not the only service providing this. The Salvation Army in Ringwood received funding and the North Ringwood Uniting Church received funding in the same measure. Both of those organisations service a similar demographic in a quite similar area and many of their clients cross over from one to another.

The question I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary is: could you give an update on how much emergency relief funding will be received by service providers right across Australia? I know how much is happening in my own little area, but I would like to get a bigger picture so that I can take that story back and show people that it is not just recognition of the problem; we are actually dealing with it right across the country.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Deakin for his question. It was indeed a pleasure to be with the member for Deakin at services in his area just a week or so ago. We saw the support being provided to vulnerable families at a time of crisis when they visit the centres. In the budget we saw significant financial support through emergency relief for vulnerable Australians. In fact, there is $171.9 million for frontline community organisations for financial management programs. There are the big providers, such as the Salvation Army, Anglicare, St Vincent de Paul and others, right down to community houses that provide some emergency relief. Certainly, when it comes to emergency relief, a whole range of organisations across the country are providing it. In this budget we have added an extra $83.3 million over four years for emergency relief. That includes $4 million also for Foodbank Australia, which is $1 million each year for the next four years. So there are a whole range of measures in that emergency relief that we are supporting vulnerable Australians with. This measure is after the GFC top-up. In the two previous years, as a global financial crisis measure, we boosted funding for emergency relief during the global financial crisis. As the minister and I went around the country talking to providers, it became very obvious that the need was still there in the local communities, and we had lobbying from members such as the member for Deakin—and I notice that the member for Blair is here also—who were saying that the need was still very high in their local communities and asking what was happening with emergency relief. The end of the global financial crisis funding was 30 June, and organisations were expecting funding to go back to pre-GFC levels. In this budget we have been able to achieve ongoing secure funding of the base funding. It is a significant increase on the base funding. It is in fact the largest increase to the base funding of emergency relief since the program began in 1977.

This additional money will support an additional 500,000 vulnerable Australians and vulnerable families at a time of crisis. Last financial year, with the global financial crisis additional top-up, more than one million Australians were assisted at emergency relief outlets right around the country. I have had the privilege to travel and visit many of these outlets around the country in my role as parliamentary secretary. As I said, whether it be from the larger providers or from the local community providers, it is certainly a much-needed service in our local communities. You get families turning up for whatever reason—they have had a car breakdown or they have had an unexpected bill—who need some additional one-off support. Also, some of the emergency relief providers now, with the flexibility that we have provided them, are putting on case management workers who, on repeat visits with clients, are sitting down with them and asking, 'Is there something else we can help you with?' and then referring them on to other services for their financial literacy skills or their financial support. That might be through low-interest loans, which the government is also supporting with an additional $60 million in the budget, also over four years, through the Good Shepherd organisation or the Brotherhood of St Laurence.

We have put together a range of measures, a whole suite of them, to support these families. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs just referred to one of them in terms of the bill that has gone through the House, with more flexibility in the family tax benefit for people. There are a range of measures for these vulnerable families at a time of crisis. The government is providing that support so that they can get a hand up to get on with their lives and support their families and their children.

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

I refer the minister to her answer about the electorate of Wakefield. Can she confirm that it is only part of the electorate of Wakefield which is covered by the trial? I think she referred to the City of Playford. Maybe she can tell us what proportion of that electorate is covered by the trial.

Secondly, I refer her to the evidence in the recent Senate estimates that the government had received advice as early as January 2010 about the freezing of family benefits. I ask: why did the government choose to conceal the fact that they would perpetrate this hit against two million Australian families until after the election? And, in the context of that advice not having been made public until recently, can the minister indicate what other policy proposals are currently being or have been costed by her department? Given the change that is occurring on 1 July in relation to the Senate, I include: is the government costing any policy proposals from the Greens?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just because the member for Menzies got the issue of Wakefield wrong does not mean that he can try and have another go. The City of Playford is in the electorate of Wakefield. It is part of the electorate of Wakefield. All of the five areas are local government areas.

