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

The Federation Chamber will now consider the bill in detail. In accordance with standing order 149 the Federation Chamber will first consider the schedule of the bill.

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

It might suit the convenience of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. I indicate to the Federation Chamber that the proposed order for consideration of portfolio estimates has been discussed with the opposition and other non-government members, and there has been no objection to what is proposed.

The s chedule read as follows—

Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport—Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport—Arts

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Infrastructure and Transport

Immigration and Citizenship

Human Services

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Defence—Defence

Defence—Veterans Affairs

Attorney-General's—Attorney-General's

Attorney-General's—Emergency Management

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

Treasury—Financial Services and Superannuation

Treasury—Treasury

Resources, Energy and Tourism—Resources and Energy

Resources, Energy and Tourism—Tourism

Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

Health and Ageing—Health

Health and Ageing—Mental Health and Ageing

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Disability Reform

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Housing

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Homelessness

Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education—Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research

Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education—Industry and Innovation

Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education—Small Business

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—School Education, Early Childhood and Youth

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Employment and Workplace Relations

Foreign Affairs and Trade—Foreign Affairs

Foreign Affairs and Trade—Trade and Competitiveness

Finance and Deregulation

Prime Minister and Cabinet—Prime Minister and Cabinet

Prime Minister and Cabinet—Social Inclusion

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

Is it the wish of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sports Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,408,531,000

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

The appropriations that were made in this budget were of significant benefit to regional Australia and to the arts community. I might say in relation to regional Australia that no government has made a greater commitment to strengthen regional development opportunities. We understand the importance of it with an economy in transition and with the regions representing the patches in the patchwork economy. Last year, we saw the record investment committed over four years in the forward estimates of $4.3 billion to the regions. This year, this budget—building on that investment—saw $475 million for regional hospitals, $80 million for dentists moving to regions and $35 million for doctors moving to the regions. We saw the NBN rollout. The next three-year rollout identified 238 regional centres that will be beneficiaries of the rollout. The schoolkids bonus and the family tax benefits are obviously of significance to regional Australia. The commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the aged-care initiatives are also of significance to the regions. Seventy-five per cent of the federal roads budget went to regions. We saw a massive new investment in remote jobs and skills packages.

In relation to the arts, the budget saw almost $65 million over four years committed to secure jobs in the arts, in cultural heritage and in the creative industries—in particular, to bolstering the capacity of our national collecting institutions. This has laid an important foundation for the development of the government's commitment to a national cultural policy. That has to take into account not only expenditures but the structural changes that have been recommended in relation to the Australia Council and the partnerships that we have been developing with the private sector, with philanthropists and with state governments.

I make the point that those appropriations—those commitments in the budget, were done in very tight fiscal circumstances. We still were able to produce a surplus in the coming year and every subsequent year for the nation. Why is that important? Because a government that acts responsibly in terms of fiscal policy leaves more room for the Reserve Bank to move on monetary policy. Just in the lead-up to the budget, where we were selling the message of the importance of getting fiscal rectitude into the budget, we saw a 50-basis-point drop in interest rates. That downward pressure on interest rates is of huge importance to all Australians, but in particular to regional Australia.

I might also make the point that, as difficult as the fiscal circumstances were, we are able to allocate these amounts for distribution into regions and the arts because we have such a strong economy. The reason we have a strong economy is measures that this government has taken since it came to office—the stimulus in particular—and also the major reforms that were initiated by previous governments to open up the Australian economy. I simply make the point that you cannot do these sorts of distributions and these commitments to important nation-building agendas unless what we are doing is strengthening and growing the Australian economy. Much of what we are doing, not just for regional Australia but for the nation as a whole, is about investing in those things that drive productivity, improve competitiveness and underpin creativity. The regions are going to be major beneficiaries of that. We want to see that, because they have a key role to play. The more we strengthen our regions, the more we strengthen the nation.

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

My question to the minister is in regard to RDAs. The RDA guidelines say that round 2 of the RDA Fund will be announced in May. When can we expect to see the results of that round?

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

I am in receipt of recommendations as we speak in relation to round 2. We hope to be announcing those shortly. I would like to flag on this occasion that we probably will not be putting out all the announcements at once. Last time, putting out the 38 all at once got lost on the day, so we will be staggering those announcements somewhat to get major effect.

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

Mine didn't get lost!

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

I know that the member for Page's did not get lost—she was a very strong advocate—nor did those of other members at the table. But it is important that we understand the significant investment in this. The $150 million that we put out in the first round actually leveraged almost three times that amount in terms of other investments. I think the message has got through about the importance of partnership and the leveraging of funding from the other levels of government—state and federal—from not-for-profit organisations or the private sector. When we see the coming announcements I think we will see that message has been picked up in important ways.

Importantly, if you look at the mix that was in the first round you will see there was an important commitment to those initiatives that supported not only economic development and economic diversification but also social diversification—the social needs of communities and the livability of communities. That is terribly important. We will be announcing the rounds over the coming weeks. We also put another $50 million into that round and $250 million will be in this round.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I expect the member for Blair has a burning question. I know he does not have access to the minister normally, so he will take advantage of this situation. Can I just follow on from that and ask the minister whether the funding agreements for all 35 projects approved under round 1 have been finalised and, if not, which projects have not had their funding agreements finalised?

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

I am advised that all of them have been finalised, but I will double-check that. If there is any variation I will let the member know.

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

I have a question, but I would like to premise it with a bit of a statement. In talking about the number of projects here that got up in round 1, two projects were successful in my area. I want to say a little bit about them. The first project is at Lismore City Hall, which is home to the Northern Rivers Performing Arts group, NORPA, which is a nationally recognised group. It was set up quite some years ago and has been very successful. When the hall is upgraded it will be for commercial independent productions music. I was there recently having a look around and I know what a great difference it will make to the region. Also, the hall upgrade will allow performances to come to the region—

Mr Tehan interjecting—

Can I have my go; you can have yours later?

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

Order! The member for Wannon will sit in silence. The member for Page has the call.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will make a huge difference not only to the hall but, as the minister just said, in terms of adding to the economic and social development of the region. That is a really important thing. The other project was at the Ballina/Byron Gateway Airport, operated by the Ballina Shire Council. The airport is an important gateway to the region and has grown considerably—as the traffic through it has grown considerably—over the years. Ballina Shire Council, like Lismore City Council, put up funding themselves for projects. They are absolutely project ready so that, when they put their applications in and go through the assessment processes, they have already done a lot of the groundwork, the grunt work, and the projects are not just ideas on paper. That is really important. I have five local government areas and I work closely with them and with the organisations beyond so that everybody is prepared and ready to take advantage of the opportunities when they come along.

I think that is an important role that we can, should and do play as local members, to make sure we are on the front foot. It does not mean that we will get everything we want, because we all want everything for our own particular seats and regions. But we can be out there leading and supporting, and sometimes leading from behind—it does not always have to be upfront—

Mr Griffin interjecting—

Stop it! So there are different forms of leadership and they are all appropriate—that is my point. It is about working with the communities. That leads me to my question—

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's five minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.

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

Order! The member for Page will continue with her remarks.

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

The question is: Minister, would you please advise how the government is contributing to building important local infrastructure in the regions under the Regional Development Australia Fund? Hopefully you will be able to comment a little bit on the arts and also on some of the smaller projects in the smaller regions and areas, because sometimes it can be a bit harder for them to get a look-in. Secondly, how has the government's policy approach to regional development given expression to local priorities? Thank you, Minister.

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

I thank the member for Page for her question. I know how dedicated a local member she is, not just in terms of the community infrastructure, and the example that we have just heard is just one of them. I was also with her in September last year when we opened the Casino Community and Cultural Centre, which was a wonderful addition to the community and, again, would not have been there but for a Labor government supporting it. This was supported through the Regional Development Australia Fund, which the member refers to. The fund is a fundamental part of what we are doing in terms of revitalising regional Australia and helping not just to diversify its economic base but to realise the importance of livability, community aspiration and community access to a range of services as well as cultural and community experiences.

You have heard about the Lismore City Hall, Madam Deputy Speaker. The other initiative in the member's electorate was the upgrade of the Ballina airport. It is interesting that yesterday in the House we had that shameless exhibition by the member for North Sydney, riffing off a press release about how regional air services were being reduced, when people who actually live in the regions know that the services are in fact being increased. It is true that Brindabella was changing its business model to take advantage, quite frankly, of the huge growth in fly-in fly-out business, in particular in the mining sector, which the opposition said would stop investing when the carbon tax was brought in. Far from not investing, they are going gang busters. Regional airlines, amongst other things, are changing their business models, but the airports themselves are having to upgrade significantly, and the Regional Development Australia Fund has been helping in that regard.

I am reminded by the member for Blair that one of the smaller initiatives that we were able to support was in his electorate. The Somerset Civic Centre received a grant out of the first round, and that was a terribly important rebuilding exercise for that community after it was devastated so badly by the floods in Queensland. It was not just a question of repairing what had been lost; it was a question of building a new heart, new commitment, new meaning to the region and giving it that community base.

I said before that we are about to announce the second round. The point I would go on to make to the member is this: that those two rounds are two of five rounds that the Regional Development Australia Fund will commit to before the next election. There are now another three rounds in RDAF, because we have got the parliament to pass the MRRT. But those rounds will disappear if those who sit opposite have their way They oppose the very mechanism by which you can inject back into communities, because the funding for the next three rounds comes from the minerals resource rent tax, which they do not get. It is distributing the benefits of the mining boom and enabling communities to diversify their base and build their community amenity.

We are delighted with the success of this round. We are delighted with the way in which communities have been responding to it in a constructive and strategic way—where communities have been prepared to look across their traditional borders and see what benefits the wider community, where they have followed the message and, as the member for Page has said, tried to get the leveraged funding that was associated with the town hall at Lismore by getting other levels of government to contribute.

It is that leverage that becomes so important, because it can potentially turn the billion dollar fund into $3 billion of injection into regions. If you look at the first round, having multiplied the $150 million of ours, you can just imagine what the rest of it will do. So I would urge those who sit on the other side—and I know they are interested in this fund, because they have got applications in and, when I have my drop-in centres, they come around all the time urging me to consider them—to get behind the fund. But you cannot do it unless you are prepared to put the appropriation in.

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

I would like to thank you, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, for being here today. I appreciate your interest, but also to thank you for your attendance in the Latrobe Valley as we deal with some of these issues relating to your carbon tax policy. I want to refer specifically to the Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Program, which, as you would be aware, is a $200 million fund to provide assistance to those regions strongly affected by carbon pricing. I note from one of your statements on your website:

The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport will monitor the impacts of carbon pricing on regions to identify regions that may require structural adjustment assistance.

And further:

Where structural adjustment assistance may be required, the Government will work in close consultation with communities through a coordinated, whole of Government approach …

It is against that background, Minister, that I ask my questions. How are you actually going to monitor those regions and what procedures are actually in place to evaluate which regions are most adversely affected. Changes are occurring right now in Latrobe Valley as a result of carbon pricing, which I think you would understand is some cause for concern in my community. In particular, we need to address the issue of confidence in the community at local, state and federal government levels. I would be interested to know whether the bulk of that $200 million will be allocated to the regions that are most adversely affected and how you will make that evaluation.

The other questions relate to contract foreclosure, which I am sure you understand is very close to and relates to this whole issue. I wonder whether you could provide me with an update on the progress of negotiations in relation to contract foreclosure? I understand there has been very little discussion, if at all. We are only weeks away from supposedly making an announcement as to which stations will be closed. My understanding is that a power station such as Hazelwood generates $130 million annually in terms of wages to the Latrobe Valley community, but we are talking about a $200 million structural adjustment package. If the Hazelwood power station were to close, it would dwarf the whole $200 million package. I do not think there is any suggestion from government that the Latrobe Valley will get the whole $200 million. My concern is that the impacts will be very severe and that the allocation in terms of structural adjustment will be nowhere near enough.