On the other question of the pauses to family tax benefits, of course the member for Menzies is well aware of the answer to this question because the opposition had a go at this in estimates, so I do not have anything further to say other than what was said by my officials in estimates. I remind the member for Menzies of the opposition's support for this measure when it was introduced in 2009. The government first paused the upper income limits on family tax benefits and the baby bonus in 2009 with the opposition's support. It is the case that we are proposing to extend that limit pause by another two years. The critical thing that I want to remind the member for Menzies of, if he needs a reminder, is that the responsible shadow minister at the time, Mr Abbott, now the Leader of the Opposition, said that he considered that these pauses were—to quote him—'too soft'. Two years ago the now Leader of the Opposition said that these pauses were 'too soft'. The opposition supported them two years ago, and I hope that, in the interests of making sure our family payment system is sustainable, the opposition will support them again. These measures are important for the sustainability of the family payment system, and that is why we are introducing them in this budget.

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

The member for Deakin asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services questions relating to emergency relief funding. I am more interested in how it affects the flood and other disaster affected areas in Queensland in particular and nationally. I am also interested in the Commonwealth Financial Counselling service, which I have spoken to the minister and the parliamentary secretary about previously. I want to put on the record my appreciation to both of them for their availability and their preparedness to take my incessant phone calls during the flood disaster in south-east Queensland. It affected my electorate—I see the member for Wright; I used to represent the Lockyer Valley, so I know what he has been through in the past few months. I represent most of the city of Ipswich and all the Somerset region, covering the Brisbane Valley, which has been really badly affected, so the emergency relief funding and the Financial Counselling assistance have been greatly appreciated.

I also thank the parliamentary secretary for coming to my electorate of Blair twice in the past few months. The first occasion was 1 February, when we visited Spiritus Kinections and Anglicare. They are doing great work in supporting people, particularly around Riverview as well as the Ipswich CBD, with a number of Commonwealth and state funded programs to help families suffering from anxiety, separation, mental health and other issues. Having a good conversation with the providers there was useful.

I also want to thank the parliamentary secretary for going to Riverview Neighbourhood House. They are an organisation that received emergency funding. I note they also received funding in the budget of $71,530. Kerry Silver and Christine McDonald, the coordinator there, were also present. They did a fantastic job during the flood. They fed hundreds of people, and there were literally about 100 people sleeping at Riverview Neighbourhood House. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for being there.

But I want to focus mainly on the Commonwealth Financial Counselling service. Diane Bos, who is the general manager of Lifeline Ipswich and West Moreton region, which covers all of the rural areas outside of Ipswich, contacted me some months ago about the need for the continuation of the Commonwealth Financial Counselling service. I advocated on her behalf. I know this program has made a big difference. The Salvation Army have been involved in this program as well. When the parliamentary secretary came to Ipswich the first time, she visited the Salvation Army at Bundamba and also the distribution centre. The distribution centre was flooded, as was the church at Bundamba.

When the parliamentary secretary came back on 16 April, we met with a family who were really badly affected. The Garfer family in Ipswich had lost everything. Mr Garfer was living in the Unilinks apartments at Churchill, near Deebing Creek, which was entirely flooded, and lost everything. He related how the financial counselling service, as well as emergency relief, made a big impact on his life. From speaking to people like Diane Bos and Rick Hoffmann from the Salvation Army, and Brad Strong, who runs Canaan, which is the employment service at Riverview, I know that that sort of emergency relief and the financial counselling have made a big difference.

As the farmers, the small business operators, the families and the individuals are recovering from the flood, they need financial help. They need assistance—not just compassionate help in terms of goods and services but a helping hand and a genuine bit of advice to help them get back on their feet. This compassion and genuine care is clearly shown through the wonderful people at Lifeline, the Salvation Army and other local organisations in the Ipswich and Somerset region. I am interested in knowing what the budget means for those flood affected areas, not just in emergency relief but through the Commonwealth financial counselling services both nationally and across flood affected areas of Queensland.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Blair for his question. It was indeed a privilege to visit Queensland after the floods. As he said, I did go up about 10 days after the floods in Brisbane, Ipswich and the Lockyer Valley. Seeing the devastation firsthand was quite shocking, and it had a profound effect on me as an individual. I certainly know it had an effect on the local members who were dealing with it on the ground, ensuring that their local communities got the support they needed. I put on record the tenacity of the member for Blair in terms of his contact with government. Many members whose constituencies were flood-affected contacted ministers about the needs of the local community so that we could respond. I was pleased on my first visit to announce an additional $1 million of emergency relief for flood affected areas of Queensland. That money was out on the ground really quickly and was used before 30 June.