The only other question I would like to ask the minister relates to this whole-of-government approach. You may recall that there is an active application from the Latrobe Regional Hospital for $65 million. I put it to you that, in terms of a whole-of-government approach, that would be the type of project that would benefit the Latrobe Valley and the Gippsland community more broadly. Given that that actual program has now been exhausted, are there any other avenues that you can see where the Latrobe Regional Hospital should apply to try to secure $65 million in the future, keeping in mind that I do acknowledge the state government will need to come to the party at some stage in that process?

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

I thank the member for Gippsland for his question. He has attended a number of the forums that we have held in the Latrobe Valley to look at the challenges that are presented down there but most of all to identify future opportunities. I just make this point about what we have done in the Latrobe Valley. It is very interesting that we have been able to secure an agreement with the Victorian government, who opposes what we are doing with carbon pricing, to work in partnership for the economic development and diversification not just of the valley but of the whole Gippsland region. Partnership agreements with the states are absolutely fundamental, in my view, if we are to get this model of regional development right. We can put up the funds that I talked about before, but on their own they are not going to be enough. We have got to leverage the other funding and we have got to encourage regions to join the dots, so that they do not just look through the silo of a regional development fund, or for that matter the $200 million Structural Adjustment Fund, but look to the opportunities, for example, in the Education Infrastructure Fund and in the Health and Hospitals Infrastructure Fund—which I think the member just made reference to in relation to the Latrobe Regional Hospital.

I am terribly proud of having been able to negotiate that agreement and that framework and also establish the committee that is working to identify opportunities. The guidelines for the Structural Adjustment Fund for the regions most affected by the carbon pricing initiative are still being considered and, in any event, they were always going to be contingent upon impact once we knew where the contracts for closure were going to occur. On that question, the member for Gippsland has asked me about progress. This is really an issue that should be addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, because he has responsibility for it. We have called for the expressions of interest for contracts of closure. They are going through their process at the moment. He has made the point that the effects of the closure of Hazelwood would dwarf the $200 million assistance, and even if a fair slab were allocated to the Latrobe Valley it may not be enough. I do not agree with that. I have just recently been involved in negotiating, in partnership with the Tasmanian government, structural adjustment initiatives for job creation activity in Tasmania. As you know, with the forest issue down there, there is a potential $120 million available to Tasmania, but it is conditional on getting an agreement. To show good faith, we made the first $20 million not conditional.

We have allocated all of that money. Quite frankly, the $20 million that we have allocated has the potential over coming years to create 4,000 jobs. This is the opportunity. You do not need, in my view, a lot of money to make these things happen. What you need is a lot of good ideas. You need businesses prepared to make the investment, with governments coming in to fill the gap. Whether it is a gap in terms of infrastructure, whether it is a gap in terms of training, that is the sort of thing we have got to be doing. That is what I want to develop in the Latrobe Valley. That is why we have got not just the state government framework but we have got all the local councils involved. We have got regional input. We have been using the university to help identify opportunities. In the Latrobe Valley, forget about the carbon price that is going to be put on; what about the opportunities in the electorate of Gippsland for carbon farming? They have some of the richest farmland in the country, and the opportunity to enrich and improve soil productivity, capture the carbon and trade the credits creates the opportunity for another income stream. They have also got the big potential for growth in the dairy industry and the food processing industry. There are funds that enable that to happen. I think we have got to look beyond the silos in terms of considering the opportunities down there, because they are enormous.

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

Minister Crean, thank you very much for the $2 million in funding for the Somerset Civic Centre, a $4.5 million project. The area was ravaged by the floods, and the council administration block was destroyed when the waters of Redbank Creek went through. The funding is much needed. The project will create jobs in the area, and the centre will create a home for the local arts community.

I have two universities in my electorate, the University of Queensland Ipswich campus and the University of Southern Queensland Springfield campus. Last parliament I had the University of Queensland Ipswich campus and its Gatton veterinary science and agricultural centre. I am pleased that we have provided about $48.9 million in federal government funding for the University of Southern Queensland, which recently purchased its campus from the Springfield Land Corporation as part of a total injection of about $100 million for the USQ.

Why is that so important? Because children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds in the Ipswich and West Moreton region, the western corridor, can go to university, many for the first time. I am struck when I go to graduations, by how many children and young people have told me they have never gone to university and that members of their families have never gone to university. I appreciate that funding, which will make a big difference. Partnering with Bremer TAFE will be the Queensland Tertiary Education Participation network which will be very important for my region as it continues to grow and develop.

One of the good things about the funding we have provided is the construction of the education gateways building on the campus. It means that we will have a new digitally connected learning environment, stimulating learning laboratory spaces and new offerings in allied health, nursing, engineering and construction.

In the previous parliament, my electorate received funding under the Education Investment Fund that made a big difference. I lobbied very hard to get $47.2 million from the fund for the University of Queensland Gatton campus.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

It was part of a $71 million-fund made up of a contribution from the government to which alumni and other donors contributed. There are dozens and dozens of people in Ipswich who go to that campus, which is a vital boost for the Lockyer Valley and the whole region. Eighty per cent of the students who go to the University of Queensland Gatton campus School of Veterinary Science are females. We have provided further education funding to the University of Queensland Gatton campus sports complex. This is one of the fastest-growing areas in South-East Queensland. I am very keen to see further funding put in—

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, in this in-committee stage of the appropriation bills, I understood that remarks should be addressed to the portfolio in question. This one is about regional Australia.

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

The member for Murray has made her point. The member for Blair will come to his question of the minister.

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

I am asking questions about university education in the regions, which is particularly relevant. If the member for Murray ever came to my electorate she would see there is lots of agricultural land in my electorate. We do not live in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane. Tertiary education funding for TAFEs and universities is particularly relevant to my seat. I am looking forward to lobbying the minister for funding for the regions, such as tertiary funding for Ipswich, the Lockyer Valley, the Brisbane Valley and the whole of South-East Queensland. Minister, what have we done and what do we intend to do to assist young people and mature-age students in regional areas in South-East Queensland and beyond in terms of funding from your portfolio?

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

I thank the member for Blair because he has given not just a very good indication of what has been done in his electorate for educational opportunities but also exposed, by virtue of the interjections, the silo mentality that still presides on the other side of the chamber when it comes to regional development. I have made the point that if we simply look to the silo of the Regional Development Australia Fund for the purposes of impact on regions we miss the point. We are great believers in the fact that you have got to invest in educational opportunity, particularly higher education opportunity in the regions, because all the evidence shows that if you train people in the regions they will stay in the regions. That is why this budget—

Mr John Cobb interjecting—

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

The member for Calare will sit in silence.

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

I know that they do not like hearing this, but they do like the results—all those drop-in centres—because they are lined up at my door every Wednesday afternoon asking: 'What can you do for us, Minister? Can you support this one, Minister? Can you give us a leg up?'

Mr John Cobb interjecting—

I tell you what, you go back and tell your Leader of the Opposition to stop opposing everything that we are doing to fund these initiatives. I am delighted that the opposition are here, listening with such attention and getting agitated as a result of us demonstrating the significance of what we are doing.

The other reason it is important to invest in the universities is that they become important parts of the community. We are trying to develop this community drive, this leadership that identifies the potential and does not look at the threats but understands the challenges, sees the opportunities and wants to go out and seize those moments, and universities become a very important part in that exercise. What we have done in this budget is fund another round in the education infrastructure fund. We have given some $500 million to higher education institutions just for the regions—not just for universities, but for TAFEs. I think that is very important.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you would be well aware of the work of Central Queensland University and how in Mackay, for example, they have moved to a dual campus model, where they have both the TAFE and the university effectively delivering across courses. What I have encouraged them to do is look also at the trade training centres, which will be funded only under a Labor government. Those who sit opposite have fought us every inch of the way in opposing those trade training centres. What we need is creative pathways, particularly in those boom growth areas that are crying out about skill shortages. We need to get them thinking about getting a vocational stream through schools so students can work out whether they go on to a TAFE or go on to a university.

When we build this infrastructure we need to insist on not only its flexibility but also the adaption of broadband, as the member for Blair has said. He has given a perfect example of another beyond-the-silo, dot-joining exercise in understanding that you can deliver both the education service and the education content. Increasingly we will have the ability to do it. Why? Because we have taken a strategic decision to invest in some of the most fundamental infrastructure this country can invest in—that is, for high-speed broadband. We have made that decision not just to roll out the cable but to challenge regions to think creatively about the applications and the delivery of the services.

We have also seen the numbers of student places increase in regional universities. In the five years to 2012 those numbers have gone up by one-third—they have gone up from 60,000 to 80,000—and we are now moving to uncap university places, which opens up more opportunity for the regions. It took us to come to office to not just understand the significance of it but do something about it. We are proud of our position and what we have done for regional universities and regional education. This is going to be one of the important underpinnings of regional growth and regional prosperity, and we will continue to make those investments.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions go to RDA funding. Road funding is a key priority in my electorate of Wannon. Last time, in the first round, there was some conjecture as to whether road funding could be applied for or not. I would like the minister to clear up for us once and for all whether road funding can be a priority or not. For my second question I would like the minister to explain how much emphasis goes on the RDA committee's ranking of projects. Once again, last time there was a lot of conjecture because some of the projects which had been ranked higher were not funded, yet some of those which had not been ranked higher were accepted as projects. I was just wondering whether the minister could explain how that works. My third question to the minister is: how is the minister ensuring that projects are determined on a regional needs basis rather than on a political basis?

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

I think it is absolutely essential that these funding initiatives are based on a needs basis and on proposals that stack up. We had to end that dreadful regional rorts program that the Howard government presided over: it funded the draining of the Tumby Creek, and it drained itself; it funded a cheese factory that was on the nose and went bust—

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I did not ask about the Howard government; I asked about this government. They were three good questions that I would like answered.

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

The member for Wannon will resume his seat and the minister will return to the questions.

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

I will return to the question because I think it is important to base it on need and on integrity in the projects to make sure that they stack up and that they have rigour. That is what we are insisting upon. We do not want a return to those bad old days, and I hope that what we are doing with this funding and with this model is embedding the way in which we approach this problem for all time into the future.

As for the other dimensions of your question, it is true, generally speaking, that applications for RDAF funds will not get a tick if they can be funded through another source. But it is also true that there can be—

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

Not for the silos.

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

We are thinking beyond the silos.

Dr Stone interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Murray will stop interjecting.

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

I think the member for Murray shows a total ignorance of everything that has been said to date and, as usual, just carps away single-mindedly. She cannot get out of the silo, so I ask her to keep quiet while I am answering the question—

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

Everyone will keep quiet, please.

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

because I think it is important to think beyond the silo. And if, in fact, the road dimension can be funded under another proposal, that is where we should be actively encouraging it to seek funding from. But if, in fact, there is a gap—something that falls between the stools—then we may have to look flexibly at that type of an opportunity.

The third part of the question?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The third part of the question was on the process of the RDA committees. Are the roads, though, in or out or maybe?

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

The roads are out. There is a formula for road funding, but what we are trying to do is understand where we link, if we can see the merit of the argument, to either refer them to Infrastructure Australia—but I must say there is a deficiency in that process because a number of initiatives that fit below the $100 million threshold do not get up. Nevertheless we have acceptance of the fact that RDAs have to be consulted by Infrastructure Australia on prioritising these sorts of initiatives.

What we are trying to do with the Regional Development Australia Fund is to respond to proposals that come forward but also actively encourage them to get out and join the dots. Insofar as the process is concerned, the second round required the RDAs to nominate the three priority regions. That is taken into account by the committee that advises me, and the final decision will come through that process. There will be some to-ing and fro-ing: When is the project ready to commence? What leverage in terms of the funding do you have? How does it connect? These are all sorts of considerations that the independent panel we have established considers when it makes its recommendation to me.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I preface my question by congratulating the minister and thanking the minister for his energetic commitment to his portfolio responsibilities.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see members opposite agreeing with that proposition, and I am sure that will be appreciated by the minister.

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

Order! The member for Hunter will not encourage interjections.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Labor government gets many things right, but two things stand out: first, the commitment to really engage in the regions and to formalise that commitment through the appointment of a dedicated minister; and, second, the appointment of Minister Crean to the position. He has had a longstanding interest in and commitment to the region and understands the regions—something he demonstrates to me each time he visits the Hunter region, on the last occasion to look at some of the land use conflicts in the upper Hunter where we have a mining boom, a very strong horse industry and agricultural pursuits, including viticulture. There are some very big issues there that are difficult to resolve and it is good to see the minister showing such an interest in them.

We are an economically diverse region these days, but the best news of all is that our unemployment rate in the Hunter electorate is 3.5 per cent and in the Hunter region 3.9 per cent.

Government members interjecting—

You heard me correctly. And it was 13½ per cent when I became the member 16 years ago. I am not taking all the credit for it, by any means. Certainly this government's policies are helping to sustain that economic growth, the growth that is driving that low unemployment rate, and, just as importantly, to expand our capacity to deal with that growth with projects like the $1.7 billion Hunter Expressway; the third rail track, which will allow our coal to go to port more quickly and more efficiently by avoiding conflicts with passenger transport; and the NBN. All these things are expanding our economic capacity, which allows our region to continue to grow economically and therefore allows us to keep the unemployment rate at historic lows.

Having said that, the capacity constraints continue to appear. Most of our roads throughout the region are like car parks at peak hour each morning and afternoon. People have trouble securing things like child care. Everywhere you look, people are struggling one way or the other because the economic growth has been so strong and so quick, mainly driven by the mining boom. There is much more to do to alleviate those traffic jams and to expand child care, and to address all the constraints that people face. For example, in Scone you have to stop on the main road for up to eight minutes now as the coal train goes across the level crossing. We need to fix that. We need to do something about Muswellbrook and Singleton and the traffic jams there. This is why I have such a strong interest in the MRRT. The government has made it clear that some of the MRRT money will go to the mining regions to alleviate some of these capacity constraints. I seek the minister's views and his reassurance, and ask him to talk about how this can best be done and, very importantly, what threats we might be facing with respect to returning some of the boom to the regions and to spread the wealth.

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

I thank the member for Hunter for his question. I have had the opportunity to visit with him on a number of occasions not just since I have had this portfolio but over many years. This region is a fantastic example of one that not only has benefited from the mining boom but also shows the fundamental importance of economic diversification. It is economic diversification and this transition phase that we have to encourage so many of our regions to embrace. It is not moving away from their strengths; it is building on those strengths and adapting in different ways—in new ways and in using the smarts, the innovative processes, the technologies and the design to take them forward. But they cannot be expected to do it on their own. I have talked already about carbon farming and the opportunities in the Hunter—its great capacity to produce in not just viticulture but horticulture. It is a lush region. Why can't we see the opportunities more effectively in carbon-farming initiatives? Why can't we, in growth areas, instead of talking about councils having new costs imposed on them, look at the opportunities for landfill and conversion of landfill into energy? It is something that does not just produce a cost; it provides the economic return.

I am asked by the member what threats are posed to this suite of measures. The biggest threat is a Tony Abbott-led government getting into power. They already have a $70 billion black hole. They have already got overcommitted, without the ability to fund or cost. And they are going to cut the very programs that fund the initiatives that we have talked of. That takes out the potential to challenge regions and work with them—

Mr John Cobb interjecting—

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

The member for Calare will have his opportunity.

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

to develop the initiatives. So I say to those people in regional Australia who are looking for the opportunities for their future: work with us, work in a way that understands your strength, and work with us to realise that strength. Access the programs; do not be scared off by the fear campaign that those that sit opposite run. We have more to gain by grasping the opportunities than by cowering in fear. All you will get is a fear campaign from the other side. You will get progressive, sustained and strong economic growth and social diversity from us.

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

Minister, I want to refer to the regional adjustment assistance fund. I know you referred to it earlier in relation to the carbon tax damage to economies in Gippsland and how you looked to try and help out there. I am wondering: can this regional adjustment assistance fund also be extended to where damage has been done by this government's policies in relation to water buyback in the Murray-Darling Basin?

As you know from the budget there is another $40 million being brought forward to buy back even more water from irrigators, the food producers of Australia, especially those congregated in the southern part of the basin, in northern Victoria. We have had seven years of drought. We have had two years of floods. We all know, from the Murray-Darling Basin inquiries undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia and from the socioeconomic impact assessment released by the authority in May this year, that there is a serious consequence of the government's policy to pursue water buyback. This includes stranded assets in the irrigation systems like Goulburn-Murray Water and the lack of economies of scale, essential for food processing to continue. If you only have half your number of irrigators dairying, producing milk, then quite self-evidently you do not have Fonterra, Murray Goulburn, Bega, Kraft and so on with the economies of scale to stay in those northern Victorian irrigation areas.

You also, in your remarks immediately before, suggested that there was support for food processing. I am a little intrigued as to where that is. Perhaps you can enlighten us as well in terms of what funds you do have. In my area, as you are more than aware, we have lost Heinz at Girgarre; we have had Murray Goulburn put off half of its workforce at Cobram and a very significant part of its workforce at its Rochester plant; and we have had Coca-Cola Amatil, which owns SPC Ardmona, contract its workforce by about 30 per cent—and there is more to come. We are wondering just what this support is that you are looking to give to the regional economy as it faces this extraordinary problem of its irrigation water being removed as part of this government's agenda. It is pandering to the Greens, who have said: 'If you take water out of irrigators, this is a good thing. They waste it; they're profligate. Why don't you simply focus on irrigation, take the water from there and put it into the environmental water holder's bucket, stand back and just see who's left after a period of this policy?'

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

In relation to the opportunity for food processors to access funding, I would draw the member's attention to the clean energy future initiative that we announced. In terms of assisting industries to make the change to cleaner energy options, there is $150 million in there for food processors alone.

Dr Stone interjecting—

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

Order! The minister is answering the question.

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

The member has asked a question. I just wish at times that she would sit there and listen to the answer. I would also point out that, whilst it is true that businesses within her electorate have been contracting in terms of numbers, it is not true that some of them have not been expanding their operations. You mentioned Murray Goulburn. Murray Goulburn has expanded its operations into Tasmania. Murray Goulburn is now investing down there, and it is seeing huge growth in the dairy in that state. The member for Lyons has been down there with us when we have visited Smithton with the member for Braddon. We have funded initiatives to support the infrastructure and the training to develop the skill base for this industry, because a company like Murray Goulburn sees the potential in terms of not only dried product and export but also—with the rebound in prices and the global demand for food security—quality, clean nutritious and safe food. They have seen that there is huge potential in all those prime agricultural areas.

We know that these companies are threatened competitively by the high dollar. Therefore there is always going to be a challenge for them to build competitiveness back in by doing things smarter. Inevitably, that means looking at ways in which they do it with fewer people or more technology or more innovation. That is the nature of an economy in transition. Do not pretend it away, and do not pretend you have got a magic cure if you want these businesses to survive. What we have got to do is to get behind them in terms of their competitiveness and back them. And that is what we are doing. We are doing it in a way that actually works with the regions and understands their constraints and understands their challenges.

The member has asked me about the Murray-Darling Basin, and she knows that I have been actively involved in this space too, along with the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in really coming to grips with this difficult problem. Everyone you speak to who lives in the basin knows—they all have a different solution to it—that they have got to operate in a more water constrained environment. There are ways in which we can deal with this. One is water buyback but, quite frankly, my preference has always been to try to produce more with less; in other words, get into the efficiency stakes. The regions know that what they have got to do is to actually embrace a water constrained environment, otherwise they will not have any industries. The system will dry up. The minister is now coming in; he can take over in terms of the areas that he has been covering. But I am making the point: there are different ways, other than buyback—ways that are being pursued by him—and there is also the question of the economic diversification in those regions. That is what we are working together on. The member has sat on the committee that has made recommendations. Predominantly all of them have been picked up, and it would be far better if she contributed constructively to this debate rather than just carped from the sidelines.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to turn to a bit of soul food, but, before I do so, the minister has just recently highlighted the threat of those opposite to the nation. I just want to remind Canberrans about the threat that they pose to Canberra and remind them again of 1996, when they abolished 30,000 Public Service jobs.

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

How many Public Service jobs went in the last budget?

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I have said to you before, member for Riverina, that in terms of jobs, that is about half the population of Wagga gone. The future for Canberra that they pose is between 12,000 and 20,000 jobs lost. That is on the current figures, but every time I talk to someone opposite they throw in another 5,000 Public Service jobs. So at the moment I am ranging between 12,000 and about 30,000. I just want to remind Canberrans of the future, the threat, posed by those opposite to Canberra. It will not be pretty; we will go back into recession, housing prices will plummet and it will be an unattractive prospect for everyone in Canberra. Remember: half of Wagga gone. I just to talk about Canberrans and their passion for art. We have got a very vibrant and diverse arts community here. The current debate around the School of Music and the Canberra Symphony Orchestra attest to that. We are also the proud keepers of the nation's major cultural institutions. They continue to feed the souls of Canberrans, of the nation and also of people from around the world. Minister, can you please advise how the government is continuing to support the national cultural institutions based in the capital?

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

I thank the member for her question. She has not only been a fantastically strong advocate for her constituency since she has come into this place but a deep and abiding commitment to the arts and cultural policy. I am asked what we have done in this budget. We have committed another $65 million over four years for the arts, in particular a huge boost—some $40 million—for the collecting institutions. The collecting institutions, whilst they are housed in Canberra, represent collections that belong to the nation. As we approach the centenary of Canberra, what better thought can we give than how we make more accessible that which we have collected being made available to the broader community? With this $40 million for these institutions, we have also requested that they look again at their strategies for digitising their content not just for the purposes of storage, as important is that is and the potential that is opened up now in this technological age, but dissemination of material.

When you think about it, how much better is this going to be for the schools in regional Australia in particular? They will have the ability to go online and hook into any chart, any book, any volume or any document held by the National Library through that fantastic Trove initiative that it has developed in terms of the digitisation of its content. Why stop at the Library? Why not also the National Film and Sound Archive, the National Archives, the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum? These hold wonderful collections. We have got to keep investing in them not only for their ability to keep functioning and putting on these fantastic displays but also to disseminate that information around the country.

We are committed to the development of a new national cultural policy. The last time we had one in this country was under a Labor government—Paul Keating's government, the Creative Nation. In that 17 years, bipartisan support remained for the arts but there was never the big step up—never the big lift, never the big understanding as to why creativity and culture is so important to this nation. We are unique in the world, because we are home to the oldest living culture on earth which is producing some of the most exciting new art forms on earth; we have also been welcoming to the most diverse group of cultures on earth in terms of our multicultural appeal and our engagement. This is unique. We have got to build upon it, but in a way that tells diverse Australian stories in Australian words. Whether it is visual, written or oral, these are all the opportunities that present themselves if we are prepared to commit again to doing something to recognise it. It is not just for the cultural dimension, important as that is. We believe firmly that investing in the arts has a social dividend because it does teach expression, respect for culture and values of team work and respect. That is the social dividend for the nation but there is also an economic dividend. We know that the nations that are creative nations are also more productive nations. Increasingly, this point that was asked by the member for Murray about downsizing and my point about needing to find new ways into competitiveness, it is no longer just going to be driven by the technology; it is also the design factor. It has to be driven by the creative approach as much as by the technology. Unless we are investing in the bodies that produce that creativity and in the people who produce that creativity, we are letting this country down. It is an investment that has to be made. The budget made such an investment, and we hope in future years that we will be getting to do much more.