The member for Blair asks me about particular measures in this year's budget, and I am pleased to say that in April, on my second visit to Queensland, I again visited the member for Blair's electorate and we were able to announce just over $15 million of funding for 18 months at current levels for emergency relief and Commonwealth financial counselling in flood affected Queensland and flood affected areas of New South Wales and Victoria. It was really important, from talking to local service providers on the ground, that they had certainty early on, as early as April when we made the announcement, so that they knew that, come 1 July, the GFC additional funding that we had there would continue at those levels for the next 18 months, and would continue to provide local services in those communities. We have also become aware of some additional needs and we have been able to provide some additional support to local organisations on a case-by-case basis. We have certainly provided some additional support to Playgroup Queensland to assist vulnerable families in those areas with practical measures like time with their children with new toys and in a new environment to help replace what was lost in the floods.

We know that a lot of service providers themselves suffered. As the member for Blair said, the Salvation Army had their own hall flooded and we were able to get support on the ground really quickly. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the Queensland government. We were working with them very closely to provide support early on and to see what the two governments could do, working together, to get that support on the ground in those flood affected areas. I was able to meet with the Queensland minister on my first visit and have those discussions very frankly. We were able to communicate and get things going on the ground really early on. I am pleased to hear that that has made a difference. Certainly that funding is there for the 18 months at current levels for all of those flood affected areas of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

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

I would like to ask the minister some questions about the work bonus scheme. Presently, somebody who is working and of pensionable age can receive $146 a fortnight before their entitlement starts to diminish. With your work bonus, you say that they can earn $250 a fortnight, which will be discounted against the income test. Is that $250 on top of the $146 or does it include the $146? In other words, are people entitled to earn $396 a fortnight before their pension is affected or is it really only an extra $114?

That is a very important question for people to understand, and it will particularly impact on the person whose situation was raised by Mr Andrews, who earned $390 working for the Electoral Commission. Yesterday in a public hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters we heard evidence from representatives of the Community and Public Sector Union. I asked them if they were having a problem recruiting people who are retired to work as electoral officials because of the impact that that lump sum payment has on their pension entitlement. Under us, when we were in government, they were allowed to average it over a year, but under you it hits in a lump sum. The answer they gave was that yes, it is impacting on their ability to recruit, and the result of that, quite frankly, is the long queues that people are now experiencing on election day. We had evidence of that as well. I would like to know precisely what that $250 really means and how it will impact on people such as those who choose to work, as Mr Andrews asked.

My second question relates to the age discrimination commissioner. In your press release, you said we needed to have a dedicated age commissioner appointed. As I understand it, at the present time the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has responsibility for both. That is not what I call a dedicated person. We on this side are very supportive of the appointment of such a person. I would like some explanation as to why it has not already been done and what is in train for that appointment.

My third question is regarding Table 2.4: Budgeted expenses for outcome 4 in the portfolio budget statement for FaHCSIA. I go to the items called 'Expenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year'—there are two such items in that outcome. In a footnote it says that this covers 'depreciation, amortisation and make good expenses'. As I understand it, depreciation is no longer paid as an up-front figure; it is paid specifically when there is a need for replacement of capital items. I would like you to confirm how much of those amounts of money are relevant to depreciation. Secondly, I want to know what a 'make good' expense is and to have a breakdown of those figures, which are quite considerable—half a million dollars and $2.4 million.

Fourthly, I note that Mr Andrews asked very specifically whether or not your department was doing any costing of possible Greens policies, as they take over in the Senate from 1 July, and he would like an answer to that question.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar for her questions. On the last point: the purpose of this committee is to examine the appropriation bill and that is what we are doing. We are not here to examine hypothetical things that the opposition might like to dream up.

On the work bonus: I can confirm that the $250 is on top. I would have thought the opposition would know this, because they voted for the work bonus, both the first and second rounds, and I am pleased that the opposition supported it. So the member for Mackellar can put her mind at rest in that regard. I turn now to the issue of the Age Discrimination Commissioner. This government is very pleased to support the establishment of Australia's first national Age Discrimination Commissioner—and I am glad that the member for Mackellar has agreed that it needs to be done and funded. It is actually not funded in this appropriation; it is funded under the Attorney-General's appropriation, but it is this government that is doing it. It was not the Liberal government that did it. The Liberal government left the same situation that the member for Mackellar actually describes as not being adequate, so I am glad she recognises that that government did not do the right thing by older Australians. This government will.