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

In the decade from 2001 to 2011, the Visy pulp mill at Tumut produced 2.6 million tonnes of paper and generated $2 billion in sales. I am sure the minister can appreciate just how many jobs the Tumut Visy mill generates for the Tumut Shire. The Visy mill is also underpinned by the Gocup Road. I know I have raised this before with the minister but I would like to go through very quickly that there were no road projects funded in round 1 of the Regional Development Australia grants. That said, RDA Southern Inland endorsed seven road projects in the region for round 1, and it would seem that it considered such projects to be eligible.

The round 2 guidelines identified minor roads and access corridors as an exception to ineligibility criteria. There are at least 10 road projects considered in RDAF round 2. Of course, the RDAs were not asked to confirm eligibility so this may just have been a waste of resources at every level. I draw attention to the Glenelg Shire Council projects for the Condar Hot Spur Upper Road upgrade and Green Triangle region priority infrastructure. This does seem like another timber road except that it was cleared to proceed to full application. The Bomen intermodal at Wagga Wagga was approved to proceed to full application. Why was one piece of the timber freight task eligible for assistance but Gocup Road—admittedly it is a state road—which carries a greater tonnage of the overall industry freight task, not eligible? Minister, could this be considered as road project funding worthy of grants in a future RDAF?

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

There are two points that I would make in response to the member. First of all, it is not a waste of time for the RDAs to be considering road proposals where they have the opportunity to advance their case to bodies like Infrastructure Australia or to seek funding through other programs that the government administers. We want the RDAs to think beyond the silo of RDAF, which is the point I have made consistently in response to questions from your side of the chamber in this session. It is not a waste of time. I think road infrastructure is vital, and there is a real challenge in terms of road infrastructure. There is also a challenge in terms of getting vehicles off the roads and onto rail, and that is why the intermodal hubs become terribly important. But the government has to think not just beyond the silos but also where it can work with the private sector and in the development of financial instruments that could also provide an avenue by which these things can be done.

I think the thrust of your question, as important as it is in identifying the opportunities, limits the scope if you just keep going back to RDAF. The mechanism that gives the RDAs critical mass is the RDAF because they can actually have an influence directly over that fund, but they should not see themselves as limited. If we believe in the principle of embedding localism in the way in which we govern, what we want is local input into the decision-making programs not just of the Commonwealth but also of state government and where local government initiatives and private sector money can be accessed. That is the model, quite frankly, that I want to develop.

As to the specific examples you have referred to, it is best to say that, in all cases where projects do not get up, they are offered the opportunity to engage with the department to understand why they did not get up and to learn again from the opportunity and to make adjustments accordingly. I would be surprised if the RDA had not already done so in that case. I made the point at the outset that, whilst round 2 is now out for consideration—and we will be announcing it in coming weeks—there are three more rounds potentially, but only courtesy of the passage now in the parliament of the minerals resource rent tax. Take that tax away—which your party supports—and take away that ability, and you take away the funding for regional Australia through RDAF; you take away the leverage. So you have to think really seriously about where this blind opposition is taking you. If you want to have influence in the way in which your region can actually benefit and drive the agenda, it has to have the capacity for leverage and it has to have the ability to makes its case in the knowledge that there is funding there. It is only under us that the funding is there. Under your proposals, the funding would disappear.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $474,242,000

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

I am pleased to present the 2012-13 agriculture, fisheries and forestry appropriation to the chamber. Our $36 billion agricultural export industry is dependent upon our reputation as a reliable supplier of high-quality foods and fibres to the global market. The Gillard government is committed to upholding that reputation and safeguarding our agricultural sector. To that end, the budget includes $524.2 million to boost Australia's biosecurity system. That investment will deliver a state-of-the art quarantine facility, maintain the core risk response capability and repair our information and communications systems. The government will also introduce a new biosecurity act to replace the century-old legislation that we currently have.

In last year's budget we set aside funds to purchase land for a new post-entry quarantine facility. This new budget delivers $379.9 million to build it. This state-of-the art post-entry quarantine facility, to be built in Melbourne, will mean that we have the newest and most advanced technology available to manage the import of high-risk plant and animal material. Our frontline defences play a pivotal role in protecting Australia from pests and disease. That is why $124.5 million has been provided over four years for core biosecurity capacity, including screening of passengers and international mail. The Gillard government is also prioritising the reform of century-old legislation to modernise the Biosecurity Act and ensure a seamless transition of goods and services across Australia's borders.

Supporting all of these activities is a $19.8 million investment over three years in biosecurity ICT infrastructure and systems. A separate $95.9 million over seven years provided from the Caring for our Council program will fund eradication programs for nationally significant pests and diseases.

All up, the funding announced in the 2012-13 budget will see more than $1.6 billion invested in biosecurity by the government since the Beale review. Our defence against pests and diseases is vital in protecting our agricultural sector and our environment. Protecting our natural resources also requires a broader effort. Australian farmers have been undertaking activities to manage and protect our natural resources for many years. It is vital that these efforts continue. As part of the budget, the Gillard government has committed $2.2 billion to continue to fund its flagship Caring for our Country program post 2013. This funding provides over half a billion dollars over five years plus over $200 million for Landcare for sustainable agriculture innovation, eradication and management of weeds and pests, as well as better practices that will protect our natural resources for food production. In addition to ensuring that Caring for our Country funding continues, this government has also recognised the complementary yet separate roles of farmers and those environmentalists who are not farmers—because many farmers are environmentalists, it is important to note—

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

Most!

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

I am not disagreeing with that for a minute. I have always disagreed very publicly with the argument that farmers are somehow environmental vandals. It is wrong and it deserves to be an argument that is knocked down at every opportunity.

From July 2013 these roles will be better reflected with Caring for our Country to be delivered through two specific streams: one dedicated to sustainable environment and the other to sustainable agriculture. This change provides a stream dedicated to agriculture, which allows for a more specific focus on the role our farmers play in keeping our land productive and the projects that are needed to support their efforts. It is a win for farmers and for farming communities. Look, here are a few extra pages which I have been given, all of which provide important issues, but given the time I think I might allow us to go directly to questions because I am sure some of the issues about drought support and research and development will come up during that opportunity.

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

I would like to start off, if I may, with a very nonpartisan issue and, if the minister is able to tell us anything about it, I would appreciate it, and I think the beef industry would as well. There are reports at the moment that manufacturing beef exports to the US in recent times have been found in some places to be infected with E. coli. I think that all of us have a great deal of knowledge of the great length that Australia's process is to make sure that nothing leaves our country that has not been subjected to that test in particular, and that it is not accepted into the US without having passed the same strictures. I think that currently we are at record levels of export to the US in this type of beef. I am just wondering, in view of how important this is, if the minister has an update on this issue that he can give us? If not, okay, but it would be good to know, if there is.

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

I thank the member for Calare for the question and also want to acknowledge the goodwill inherent in the way in which the question was asked. Every member of this parliament can stand proudly and say that Australia provides the safest and best quality beef in the world. The information which I have to provide in response to the question, I think, simply gives credence to exactly how careful we are with our health standards and how seriously we take them.

The department received notification from United States authorities that ground beef in the United States had tested positive for E. coli, and that Australian beef had been implicated in the detection. It is important to note that the Australian product had been found negative when it went through the Australian E. coli testing program prior to export. The implicated Australian product also complied with the relevant US testing program and met their import requirements when it was met at the border. So, it had been found to be safe when it left Australia and it was still found to be safe when it arrived in the United States.

Discussions are going on with all parties concerned, while confirmation as to what exactly is the source of the contamination is being progressed. Notwithstanding that, a voluntary recall of the relevant product is occurring in the United States. Australia has a strong reputation as a reliable, high-quality exporter. That reputation is underpinned by our world-class biosecurity system. We are committed to securing that reputation; so much so that we have invested $524 million towards our biosecurity system in this year's budget. That investment will see more than $1.6 billion invested in biosecurity by the government since 2009.

We have high-quality export standards and we expect those to be met. We have strong systems in place to detect and identify breaches if they occur. They are taken seriously and are traced all the way back to the point of origin, and corrective action is taken. We have a strong relationship with the United States on many fronts, and trade is one of those. But I think it is important in response to the question from the member for Calare to take away three points. The first is that when the beef left Australia it was properly tested and no E. coli was present. The second is that when it arrived in the United States, it was properly tested and found, once again, not to possess E. coli. Notwithstanding that, the moment there was ground beef that tested positive and Australian beef was implicated within that detection, we were immediately involved in a voluntary recall of the product while discussions continued to determine precisely what the actual source of the contamination is.

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

Australia is uniquely isolated and positioned, which has provided us with natural protection from destructive pests and diseases. This has allowed Australian farmers to be recognised as amongst the most productive in the world, producing safe, high-quality food and contributing $155 billion, or 12 per cent, of GDP. However, with the rapid and expansive growth in the movement of people and goods between countries and regions, we must continually work to combat biosecurity threats. Failure to adequately protect Australia's biosecurity could result not only in a decline in productivity but also in the potential for an entire industry to come to a halt if there is a serious pest or disease outbreak like the one that we witnessed in the United Kingdom—one which could threaten the health of Australian people and our environment, livestock and livelihoods.

We know that the Gillard government recognises the significant threats posed by pests and diseases and, unlike the former Howard government, is choosing not to ignore the problem. Instead, the Labor government has invested more than $1.6 billion in biosecurity to safeguard our agricultural industry, not just correcting the mistakes of the coalition but also implementing a smarter, more sophisticated, biosecurity system.

The biosecurity reforms are based upon the recommendations of the Beale review, which we talked about recently, and which has recommended the risk based analysis of biosecurity. These reforms have included the establishment of the Biosecurity Advisory Council; the appointment of an Interim Inspector General of Biosecurity; and continuing to work towards a more flexible and risk based biosecurity framework. These reforms were developed in consultation with state and territory governments and industries, ensuring that the biosecurity system meets their needs and provides the most effective protection for all Australians.

The Gillard government's biosecurity reforms will increase the efficiency of our productivity. This biosecurity framework not only protects the efficiency of our agriculture from destructive animal and pest plants and diseases but also ensures Australia remains a reputable trading partner. This is essential, as Australian agricultural, fisheries and forestry sectors export commodities to the value of $36.2 billion, and our biosecurity remains a key strength in maintaining market access. My question is: how will the Gillard government continue to invest in biosecurity for Australia?

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

I thank the member for McEwen for asking the question. I understand the new facility is located within his electorate—

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

I don't think it's been formally—

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

We are not there yet? Okay. Let me go through, first of all, why we are in a conversation about a new facility at all, because it is really important for the House to be in no doubt.

Under the Howard government, the facilities which were owned by the government were all sold off. What then happened was that the standards under which the facilities were operating once the leaseback arrangements happened slipped further and further and further. By the time we came to office, the first job that I had to do in this portfolio was to be involved in the most substantial disease eradication program that Australia has ever had to engage in.

Let us not forget how far down the chain businesses were wrecked because of the quarantine standards that fell apart under the Howard government. Equine influenza caused massive damage—absolute carnage—and not just to the industries involved in the breeding of horses. If you are involved in a stud and you cannot move horses around, your business is over for that period of time. The money that you make is just gone. We had those careers and those businesses facing massive jeopardy.

However, when there was an end to the racing meets, which would subsequently occur, there was a massive impact on regional economies as well. And I am not simply saying: 'It is the big-money horses and the big-money breeders and trainers who might be at risk.' From the businesses that were meant to make their money selling the food at the shops, right through to every add-on business that relies on these race meets—which become so much of the core of the social and economic fabric of a regional community—it was just over. It was over and it could not take place. That saw this government having to oversee something which very rarely happens in Australia—that is, not simply a containment of a disease but a complete eradication of disease. Look around the world at the different examples of when a disease arrives. Find other nations that have had equine influenza arrive and have not just said, 'We've got it now; we'll put up with it.' Find other nations that have done that. If you want to find a place in the world that says, 'No, we will oversee right to the end a complete eradication of a disease,' it is Australia. That is exactly the problem that fell to this government and which we delivered on.

On that basis, how do we undo the extraordinary damage that was done by the wheels falling off our quarantine system under the Howard government? What that meant was that, in the first instance, the damage caused by not having proper systems in place needed to be fixed. That is why it has fallen to the current Minister for Agriculture to have to go to the budget process and see a significant increase in the injection of extra biosecurity dollars. When you have savings in biosecurity—the cuts to systems, the falling apart of processes and the abandonment of the quarantine facilities which we saw under the Howard government—you are not just putting the horse industry at risk but also creating a risk that goes through anybody who is involved in primary production throughout Australia.

With all the damage that happened with equine influenza, imagine if it was foot-and-mouth-disease that had slipped through. Imagine the carnage that would have taken place in primary industries across this entire country. The time has come to rebuild the mess we were left with. The work has already been done in terms of getting proper processes back into our quarantine systems, and that has been going apace. We need to have a proper structure instead of the system which had started to fall apart at Eastern Creek. That was all revealed in black and white through the Callinan inquiry and the system is now being rebuilt under this government.

There is $524.2 million in the budget for biosecurity, which includes $379.9 million for a new state-of-the-art biosecurity facility in Melbourne, which will be constructed over seven years. Funding for the purchase of land for the facility was in last year's budget. The facility is required because of the short-sighted decisions of the previous government. All they saw in an outpost entry quarantine facilities was something to sell. (Time expired)

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

Minister, you would be aware that the Prime Minister made a speech at the Global Foundation Summit in Melbourne on 3 May in which she said Australia must be ready to act as the food bowl of Asia. In that speech, the Prime Minister said that Australia needs to be able to grow the food to feed not only our nation but also other nations, particularly those in the Asia-Pacific rim. It was a very good speech and I wholeheartedly commend her for it. She also said that Australia needs to strengthen irrigation—and I will turn to that later when the minister is acting in his capacity as the Minister for Water and the Environment.

Minister, how do you assess the Prime Minister's desire for Australia to be the food bowl of Asia when this federal Labor government was quite tardy in stemming the incursion of the Asian bee? We had the importation of New Zealand apples and the inherent risks that that poses for apple growers. They certainly grow Australia's best apples in Batlow, and that town is reliant on the apple industry. If we get fire blight in, I fear very much for the town of Batlow and for the many jobs the apple orchards create and the whole industry there generates. There is also ongoing lobbying to ban all live animal exports for slaughter. I wonder how that agrees with the Prime Minister's bid to make Australia the food bowl of Asia.

Finally, there is the foreign ownership of both agribusiness and Australian farms. The thing I get asked about most in my electorate is foreign ownership of Australian farmland. Whether or not it is a big problem, it is still out there. People believe foreigners are buying up all our farmland. When the Commonwealth extended its absolute limit on foreign ownership from $231 million to $244 million in January this year, that sounded alarm bells throughout regional Australia.

In recent times we have seen the buyout of AWB by American owned Cargill, which has led to all sorts of problems—particularly in a wheat industry which is still trying to come to terms with the dismantling of the single desk. That is still of great concern to my electorate and other electorates; I am sure the member for Calare could back me up on that. There has also been the attempted buyout of SunRice by Ebro. Under this government's $244 million-limit you could buy just about every farm in the Riverina and every agribusiness, and this government would not so much as blink an eyelid. Minister, I do not believe that equates to the Prime Minister's desire for this country, which she rightly said needs to be the food bowl of Asia. Minister, please answer that question.

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

I would need a good four hours to answer that question. If I miss anything in the time available I would be happy, when we resume, to come back to the question. A few issues have been raised, and I will start with the apples issue which is a classic example that members—in particular of the National Party, less so of the Liberal Party—have to be very careful about what they ask for. If you imagine where we would land if these protectionist demands were met, it would be an absolute disaster for Australian agriculture.

Let's look at the apples issue in order. First, Australian science had the import risk analysis and what we believed were the scientific risks of apple importation from New Zealand. This government held the line on the import risk analysis and found itself being taken to the WTO by New Zealand. As a member of the WTO, we ran the Australian case and we ran it hard, but we lost the case. We ended up with conditions put in place which provided a bar on a number of conditions—for example, if leaf matter were continued within a shipment. Since that time there has been an attempted shipment from New Zealand which was found to contain leaf matter. What happened? It never left New Zealand shores, because the protocols that were put in place after the WTO decision were the strongest we could put in place.

From time to time we get an argument about still stopping them all together. That was pretty implicit in the principles that the member for Riverina put forward. Make no mistake, deciding to rail against WTO rules and say we are going to ignore them means a lot for an industry that relies on 60 per cent of its product being exported: 60 per cent of what we grow we do not sell in this country. We as a nation have more to gain from trade than almost any other agricultural nation in the world. We have large agricultural production and a relatively small population. The risk that is borne by saying that we will rail against WTO rules carries a disastrous outcome for Australia's farmers. It is one thing to say to an apple grower, 'We want to keep these imports out for you and we want to ignore the WTO decision.' But try telling a grain grower that that is the game you want to play; try telling a beef producer that that is the game you want to play; try telling someone who is producing cotton that that is the game you want to play—because what you are saying is: 'We're willing to take a massive risk with our biggest areas of agricultural export.'

This government will not take that risk. We will run the argument of Australian science, and we will run it hard, in front of every international tribunal, but we are not going to abandon the trade opportunities that are in front of us. If we win a case, then we will grab it with both hands; if we do not win it, then we will be a nation that plays by the rules. The alternative is the worst possible outcome for Australian farmers. And, when you have entities that do not play by the rules, let us not forget how that unfolds for Australian farmers.

I was surprised to hear a member of the National Party have the courage to utter the letters 'AWB'—really surprised—because, if you want to know what happens when things go off the rails, what happens when people are not facing competitive pressures and what happens in the worst possible inside-deal scenarios, I reckon that side deals with Saddam Hussein's regime are not a bad example—not a bad example and a real one, one which was only cleaned up because this government came to office. The previous government was willing to see the rorts maintained and see the monopoly and the single desk remain. We now have a situation where farmers get to choose who they sell to. How outrageous is that!

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

As Minister Burke is aware, the government want a national forest policy that is world class in sound forest management and conservation systems. In the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments, which was signed last year following the downturn in the forest industry and the withdrawal of a considerable amount of capital by one company, the government committed $262 million to ensure that we do have a sustainable forestry industry by having a sustainable wood supply and by identifying the opportunities for regional development and economic diversity coming from those changes to our forest industry.

The minister was in my electorate just recently, opening $103 million worth of irrigation. We are getting on with a lot of sustainable irrigation in Tasmania, and that scheme will certainly change and diversify a lot of that farm area. The IGA certainly offers Tasmania a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to diversify into many other areas. The government committed to providing $45 million to support displaced workers and contractors through this transitional period, so that they can exit the forest industry. There is also $27 million, over the next three years, being provided to Forest & Wood Products Australia, the industry's service provider, to invest in research and development and provide those research results to the forest and wood products industry of Australia.

With all these things changing in the forest industry, in Tasmania and in other parts of Australia, I know the government are committed to introducing the illegal logging legislation and have been doing some work on that in committees of this parliament. But we see the world, through the European Union and the United States, trying to come to grips with this as well. Minister, is our legislation trying to get to the same level as they are in the United States and the European Union so that we in Australia do not become a dumping ground for the timber from illegal logging? Are we working closely with industry groups and trading partners to promote our values of sustainable forest practices? Are there other issues? Is there opposition to this course through the parliament? Could you answer those questions for us, Minister?

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

Minister, we will be back at 4 pm to continue the debate on the appropriation bill. Would you be happy to answer that question, and others that I am sure will flow, when we resume?

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

I would be happy to. I will be back at 4 pm.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 16 : 00

I will respond to some of the issues raised by the member for Lyons before the break, in particular the issues he raised surrounding illegal logging. I have received some information from the minister, which I will provide to the Federation Chamber.

In 2012-13 the government will also implement its regulatory and administrative approaches to illegal logging in response to its election commitment to combat illegal logging and associated trade. At the last election, the coalition also stated in its election policy that it would legislate to prohibit the importation of illegally harvested timber products, but it now appears that they have withdrawn bipartisan support for that.

This is a serious international problem which has significant economic, social and environmental costs. This is not, or at least it should not be, some sort of exclusively leftie issue, as was interjected before. The World Bank has estimated that each and every two seconds an area the size of a football field is harvested by illegal loggers. That is a rate of more than 2½ thousand square metres per second. But the beneficiaries of this illegal activity, by and large, will not be individuals driven to illicit practice by poverty. Again I quote the World Bank, who tell us that large-scale illegal operations are carried out by sophisticated criminal networks. This is an important issue, and it should not have been ridiculed in the way that it was by one of the opposition interjections when we were here previously.

The Australian government has been working assiduously with our trading partners, including all APEC countries, and with domestic wood processors to limit the negative impacts of this trade through the development of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011. The bill will complement Australia's international efforts to promote sustainable management of forests globally. We are working to achieve our aims by engaging directly with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region to support international forestry cooperation and Australia's forestry interests. The bill will put Australia at the forefront of global action, along with the United States and the European Union, to combat illegal logging. International engagement is at the heart of the Gillard government's illegal logging policy.

It is a shame that any sensible perspective has been rolled in the Liberal party room. The Liberal Party has now signalled that it is the only party in the Australian parliament that actually wants to stand for illegal logging. In doing so, the Liberal Party is standing side by side with the interests of sophisticated criminal networks—standing for the wealth that is created from the proceeds of crime.

If you go to any timber mill and meet with the contractors, they will all say that they are happy to face fair competition from overseas but that what they do not want to face is competition with criminal networks. They do not want to see Tasmanian jobs being put at risk because they cannot compete with illegal logging operations bringing their product in to compete side by side with Australian product. Anyone who has a skerrick of support for timber communities in Australia and any interest in a viable domestic industry has to stand opposed to the importation of illegally logged timber.

The member for Lyons also referred to the issues currently surrounding the intergovernmental agreement in Tasmania. Make no mistake: while there may be members opposite who believe that social licence does not matter, or that there is no need for any restructuring of an industry, you will not hear the industry in Tasmania saying that. The industry in Tasmania knows that it is going through an extremely difficult period of change, and no matter how many times the opposition stands up and says it would tear up any support, that it would tear up any assistance and that it would tear up an agreement, we will continue to stand side by side with a lasting outcome for Tasmania.

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

The time for this debate has well and truly expired. Unfortunately, I would like to move that debate on this matter be suspended and that we now move to what we should be debating, and that is infrastructure and transport. The time has expired as set in the standing orders, and as such we cannot continue to debate it.

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

In relation to the member for Shortland's motion, the fact is that these times are not set out in the standing orders. They are by agreement. I understand the member for Calare was also seeking the call. It will be up to the minister whether the minister responds to that call, but I give the call to the member for Calare.

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

Further to that, I am happy for the member opposite to make his contribution, but after that I think we really do need to move on to the next report as the minister will be leaving this chamber—

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

I thank the member for Shortland. I have outlined my intentions to give the member for Calare the call and then it will be for the minister if he wishes to respond.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your forbearance. As the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in his opening did stress the issues of quarantine and risk et cetera to a large degree, as well he might, I have some questions in that regard. First, the new quarantine station, which will take the place of five current quarantine stations in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth in particular, will mean that industry has to come to the one spot. Has a cost analysis been done on what that will mean to industry to have to confine itself to one spot? This is a big country, and it is a long way from Perth to Sydney.

Second, the Cocos-Keeling Islands held our offshore quarantine centre. Could the minister tell us whether his department still owns the old quarantine station or whether another department does? I am wondering if the minister is hearing me. Does the department of agriculture still own the deeds or the title to the old quarantine station on Cocos Island?

Third, why has the $7.8 million for the centre of excellence, which is the front piece for the government's quarantine and risk assessments, been put off being spent until 1 July 2013? Is that simply a budget measure to help the Treasurer meet his surplus requirements for the year 2012-13?