As to the specific question on the table and the depreciation questions she has, I will get my department to respond to the member in writing.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Mackellar has had a chance to ask her question.

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

I am very pleased to be able to lend my remarks in addition to those of the member for Blair, particularly, who spoke earlier about emergency relief funding and financial counselling. I know that financial counselling services that have been supported by this government at the instigation of the minister and the parliamentary secretary have stood to the very great advantage of quite a lot of people, particularly in the growth region of my electorate, where quite a lot of new families are facing mortgage stresses and difficulties in dealing with their own finances, and I appreciate the assistance that organisations which receive financial counselling support from the government are able to provide.

One of those organisations, in particular, that springs very much to mind is the Casey North Community Information and Support Service, which I have a bit to do with in my electorate. Since I became the member for La Trobe relatively recently, I know from their comments that they certainly appreciate the efforts that the government has made in financial counselling. From the last report of the Casey North Community Information and Support Service, I know that in the area of Berwick they have seen a 58 per cent increase in the number of financial counselling services and individual action items that they have provided to residents. There are clearly needs, and they are clearly responding very well to those needs.

The financial counselling services that we are helping to support reflect part of the broader agenda that this government has in supporting consumers, individuals and families in better money management—a better understanding of what could otherwise be fairly precarious financial circumstances—through useful tools like MoneySmart and the initiatives we are contemplating in relation to better consumer protection and in relation to credit arrangements. This goes hand in hand with all of those kinds of endeavours and is very, very helpful indeed.

I am particularly aware that the financial counselling services that are provided in my electorate do not simply go to assisting people with their financial health. They very much go to ensuring that relationships are not put under additional stress. They go to supporting women who are in financial difficulties, particularly those who face the circumstances of being single parents. The additional efforts that go to assisting them to better understand their debt circumstances and their exposure to credit risk, and just giving them a helping hand, are particularly valuable.

I ask the Parliament Secretary for Community Services to elaborate a little more on the way the financial counselling services are expanded upon in this budget, or are continued in this budget, and to outline a little further how these services will advantage electorates such as mine.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. We were really pleased to be able to announce in the federal budget that the Commonwealth financial counsellors boost that we provided for the global financial crisis is able to continue at existing levels. This money will provide 77 full-time equivalent financial counsellor positions across the country, providing financial counselling services right around Australia. It is an additional $28 million over four years for financial counselling services. We were also able to fund in the budget the financial counsellors peak body. That body was formerly known as AFCCRA but has since had a name change, and I was fortunate enough to attend the financial counsellors' national conference recently where they celebrated the new name. They were very pleased with the government's decision to continue funding at GFC levels on an ongoing basis in the federal budget. They were particularly pleased about the three-year contracts for financial counselling, because these will allow the very skilled staff who are currently providing those financial counselling services to vulnerable Australians—those Australians who require their support—to be retained in those positions. As we were talking to service providers around the country, one of the things that became evident was that shorter term contracts meant that they were losing very valuable staff as it got towards the end of the financial year, and now these three-year contracts will mean that the financial counselling staff who are providing those services to local communities will be able to have ongoing security of their own tenure, and therefore their clients will be able to rely on those services.

The other thing that we have been able to do in the budget is to provide some additional funding for the 1800 number. It is a nationwide number for financial counselling services. You get a financial counsellor on the other end of the line when you ring. That number is 1800007007. It is like a triage system. You answer a few questions and they then decide whether you need a referral to a face-to-face counsellor or whether it is something somebody could help you with over the phone. That funding of $2.2 million will provide some additional support staff but also some critical infrastructure to allow that 1800 number to operate across Australia, so it is really good news for everyone across the country. From talking to the financial counselling services, the providers, about the 77 full-time-equivalent positions across the country, they are really thrilled that they are going to be able to continue to provide those services.

As you indicated in your remarks, the whole suite of services is necessary. The government has recognised in this budget that we do have a patchwork economy. We have gone to great lengths to make sure that those most vulnerable in our community are receiving the support they need. We are doing that with the emergency relief. We are doing that with the financial counselling. And we are doing it with the money management schemes, such as the No Interest Loan Scheme or NILS and the Saver Plus scheme that are operating, by putting an additional $60 million, as I said earlier, into those over the four years.