Fourth, the government is currently looking at bringing an amendment to the APVMA legislation, amongst which the government seems to be concentrating on having an automatic renewal process whereby all those chemicals which come under it have to be within a certain time—between five and 15 years—automatically reprocessed by the company that owns each chemical. I hope the government does realise that there are a lot of chemicals which are not high volume but are of high importance. Once companies realise they have to go through an extraordinarily lengthy, involved and expensive process, they may not see it as worth their while to do so, even though these chemicals in all likelihood have caused no ripples and are not likely to cause any problems in the process. What this means in the stock or the plant field is that we may be denied these chemicals in the future simply because the companies involved do not see it as worth their while to go through that reregistration process. I think that pretty much covers the ones I am concerned with at the moment.

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

I will answer on the different issues with the best information that I have, and being mindful of the constraints on time in the House. But I thank the member for Calare for the issues he has raised.

In terms of the quarantine centre in Melbourne, let us face it: there were massive problems in the systems that we saw when equine influenza took off around the eastern side of this nation—massive problems in the system being properly managed across a large number of different centres. We saw that. Now if you streamline that into one centre, you have a centre that is properly managed, properly focused on and better resourced. Then you should have a way of avoiding a whole lot of the challenges that we ended up seeing, in particular coming through at Eastern Creek.

As to the concept of a quarantine centre being contaminated, the whole concept of a quarantine centre is that it is quarantined. That is where you keep things. By definition, in a quarantine centre there will often be pests and diseases; the problem, when the coalition were in government, was that they did not stay within the quarantine centre. Having equine influenza within a quarantine centre would have been one thing; the problem was that systems, and a lack of systems, meant it got spread all the way around the country. That is the problem that has been dealt with. That is why we had the Callinan inquiry. That is why, from opposition, we announced the full-ranging review that became the Beale review. And that is why we are now in a situation of significantly reforming the number of sites; we go to one. And do not forget: when we had more sites, not only was the management bad but the Howard government had chosen to sell them off. That is why they are not owned by the Commonwealth.

On the quarantine centre for excellence: we are talking about something where you are dealing with actual construction. The processes that will have to be gone through with the Department of Finance and Deregulation do have a degree of caution. That means the money does not go out the door as quickly as it would otherwise. But that level of caution in those processes and the different things that have to be gone through with Finance I think certainly amounts to good policy.

On the demand for automatic reprocessing for the APVMA: we are committed to a system of reregistration for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. This will assure the community that chemicals currently being used in Australia meet contemporary health and safety standards. We do not want to have a situation where something is approved on scientific information and evidence that becomes deeply old and is never looked at again.

There is a reason why we have an independent approvals authority. We have it for people's safety. We have it for the safety of farmers who are using the chemicals. We have it for the safety of people eating the food that is produced. And we make no apology for that—absolutely no apology. The fact that that gets looked at again in the future is something which is a decision the government took after we had received over 70 submissions on the draft legislation and after over 150 stakeholders attended consultation meetings. We do end up with a situation where the level of caution for Australians, for the environment, for people, is a higher level of caution than if once a chemical is registered you never look at it again. That does mean there is extra compliance that gets done and, as a result of that, we have a safer system. The government makes no apology for those decisions.

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

Cocos Island?

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

On that, the information is not in front of us. If that comes to me then I will provide the information to the member.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Infrastructure and Transport Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $588,568,000

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

The 2012-13 budget has delivered a return to surplus but not at the expense of investing in important nation-building infrastructure. Our record investment in infrastructure is boosting the productive capacity of the nation and building an Australia that can compete and prosper in the 21st century.

This budget continues the rollout of Labor's unprecedented Nation Building Program and further builds on this through a range of measures. It delivers the federal government's commitment to provide our share of the funding to duplicate the Pacific Highway by 2016, by making up to $3.56 billion available on a dollar per dollar matching basis in the Nation Building Program.

It delivers $232.1 million to fund the final priority project on Infrastructure Australia's original priority list, arising out of the national audit of infrastructure that they undertook, the Goodwood and Torrens Junction upgrades, again, on the basis of fifty-fifty funding, this time with the South Australian government. That follows the announcement in between last year's budget and this year's—but the money is provided in this year's budget—for the Majura Parkway: $144 million from the national government and $144 million from the ACT government, again, on a fifty-fifty basis. So that now each and every project on the Infrastructure Australia priority list has received funding. It funds the relocation of the Moorebank Defence units, to open up a 220-hectare site for the development of the intermodal terminal facilities that were first chosen by the Howard government. But we have provided the next step, to address freight capacity constraints now and into the future.

The budget extends important safety programs under the Nation Building Program: an additional $1.75 billion over five years, for the Roads to Recovery program; an additional $300 million over five years for the Black Spot Program; and an additional $140 million over seven years for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. This is the first time ever that there has been a specific program for safety of heavy vehicles in the Commonwealth budget. It funds reforms to make Australia a modern, seamless economy by reducing the number of national transport regulators from 23 to just three.

In the week after the budget we had sign-off at the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure meeting in South Australia. All states and territories signed off with the Commonwealth on the national maritime legislation, which, in the past fortnight, I have introduced into this parliament. That will deliver a boost to the economy of $30 billion over 20 years. It is important reform, talked about for decades but delivered by this government, with the additional funding that was required to make it a reality provided for in this budget. It continues nation building, particularly in regional Australia, with almost two-thirds of the $36 billion in the Nation Building Program being invested in regional infrastructure. In total, the 2012-13 budget provides some $6 billion in new investment for the Nation Building Program. I commend the fiscal measures, the budget, on infrastructure and transport to the House.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to seek information from the minister. He will not be surprised when I say that it is in relation to the F3-M2 link. I have read very closely the document that you have produced associated with your portfolio; that is, Nation-building programs—Sydney transport infrastructure: project highlights. I read the section dealing with the F3 to M2 link and I note that along with the M5 East it is described by you and your departmental officers as a 'vital transport project'. And I emphasise the word 'vital' very deliberately.

It says in the statement that the government recognises that:

Connecting the Sydney Orbital Motorway network to the F3 would provide an efficient an effective national network connection through Sydney.

It goes on to say that the project is one which lends itself to being privately financed and that exploration of private financing is a matter that should be pursued. It is noted that along with the M5 East this particular road is now costing the nation $5.2 billion as of 2011, and will cost the nation, through avoidable congestion, $7.8 billion by the year 2020. I find the arguments extraordinarily compelling.

I simply ask: does the government intend to do anything in relation to this project or do I read it correctly that you are making it totally subject to somebody else coming up with the same amount of money as you are willing to offer in order for it to be progressed? I note—and I may not note it correctly—that in a less-urgent project, according to the words that are used—and I do not know whether that is right or wrong—the Australian government has committed $30 million for planning for the M4 East motorway without qualification. In other words, my question is: are you serious about doing anything on this matter? I note that the Howard government promised $1.5 billion five years ago as an election commitment.

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

I will respond to that question because this is a particularly important issue. I make the point that I have no doubt about the sincerity of the member for Berowra about getting funding for this project; he has raised funding for this project before. But I make the point that the former government, in which he was a senior cabinet minister for 12 years, and they did absolutely nothing in terms of progressing the issue. It is not good enough after four terms to say, 'We promise to spend something in our fifth.' That is not good enough. Not one cent was put in from Commonwealth funding into this project.

The fact is there are two elements of the budget which are relevant to this road. I agree with the member that this is a vital project for Sydney. There are a number of vital projects for Sydney, including the M5 East, and hence at the last election campaign we committed for Infrastructure Australia to undertake a study for financing options of the M5 East and the F3 to M2. Infrastructure Australia has produced that report and recommended a special-purpose vehicle be created. Under the auspices in negotiations we have had with the New South Wales government we will insist that Infrastructure NSW provide the lead role in advancing these projects. The fact is that both these projects are quite expensive. The fact is that neither the state government of New South Wales nor the federal government by ourselves are in a position to provide all of the funding that will be required for this to occur at this time. So how do you accelerate it? One of the ways that we accelerate funding in infrastructure is to mobilise private capital into infrastructure. That is why we have the creation of a special-purpose vehicle, led by Infrastructure New South Wales. I personally have had discussions with Infrastructure New South Wales, including its chair, Nick Greiner, about this direction in terms of infrastructure development. We know that for a period of time there has not been enough investment in infrastructure in our urban communities. We need to come up with ways in which we can mobilise that capital. We know from direct discussions I have had, including with managed funds in terms of the superannuation industry and other potential sources of private capital, that there is an appetite for investment in infrastructure which provides certainty in terms of a return. Hence, there is additional funding of $25 million for commitment to a special-purpose vehicle—bearing in mind that this road that the member for Berowra talks about is not a national road. It is the responsibility of the state government, but we are prepared to do our bit to provide that leadership.

In addition to that, $150 million that we have committed is available also to assist in terms of being allocated in the budget for the F3 to M2. That money has been there for some time. It was allocated by us in our first budget in 2008, after our election. There was nothing in the budget for this road when we came to office. Last year we did defer when that would be available, on the basis that we had received no requests to actually use that funding, just as the $30 million has been there for the M4 East awaiting a proposal from the New South Wales government, which of course is the responsible body in terms of the road network in Sydney.

So I would welcome discussions. Indeed, I am prepared to offer to have discussions with the member for Berowra—I know he is fair dinkum about this issue—about ways in which perhaps he could play a role in encouraging the New South Wales government to play a constructive role in this, because I think there is a real opportunity to advance this issue. (Time expired)

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

The minister, in his opening remarks, spoke about the amount being allocated for road expenditure in the budget, but, according to table 15 on page 6-43 of Budget Paper No. 1, in the 2012-13 budget the estimated expenditure on roads will be just $2.67 billion. That is a drop of $3.62 billion, or 58 per cent, from the previous year. This is a lower expenditure on roads than in the last Howard government budget, and as a proportion of GDP it is lower than in 2004-05, when the coalition government introduced Auslink for the first time. What is perhaps even worse is that in 2015-16, the last year in the forward estimates, the amount proposed for roads is only $2.7 billion. That is still less than provided in the last Howard budget before the election of the Labor government. So, in spite of all we hear about this government and its grand projects, this year and in 2015-16 there will be less money provided than was in the last Howard budget. So I ask the minister: is the $2.7 billion being provided in the forward estimates for 2015-16 all that the government proposes to spend on roads in 2015-16, or are there amounts somewhere in the contingency reserve to ensure that there is some kind of decent allocation for roads that far out?

My second question relates to the carbon tax and its impact on road construction. It has been estimated that it will cost $400 million extra to build the roads on the government's program as a result of the carbon tax. Has the government provided an extra $400 million to enable these projects to be completed, or are we in fact going to get fewer roads constructed than the government had committed?

Naturally, because of the fact that expenditure has been reduced so much, every state will see a significant reduction in its road-funding budget this year. The centrepiece of the budget, as the minister said, was an alleged $3.6 billion commitment to the Pacific Highway. However, there is actually only $2.7 billion in the budget. The remaining $900 million is presumably for some year beyond 2016, which guarantees, of course, that the government's commitment to have it all done by 2016 will not even be honoured under its own formula. I note that the government is proposing that this should be done on a fifty-fifty basis. I ask the minister: why was it appropriate, when the last Labor state government was in power, for the split to be something like 86 per cent to 14 per cent? The Commonwealth met 86 per cent of the cost of projects when there were Labor governments at both the federal level and the New South Wales state level and the state met only 14 per cent. Indeed, it only got to 80-20 because the O'Farrell government put in $468 million after they were elected to bring it up to 80-20.

When the Labor Party was in power in New South Wales, an 86-14 split was considered appropriate, but now the government is demanding 50-50. I ask the minister: if in fact the New South Wales government says that what was good for Labor in New South Wales ought to be good for the coalition and therefore refuses to meet 50 per cent of the cost, will the government withdraw its $3.6 billion or will it ensure that that money is spent on the Pacific Highway without this draconian condition?