So we are providing a range of measures. It is not just that you turn up once in a matter of crisis and you get the support you need. That certainly happens, but if you have ongoing issues there is the 1800 number to call for financial counselling, or there are case management workers at emergency relief outlets, or there are financial counsellors provided by those community organisations, who can then refer their clients on, whether it be to the No Interest Loan Scheme or whatever, to get support. So there is a whole suite of measures that we have looked at in this budget, and it has been really pleasing to see the response from the financial counsellors themselves but also from those great community organisations that are out on the ground every day providing these services.

I had the privilege of talking to some of the Anglicare providers here in Parliament House this morning. They were greatly pleased with the measures outlined in the budget when it came to financial counselling services and emergency relief. They also particularly talked to me about the No Interest Loan Scheme provided through Good Shepherd, which is certainly providing a great community service to those Australians who are vulnerable, have a time of crisis and are in great need.

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

I would note that, in relation to my last question, particularly relating to the work bonus, that the minister herself had to turn round and ask whether or not the $250 was on top of the $146. So I am grateful that that matter has now been cleared up. The $250, I must say, was worth voting for, in any event. But I do think that people who are affected by it are entitled to have it clear, and her press release did not make that clear.

But, very importantly, I also asked the about the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. The minister was quite unwilling to give any information pertaining to when it was likely that there might be a commissioner against ageing. I did say that I believed that it was currently being shared with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and, as the minister who was answering previously was unable to give any information, I will direct my question now to the Minister for the Status of Women. Can she confirm that the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, will have the dual role of Age Discrimination Commissioner and when does she think that Ms Broderick might be relieved of her second responsibility and an Age Discrimination Commissioner appointed, as was promised and boasted of in Ms Macklin's press release? She said:

The Government strongly believes people susceptible to age discrimination deserve a dedicated advocate.

I note that we still do not have an advocate and perhaps you can shine some light on when Ms Broderick may lose her dual function.

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

Thank you very much for the question. As the member might be aware, the appointments, and indeed the appropriation, which cover the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the forthcoming Age Discrimination Commissioner are covered by the Attorney-General's Department, so it is a question that the member might want to direct elsewhere. However, I would take this opportunity to respond to the issue of relieving the Sex Discrimination Commissioner of her duties. I make clear and get on the record that we appreciate the role that Elizabeth Broderick has been doing—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11 : 41 to 12 : 04

As I was saying before the suspension, I would like to make it very clear that, while Elizabeth Broderick has previously operated as both Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Age Discrimination Commissioner, the fact that we are splitting these roles is in absolutely no way a reflection on her and her performance; in fact, it is quite the contrary. Elizabeth Broderick has made clear just how important both of these issues are, and the government is incredibly active in both these fields. The government recognises that discrimination against older Australians continues to exist in the community, and that is why we are making sure they have their own dedicated commissioner.

Members would be aware that we have a lot of activity in this area. We have announced the Experience Plus package with special incentives and training and support to make sure mature-age Australians who want to keep active in the workforce are able to do so. As well as that, there are all of our ongoing programs. I will leave it to the Attorney-General to make announcements in his portfolio about the timing and naming of the Age Discrimination Commissioner, so that is something the member may wish to put to him. But I put on record my great personal gratitude to Elizabeth Broderick for her advocacy in this area. I am very grateful that I will get to continue working with her as Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

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

The time for this debate—

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

Not quite—we have two minutes and 40 seconds left. I would just like to point out that in no way was my criticism levelled at Commissioner Broderick. My criticism was levelled at the Minister for the Status of Women, who was unable to give me any indication of when her Sex Discrimination Commissioner may be doing that as a full-time job and when a new Age Discrimination Commissioner will be appointed. Nor was Minister Macklin able to do that despite her May 2011 press release in which she says the government 'strongly believes people susceptible to age discrimination deserve a dedicated advocate'.

They are very good at words but I would point out to you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that, when it came to my age discrimination bill to get rid of 75 as the age at which an employee may not receive superannuation payments, the government opposed it with every trick in the book. They are great at giving lip service to the concept of age discrimination but, when it actually came to doing something, the minister responsible for the $250 work bonus had to ask her staff at the back whether or not it is on top of, or included in, the $146 that they are entitled to earn now. She did not know. We have a Minister for the Status of Women who does not know when an Age Discrimination Commissioner might be appointed. It is all down to the Attorney-General, she says, but I would have thought that, as a minister, she would have an interest in this and that Minister Macklin would have an interest in mature-age workers and sex discrimination. Once again we see the government giving lip-service to the question of age discrimination, but when it comes to doing something about it, they fail to do so.

While I do have three more minutes, I would like to put a question on notice. I would like to know how many people in the Public Service are currently in the PSS and therefore maximise their superannuation entitlements at the age of 54 years and 11 months. I now know that it is a closed scheme, but I would like to know how many people aged under 55 are in that scheme. I would also like to know how many people have been on that scheme and retired at the age of 54 years and 11 months on a Friday and then come back to work the next Monday as a contractor at the same rate of pay.

I am interested to note that the former head of the Treasury, who I think is nearly 54, has retired from that position. I do not know whether he has in fact left the Public Service but I note that the Governor-General has appointed that person on a salary of $550,000 a year pro rated.

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

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Mackellar said two minutes and 40 seconds ago that we had two minutes and 40 seconds remaining in the debate, and I know that we are all keen to move on.

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

We can all tell the time; it says one minute and 54 seconds. I would like to know precisely why that appointment was made by the Governor-General, whether or not the government has in place any policy on 'Friday to Monday appointees' and whether or not this was relevant to the appointment made by the Governor-General. I would be very pleased to receive that information. I would also like to know why, in the criteria that are set down for assisting mature-age workers back into the workforce, there is nothing about people losing their jobs because of age discrimination. In the press release they talk about discrimination on the basis of having a disability or having an illness, but there is no mention of people losing their job on the basis of age discrimination, which is of course what the need for an age discrimination commissioner is all about and presumably—I would hope—what the work bonus is about. If we are able to keep people in the workforce, particularly over the age of 55—we see nearly 1.5 million workers drop out between the ages of 45 and 55—and increase the participation rate, we would see a dramatic change in the skills and workers that we need and we would see those people, instead of being discriminated against, able to keep their skills up and in fact become part of the taxpaying community.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $5,838,368

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

The proposed expenditure now before the committee is for the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio: $5,838,368,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. The committee will now consider the trade segment of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to report that on trade policy we have had so far a very active year with the release of a landmark trade policy by the Gillard government that reconnects with the Hawke-Keating tradition of economic reform and the fashioning of an open, competitive economy that has laid the foundations for 20 years of recession-free economic growth in this country. That is a proud achievement and has been made possible by the productivity gains that have emanated from the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s. Those reforms include the floating of the dollar, the liberalisation of the financial markets and also the liberalisation of product markets through gradual reductions in industry protection. There was a period under the previous coalition government where the government lost its way in terms of maintaining the disciplines of those reforms, and this trade strategy seeks to reconnect with the traditions and the disciplines that have served Australia so well.

The second major development is the completion of a review of the Australian trade service, Austrade, which has resulted in a refocusing of Austrade's activities. Austrade was established by the previous Labor government but quite remarkably had not been the subject of a comprehensive review for a period of about 20 years—since 1990, in fact. This review initiated by the CEO of Austrade, Mr Peter Grey—and I thank him for his work in doing that—has led to a refocusing. Austrade is a great Australian institution and represents Australia very well overseas, but it had been loaded up with so many responsibilities by so many different governments over the years that it had not ever got the authority to cease some of the activities that it was engaged in, but in fact was expected to do more and more. That is why there was merit in this refocusing.

To summarise that refocusing, the effort will be concentrated more in emerging markets in developing countries—frontier markets. Where their markets are already mature, perhaps Austrade does not need the same level of presence that it has now. So this is a reallocation of resources to emerging markets in such countries and regions as Latin America, parts of Africa, Central Asia and west China in particular. So this reorientation makes good sense because that is where Austrade can make the greatest gains.

I do not propose to go on any longer because I think democracy dictates that it should not just be me speaking here but that we enable other members of the parliament to ask me questions.