Moving to Queensland, another state where there have been significant reductions, I refer to the Cooroy to Curra project. There has been no money announced in the budget for any new work to be done right out to 2015-16. I note, however, that the government has said that the cost of the existing project, which will finish in a few weeks time, is now only $388 million, whereas in previous years it has been put down at $488 million. I ask the minister: does this confirm that the amount the government has taken away from the Cooroy to Curra stage B project in the last federal budget was in fact $100 million? Ever since the last budget, he has refused to answer questions on notice or questions in Senate estimates on that issue. I assume we can now take it for granted that the amount taken away in the last budget was $100 million.

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

I am happy to answer the rather extraordinary questions from the Leader of the National Party, the party which purports to represent regional Australia. There are a couple of points to be made. One is with regard to the budget provisions and our expenditure. The fact is that, for example, two weeks ago I was at the Ipswich Motorway for the opening of the Dinmore to Goodna section. It is a major project—well over $1.8 billion of Commonwealth money. We have allocated over $2.8 billion to the Ipswich Motorway. It was opened six months ahead of schedule and $400 million was brought forward as the final payment. One of the things we have done which our predecessors never did—none of the transport ministers—was pay according to outcomes. We made milestone payments. The road is finished, so the $400 million allocated last year we have spent this year. That should not be too hard to understand. I say to the shadow minister that that is appropriate. We then had the extraordinary proposition with regard to Cooroy to Curra where, again, the shadow minister purports, 'It is bad that you have produced a road under budget'—which we did. And do you know what happened to the money? It went into the Bruce Highway.

Mr Truss interjecting—

The member did nothing to fix Cooroy to Curra when he was the transport minister, even though it is in his own electorate. He did nothing to fix it over the entire time he was in government, but now that section of the highway is about to be completed he says it is a bad thing that we have done it under budget. 'We should have given those poor contractors more money. Don't worry about how much it cost to build, here's a bonus. We'll give you more money.' You cannot be serious coming into an estimates hearing and putting that sort of preposterous position—that we should pay more money for roads, regardless of what it costs.

We make no apology whatsoever for the fact that we have driven efficiencies. One of the reasons we have driven efficiencies is we have doubled the roads budget. We have increased the scale of the work that is taking place. We have introduced alliance contracting. We have gone through the Infrastructure Working Group and introduced microeconomic reforms which may, for example, take away a lot of red tape and streamline the approval process for these projects that have resulted in less money from taxpayers being spent on building roads. That is a good thing. Everyone knows that except the Leader of the National Party, who again comes in here and is critical because projects come in under budget. I make no apologies for it whatsoever.

We then have the extraordinary proposition that somehow this government is being unreasonable with regard to the Pacific Highway. Under the former government, the Commonwealth put in $1.3 billion and the state government put in $2.5 billion for the Pacific Highway.

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

But it wasn't on the national network then. You put it on the national network.

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

Give me a break! The Pacific Highway was just created in 2007 as an important national road—that is an absurd proposition from the member opposite. I make no apologies for the fact that we have delivered additional funding for the Pacific Highway. For example, as part of the stimulus, the Kempsey bypass is 100 per cent Australian government funded.

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

You announced it, yes, so why do you want New South Wales to pay now?

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

I have admitted it. It is really hard to argue with that sort of logic. We have admitted it. It is in the budget papers. Part of the economic stimulus was to have major infrastructure projects, including the Pacific Highway, which is a vital road. People did not start having road accidents in 2007 on the Pacific Highway. (Time expired)

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

I have a few questions for the minister to do with the Pacific Highway, but I want to make some comments first. I listened to the minister's contribution and also to the question by the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the Nationals. I start with a quote from a media release by the NRMA. It was Monday, 27 February this year. The title of it was, 'Stop passing the buck on Pacific Highway'. It says:

Calls by the NSW Government to change the funding model for the Pacific Highway from the current 50/50 spilt with the Federal Government is disingenuous and will do nothing to get the road upgraded by the 2016 deadline.

It goes on to say:

NRMA Motoring & Services President Wendy Machin said comments today by NSW Deputy-Premier Andrew Stoner on North Coast radio—

and comments I heard on my local radio—

would be concerning to communities waiting to see the road finally upgraded.

Another direct quote:

“It was the Howard Government that set the 50/50 funding split for the Pacific Highway from 2006 and the NRMA has supported this approach since day one,” Ms Machin said.

“While in Opposition, the current NSW Government frequently called on the NSW Labor Government to match federal funding for the Pacific Highway dollar-for-dollar and we supported this call too.

And there is more: I have pages and pages of quotes from the deputy premier in New South Wales, Andrew Stoner, and from the New South Wales roads minister, Duncan Gay, talking about meeting the deadline—always having a go as a good opposition would, correctly, at the government and saying, 'Put money in'. But as you heard from the minister, they did. I just find it really bizarre that the federal government is being called upon to adhere to this mythical 80-20 split. It does not exist; it never existed. There was stimulus money—

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

It's in the agreement.

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

I know. I know what you are quoting from, honourable member for Wide Bay. I have seen it too in the nation-building program because there was stimulus money—there was extra money given. So you cannot even give something extra and have people say, 'Great, we have some extra money', all you do is turn it around and kick people in the teeth. I am fed up with it, because it is my local road and I am sick of having to be involved in this debate. The money needs to be there, fifty-fifty. It was no different to what Prime Minister Howard said at the time.

If you go back to the coalition's Auslink white paper of June 2004, it said, 'The government's objective is to duplicate the Pacific Highway by 2016, in partnership with the New South Wales Government.' It goes on to say, 'The government,' meaning the Howard government, 'will commence new duplication and upgrading projects by investing an additional $480 million. The New South Wales government will be expected to at least match this level of funding.' There is no different an expectation on the federal Labor government now.

Now, prior to the 2007 election the coalition's election policy 'Our 2020 plan for Australia's transport future' said, 'The coalition is willing to commit funds to fully duplicate the Pacific Highway by 2016 if New South Wales matches this commitment.' So what has happened to that? Is that a policy that has just been dropped, abolished, gone? Particularly by the Leader of the Nationals; you were once seen as the party that cared about roads and that funded roads. Where has that gone? I have only ever lived in areas that have generally been National Party and I just find it astonishing that we are having this debate in my local area on this.

Everybody has looked for this so-called 80-20agreement. It does not exist. What you find in the state budget papers in New South Wales is:

The Australian Government’s Economic Stimulus Plan significantly increased capital expenditure in New South Wales in 2009-10 and 2010-11 ($3.0 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively). This expenditure effectively concludes in 2011-12 …

Which is as it should be: it was stimulus money. It finished, and to have it used to be kicked and beaten up on is just unconscionable.

Minister, my question is: how much money went into the Pacific Highway?

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

I thank the member for Page not just for her question but for her strong advocacy of the Pacific Highway.

For example, we had the pleasure of being at the sod-turn, the construction milestones and the opening of the Ballina bypass. This was a project that was a very challenging engineering project indeed. It was one promised, funded and delivered by the federal Labor government. We also have, of course, underway right now a range of projects on the Pacific Highway.

What is astonishing for the Leader of the National Party is that 92 per cent of the funding for the construction for projects currently underway on the Pacific Highway are in coalition seats. The $618 million that we committed to the Kempsey bypass during the economic stimulus plan is completely within the electorate of Cowper. It is a vital project, which will be extended with the Frederickton to Eungai section, the section where the Clybucca bus crash occurred in 1989. Australia's worst ever road accident and the road had not been fixed. That is an indictment on the entire political system, that that had not been fixed. Not just Labor or coalition, state or federal—all of us. So let us get rid of this nonsense and get it done!

I have not played politics with the Pacific Highway—92 per cent of it is in coalition seats. If that is playing politics, then that is just pathetic. The funding has been allocated with absolutely no reference to partisan politics. Three per cent in the electorate of Lyne and four per cent of the construction projects are in the Labor held seats of Richmond and Page. We have not said, 'Let's do Page first, before Cowper.' Most of the money is going into Cowper right now. They are big projects: Sapphire to Woolgoolga, the Kempsey bypass. We get this nonsense: 'You admit that 100 per cent of the funding for the Kempsey bypass is from the Commonwealth government.' Of course we do. It is part of the economic stimulus plan. I am proud of it. This project will save lives and will make a more productive Australia. And the opposition is opposing this funding. That is amazing.

Of the remaining projects on the Pacific Highway, 48 per cent are in coalition seats. If you are fair dinkum, Leader of the National Party, I say this to you: go out there and commit today to fund all of it, the $7 billion plus, over the forward years. Our funding goes until 2016-17. The Leader of the National Party needs to understand the complexity that the 2016-17 financial year is the annual year 2016 in terms of the milestone payments! That is why the final amount—because we pay on milestones, as I explained before—is in that year. He should go out, stand up now and commit to $7 billion from the coalition by 2016. It will just add to the black hole you have! If he does not do that, he is a fraud on this issue. The Leader of the National Party should be saying to his New South Wales coalition colleagues, 'Get on board. Do what you said you would do.'

There is not a single project on the Pacific Highway under construction or committed that has an 80-20 agreement—not one. There is no 80-20 agreement between the Commonwealth and the state government—there was not under us, there was not under you. The fact is, we have provided additional funding. To argue that that should be continued is like arguing that the BER or a range of other projects that were stimulus projects should be continued ad infinitum. If the Leader of the National Party is at all fair dinkum, he must stand up—he has until five o'clock—and commit to that whole $7 billion. (Time expired)

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

I would like to draw the minister's attention to the Princes Highway in south-east Australia, which he is very familiar with, and I thank him for his correspondence on this issue. This relates also to the seat of Eden-Monaro. The issue I refer to is the duplication works between Traralgon and Sale, where $140 million has been committed by the federal government and $35 million by the state. I seek clarification about the government's position on the re-profiling of the $20 million, which has been extended out from the previous financial year and which I understand was an EPBC-related issue. In that context, I would be interested in your thoughts, Minister, on what extra costs these EPBC-related issues are adding to the road construction bill in Australia. I am finding in my electorate that road construction not referred to the EPBC is extraordinarily frustrating for the local community and roads are being realigned in a manner not consistent with what was expected when the reserves were put aside in the first place. I would be interested in what reforms the government has in mind in relation to that, but more particularly about the $20 million which has been re-profiled. I know the minister understands that this is a much larger project than the $140 million which has already been allocated. I would be interested to know the minister's view in terms of any future funding commitments to that section of the road.

More broadly, Minister, I want to refer you to the Princes Highway east across Victoria and into the seat of Eden-Monaro. I have the figures in front of me for 2005 to 2010 when, from Sale to the New South Wales border, there were 22 fatalities and 116 serious injuries on that stretch of road. I am not sure what happens after that, in Eden-Monaro, but I am sure the member can tell us.

This road is not on the national network—I appreciate that—but on that stretch of road between Wollongong and Sale some off-network projects are being undertaken with support from the federal government for the Bega bypass. What is the government's attitude to the status of the highway from Wollongong through Eden-Monaro and Gippsland to Sale, where it joins up with the national road network section on which work is currently underway?

This area has quite significant heavy vehicle usage, with the timber industry, the fishing industry, the moving of agricultural products and the local and tourism related traffic increasing. Does the government see this as a priority? What advice do you have for the communities along that route to get more of the federal-funding pie to ensure we improve the safety and productivity of the road in that region? I would appreciate your feedback.

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

I thank the member for Gippsland for his question. He is a strong advocate for his local community. We have some political differences, but I have no doubt that he is a genuine advocate for additional money to be spent in his community. He would never take the attitude of arguing against funding for his areas that some on that side of the House seem to take.

With regard to the Traralgon to Sale section, yes, the deferral of some of that funding was because we pay against milestone achievements. The EPBC environmental approvals meant that the state government requested a deferral essentially because the money could not be spent at that time. My advice from meetings with Minister Mulder from Victoria, with whom I have a very good and constructive relationship, has been that there has not been a request for additional funding—that is, an argument that because of the deferral the costs would increase. For a number of recent projects in Victoria there were cost increases, while for some projects there were cost savings. We have constructively worked through those issues, so I am confident that we could work through those issues with the Victorian government. People would be aware that there is a current commitment to the $175 million project, jointly funded with $140 million from the Commonwealth and $35 million from the state government.