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

I have a very keen interest in Austrade, particularly its work within the South Pacific area. Indeed, earlier today I got to talk about the involvement it has with the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, REEEP. I get to see what this organisation has done, in partnership with various organisations within our region, to help Australian businesses set up, particularly in the Pacific region. I congratulate Mr Mark Fogarty, Chair of REEEP, as well as Ms Eva Oberender, the regional coordinator for REEEP in the South Pacific region. I get to see the good work they have done, particularly in Tonga, where they are trying to reduce the country's dependency on imported fossil fuels.

Minister, are you able to give us more detail on the review that is being conducted into Austrade? As I understand it, this is the most significant review that has occurred in the last 20 years. Could the minister advise the House on the new priorities that have been set for Austrade and what this will mean for exporters trying to break into the frontier and emerging markets. Where I live, in the south-west of Sydney, one of the areas of employment is in importing and exporting businesses. I know how much those businesses rely on Austrade to help develop and identify opportunities through market research. Austrade also looks at the construction of business networks within the Pacific region and manufacture throughout the broader Asian region. Particularly my constituents of Vietnamese origin, as well as those from Hong Kong, have taken a very clear view that Austrade has been a very valuable mechanism in being able to help source targeted markets and help with the development of market research, as well as providing some of the necessary underpinning infrastructure that goes to establishing markets in those regions. It is for those reasons that people in my electorate with those types of businesses have a close association with Austrade. On their behalf, I am coming to see the developments that have occurred within Austrade that will further strengthen Austrade's ability to assist Australian businesses as they aspire to enter foreign markets, particularly within our region. Those developments are particularly the frontier markets, as well as emerging markets in other areas.

I mentioned what is occurring with Austrade in partnership with the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership and what it means for Tonga, a country that relies, for more than 70 per cent of its energy sources, on overseas petroleum product, while, regrettably, more than 60 per cent of the people of Tonga do not have access to electrical power. However, through the efforts of Austrade and REEEP, I understand that is being addressed significantly. One of the things that Austrade can do quite effectively in our region is help nations such as Tonga to move away from entrenched poverty by giving people to access to power. It is very important for organisations like that to do that—not simply to provide power to the rest of the population but to provide significant things that we take for granted in this country, such as electrical power to schools and portable power to various homes so that people can undertake their study out of school hours.

These are things that we in this country can, thankfully, take for granted, but for many people in Tonga that is a hope beyond hope. They are reliant on organisations such as Austrade developing opportunities for Australian businesses to bring our home sourced technologies to benefit them, to help them to provide electrical power to their nation, reducing the level of poverty and reducing their dependence on the ever-rising fossil fuel market from which they presently must source their energy.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fowler for his longstanding interest in the activities of Austrade and most particularly his interest in the role that Austrade can play in lifting some of the poorest nations on earth and their people out of poverty. Sometimes we look at these things too mechanistically. The truth is that a great institution like Austrade can do its very best for Australia but, with trade and development, these are not zero-sum games. You can actually create wins for everyone through the gains from trade and through technical cooperation.

The member for Fowler asked me to elaborate somewhat on the rationale behind the shift in emphasis of Austrade. I will give the member for Fowler a couple of examples. I said earlier that the institution had been loaded up with a lot of extra responsibilities but no-one had really said to it, 'We're now going to reduce that load.' That is what we have now said. The previous government had a target of doubling the number of exporters, which led to Austrade being obliged to go around trying to get someone to export something because that meant there was one more number in a box. It was not, therefore, primarily concerned with the ongoing sustainability of that export activity. If they could get them to export something, that was a pat on the back and a tick in the box. We have now relieved Austrade of that responsibility and instead acknowledged that, in these so-called frontier and emerging markets, if you can imagine a single Australian business going into those markets, the information costs are very, very high for a single business. They would need to know not only about the government of that particular country but also about the provincial governing arrangements—all the regulations of a country just emerging and starting to grow strongly but in which there is great potential for Australian business and the gains from trade. Those search costs, if you like, can be prohibitive for a single company or two companies. But if Austrade is in there and working with the local authorities at the national and subnational levels, that of course means it can generate that information and make it freely available not only to one or two companies but to all comers. So the whole concept here is of reducing the high search costs in these emerging or frontier markets which would otherwise be prohibitive for a single company. For the more mature markets, yes, there is still a role for Austrade, but it is not as pressing, given finite resources, when you have commercial agents in those countries who can introduce businesses that are hoping to export to potential importers and customers more generally.

So this shift is designed to get ahead of the game, to anticipate the development opportunities in countries such as Mongolia and regions such as Central Asia, Africa and Latin America. Most pertinent, in terms of a recent visit I paid to provincial parts of China, is, again, that the search costs can be quite high. That is what we are doing, Member for Fowler.

I was delighted with the public response to the review, because you can easily anticipate that the public and business organisations would say, 'Don't reduce anything; just keep increasing.' They recognised that there are finite budgetary resources. All the industry associations applauded and supported the refocussing so that Austrade does better those things for which we give it responsibility. That is how we are managing that reform. I pay tribute to Peter Grey, the CEO of Austrade, who initiated that reform. When I became the Minister for Trade I helped steer it, and we are, I think, going to achieve a very, very successful outcome.

Finally, in relation to Mongolia, we pre-announced our interest when the government of Mongolia was represented here in Australia, and they were delighted. So it is about anticipating where the big opportunities will come from. I will finish where I started: it is not only good for Australian businesses but good for economic development in those countries with emerging markets.

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

My question is to the Minister for Trade. Could you give the House an update, with reference to trade, on live cattle exports to Indonesia? Also, if you have time, could you update the House, with reference to the resources sector and our ongoing commitment with our trading partners, as to when we think that those volumes of coal and iron ore into China will start petering off, given that inflation is starting to overboil in China, which will have an impact on the Australian market and trade?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wright. As one of the whips for the coalition, he was here anyway, but he does have a legitimate interest in these issues. I have been disappointed with the turnout from coalition MPs at what is normally a good opportunity for the opposition to ask questions. I do acknowledge that the member for Aston is here. My counterpart is not, but this would not be the first time I have missed out on a question from my counterpart, because I never have, in fact, had one.

On the live cattle trade to Indonesia, the Australian people were overwhelmingly shocked at the images on the Four Corners program. The Australian government moved quickly to deal with the animal welfare issues, and that is what they are: animal welfare issues. We are very supportive of the Indonesian government and of our friends in Indonesia, and we are handling this issue with that very much in mind.

So there was a suspension. Our authorities are now working together with a view to identifying at least some of those processing facilities that can achieve, or be confirmed to be at, international standards. Once we are able to do that and, importantly, once we have a tracking system to ensure that it is the Australian-origin cattle which are processed through those facilities, then we will have a basis for resuming the trade. A wider review has been announced, and this confirms that this in no way is intended to single out Indonesia, only that that is where the evidence is to date. If further evidence comes to light in terms of animal welfare issues then the Australian government would need to consider what action it would take.

We understand that this is an important and viable business for cattle stations and those employed in and around them, particularly in Northern Australia. It is not, by international standards, a big journey from Northern Australia to Indonesia, and the process there has been that the cattle are grown in Northern Australia, then exported live to Indonesia, where there is further fattening that occurs in feedlots. We have already been working with the Indonesian government on technical cooperation on animal husbandry, to improve the productivity of the Indonesian side of the operations. This is part of the overall philosophy in the comprehensive economic partnership agreement with Indonesia which we are currently negotiating. My Indonesian counterpart and others whom I have met in Indonesia have pointed out that a comprehensive economic partnership means what it says—this is not just a trade deal that we are seeking to negotiate with Indonesia; it is also a deal to ensure that the Indonesian people at large will benefit from the sort of technical support that we are able to provide.

Finally, on the issue of mineral exports, I am not a soothsayer, a mineral export price forecaster. I think there is an understanding that we are now, in terms of mineral prices, on a sustained basis at the highest levels in around 140 years, which takes us back to the gold rush ages in Australia. But more production will come on board. We know that it is happening internationally, but we also know it is happening in a very big way here in Australia. So when we hear prophesies about carbon pricing and about a mineral resource rent tax, I would urge all members simply to have a look at the figures on how much extra investment is being committed into mineral development in this country, because we are a good mineral rich country with a stable, robust democracy. We are close to the important markets: here is Australia, in the Asian region, in the Asian century. So the future for mineral development in this country is a very bright one indeed as we integrate our economy, following the same philosophy that I talked about when I opened, the Hawke-Keating philosophy of an open, competitive economy placing Australia in the Asian region in the Asian century. That is what is happening and that is why we are getting such good dividends out of it.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate interrupted.