With regard to issues with the highway beyond Sale, the section of the Princes Highway that the member refers to is a state road and the responsibility of the Victorian government. We have not had representation from the Victorian government for additional funding that I am aware of. There may well have been representations to the department, but none I am aware of from direct discussions I have had with Minister Mulder, the most recent of which were face-to-face discussions two weeks ago when I had two meetings with Minister Mulder, one in Victoria and one in South Australia at the ministerial council meeting. I would invite the member to have further discussions with me to find a constructive way of dealing with this.

In answer to the member's questions, we have had funding for projects including on the other side of the border, such as for the Bega bypass. I think that is now fully federally funded after we made a commitment to get it done. It is unfortunate that state governments of various persuasions have not all come on board with funding for that project. The member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, has been an extraordinary advocate. In two weeks we will be in Bega commencing construction of that road, an important part of nation building program 1.

Importantly, on state government negotiations, nation building program 2 will commence from 2014-15 going forward. State governments are preparing submissions both to the federal government and through the Infrastructure Australia process. It is unlikely the Princes Highway funding will be prioritised by Infrastructure Australia, because IA looks at benefit-cost ratios and it would be difficult to progress it through a productivity inspired funding recommendation process. That is not to say that that should be dismissed. Productivity is, of course, vital and the economic utility of one project versus another has to be analysed.

We also have to look at issues such as road safety. I do point out to the member that we had in the budget the Roads to Recovery program in terms of local government funding extended and an increase in the Black Spot Program that has been very effective in delivering projects that save lives on our roads.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are talking about the Princes Highway, I do appreciate the member's question on that because it is a very significant story and one neglected by state governments. It was part of the Infrastructure Australia process. There was a bid that the New South Wales government put in. That bid made it a long way through the process and we were hopeful that it was going to get up but, of course, the Infrastructure Australia process is independent and we did not quite get there. I did do a deal with the previous New South Wales state government that, if the bid did not get up, they would pick a couple of the more dangerous spots along the highway and do Victoria Creek and Dignams Creek. To give credit to the current New South Wales government, they have maintained that commitment and that work is underway.

One of the most important elements of that project is the Bega bypass that the minister has mentioned. This particular minister for infrastructure will go down in history as the greatest friend that rural and regional Australia has ever seen in government. When I look back at the 12 years of neglect of the Howard government when services vacated the regions, this is what gave Pauline Hanson her leg-up. We saw banks, post offices and railway stations in the towns in our regions suffer.

The Bega bypass is a classic example of where judicious intervention is being exercised by this government to unlock the potential of the regions. If you look at the Bega bypass it was something that was promised 40 years ago. I was at my father's knee when they first started organising for the Bega bypass and organising the land corridor.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I was that short at one point in time. For all of these years we have waited for that project to be delivered. Why is it so important? Because, right now, the Princes Highway does a dogleg through the town of Bega and it is incredibly dangerous as the larger trucks come through the town. Over time they have become much, much bigger. Of course, we know that the b-doubles have to uncouple and recouple on the outside of town on both sides of town. This adds enormous costs to business and adds delay in moving traffic. We have a lot of goods that we need to move such as milk goods from Bega Cheese, timber goods, sheep and beef meat and logs. That whole array of measures require the ability of the b-doubles to move smoothly through the region. With the Bega bypass we will no longer have the requirement of those b-doubles to uncouple and recouple. Also we will be taking 500 truck movements a week out of that central street in Bega, Carp Street, which will improve safety and the air quality in the town. We are also going to see something like 360 direct jobs involved in the delivery of the Bega bypass. It is going to be a massive boost to the region and help unlock its economic potential.

The minister has demonstrated a complete grasp of the overall impact of unlocking a region's potential by unclogging the arteries of these key road links. We have here in the ACT the Majura Parkway, which is not in my electorate, but that $250 million project to which the minister is contributing $140-odd million is part of that seamless road network that we need in this region to unlock that potential. This is a region that is absolutely full of potential. It is going gangbusters. It is not just in the issues of identifying what are the current needs and impediments, but the minister was able to fund, through a $60,000 grant to the Bega council, a study done by consultants into the potential of the Port of Eden. The port of Eden is the best deep-water port in Australia, positioned halfway between Sydney and Melbourne. We have large industries that see the potential in using the port of Eden, like the Visy pulp mill in Tumut, Bega Cheese and major wind farm proponents—the Wind Prospect wind farm for Boco Rock will bring 120 turbines in to my electorate and a wind farm development in north-eastern Victoria will be using the port of Eden. We are also starting to bring in cruise liners in greater numbers. To bring those cruise liners alongside will vastly enhance the tourism potential of the region as well. This is the vision of this minister. I would like the minister to explain also how this relates to the overall productivity objective of the government and how the Infrastructure Australia part of this puzzle also introduces the independence element and a greater decision-making basis.

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

I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his outstanding contribution. In a balanced and fair way he has been a very strong advocate for not just his electorate of Eden-Monaro but also for regional Australia. Indeed, the member talked about the Bega bypass, that I think is important, to make the point that one of the issues that creates cynicism out there in the community is when infrastructure projects are promised but not delivered. It is absolutely vital that there be a long-term approach to these issues. It is vital that, where possible, there be a bipartisan approach to these issues. The Bega bypass, for 40 years, is just one example.

The Moreton Bay regional rail link is perhaps a more extreme example. First promised in the Queensland parliament in 1895, it will be delivered two centuries later. It was promised in the 19th century, missed the 20th century but is being delivered in the 21st century. The cynicism is there, and when I travelled to Bega with the member for Eden-Monaro there was a great deal of excitement that the project was actually happening. When construction commences, that is particularly important.

I have already had constructive discussions with the new Queensland government about the way that projects should continue in a seamless way. I have had constructive discussions with the Victorian government since the government changed hands. New South Wales thinks the world stops when there is an election and you should renegotiate everything. If you do that you cannot deliver infrastructure. You cannot have that approach to infrastructure development. That is why I have taken the approach of this government having a six-year nation building program, of building on the Infrastructure Australia process that is about recommendations and priorities. It is also about recommending policy initiatives such as the creation of the special purpose vehicle for the F3 to M2 and the M5 East, to look at innovative ways in which we can drive not just public investment but also private sector investment in infrastructure.

The member also raised the issue of the port of Eden. One of the initiatives that Infrastructure Australia has taken in driving that policy agenda, driving that long-term approach, is the National Port Strategy and the National Land Freight Strategy. For the first time, ports are being required to have an approach that recognises that they are not islands, that they relate to the land transport issues of how the goods get to the port. The big difficulty in road and rail transport and the productivity of our port structure is often at what is known as the last mile, which is so vital for a nation that has more than 99 per cent of our trade conducted by shipping.

That is why looking at how we best maximise the efficiency of our ports is so important. Infrastructure Australia has certainly done that and has provided in recent times advice on northern Tasmania that will put a rigour into the debate that was lacking in the past. I welcome the creation of similar bodies based upon the Infrastructure Australia model, such as Infrastructure New South Wales, and I think that Nick Greiner, as the chair of Infrastructure New South Wales, is playing a very constructive role in the debate.

In conclusion, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I understand that not everyone has had an opportunity to have a say. I am happy to offer people a private discussion or they can put questions on the Notice Paper.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,609,431,000

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

As is my practice at these forums I will make an opening statement. This time provides a good opportunity to talk about the migration program. It always strikes me that one of the most important jobs for an immigration minister is to set the annual migration program for the year following.

It does not get very much attention or coverage, but it is the core of our very important migration policy. This year on budget day I announced an increase in the migration program from 185,000 people to 190,000 people—a modest increase but, nevertheless, an important one. This year's migration program includes a skills stream of 129,250 places, a family stream of 60,185 places and a special eligibility stream of 565 places. I would note that the breakdown between skills and family has been the same for many years—I think since 2006. I think it is an appropriate mix. It enables a continued focus not only on skilled migration but also on very appropriate and important family migration.

Up to 16,000 places have been reserved for the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme to ensure that those areas have the support they need to fill skills gaps, grow local communities and strengthen communities. In relation to the Family Program, the figure of 60,185 is an increase on last year's program, which had 58,600. This is a program which is under considerable pressure given the considerable legitimate demand for people to live with their families in Australia. We have increased the parent stream, in particular, to 2,150 places. It was 1,000 when I became the minister; it is now 2,150 places. There is still a substantial backlog of applications for parent visas and a substantial waiting time. Obviously, we would like to see that come down, but it is important that the program be increasing.

Importantly, last week I made a number of announcements, some of which may get some attention today. One which may not get much attention is one that I am particularly pleased about: reforms to the Business Skills Program. I am particularly proud of this and we worked hard to deliver it. In my time as financial services minister I was particularly struck by the opportunities for Australia as a financial services hub and an investment location. That is what really drove our reforms to the significant investment visa, which will target migrants who can make an investment of at least $5 million in the Australian economy.

The significant investment visa will provide a boost to our economy and help Australia compete for high net wealth individuals seeking investment immigration. This will be a non-discriminatory visa, available to any high net wealth individual around the world who makes a financial contribution and an emotional commitment to Australia by seeking permanent residence. I envisage very heavy interest and demand in Asia, and particularly in China, where there has been a very substantial growth in high net wealth individuals over the years. This will of course help create a good source of new investment capital and increase the pool of funds to be managed locally. This will be good for jobs and good for our financial sector—in particular, funds management, financial planning, fund administration, stockbroking and accounting. We looked very closely at world's best practice in developing the significant investment visa. We looked at the experience of Canada, Singapore in particular, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and I think we have a very competitive product indeed. There will be some more details announced, of course. Some of the reforms come into force on 1 July; others come into force later in the year, particularly the significant investment visa. We have also cut red tape by reducing the number of visa subclasses from 13 to three. I think we still have too many visa subclasses in Australia, but we have moved to substantially reduce them and we have made good progress in very substantially reducing the number of visa subclasses.

There are a number of other reforms that the government has engaged in, particularly in the skilled migration area, and I am sure some of those will receive the attention of honourable members over the coming hour.

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

First of all, I request that the minister table the 2011-12 outcome for the migration program as well as the 2012-13 planning levels. They have not been posted on the website since the budget was released, so I request that he do that. Going further, though, to the matters that the minister has raised in his opening statement, I add the coalition's support. I know that the minister appreciates it greatly when the coalition supports initiatives of the government, particularly in this area. I put on record that the coalition is very supportive of a number of the changes that the government has introduced in skilled migration. Although I am yet to see the details of the business skills reforms that he announced last Friday, in principle they are welcome.

I also welcome the minister's statements about the balance of the overall program between the skills and the family component. One of the great achievements of the Howard government was to lift the proportion of skilled migrants in the overall permanent migration program from less than 30 per cent to almost 70 per cent. The government has fallen back a little from that, but not much, and I think the intention of the government is to retain it at around two-thirds of the overall program, which is welcome. The other very important reform which is being introduced by the government—and I particularly commend the department officials on this—is the SkillSelect program. The SkillSelect program is a very worthy advance, and I commend those involved in it. Finally, visa subclass reform is effectively an area of regulation and the more we can do to reduce the paperwork around the issues in that is something that the coalition would always support.

The Enterprise Migration Agreements policy was part of last year's budget and is now very much in the public domain. This is a policy the coalition has supported from day one. It is a worthy policy which ensures that proponents of large projects can get upfront support to reduce the uncertainty around the implementation of their projects, which enables them to attract funding and support. I have a number of questions about the policy, and I ask the minister to take them either here or on notice. My questions are: can the minister confirm that the deed giving effect to the enterprise migration agreement for the Roy Hill mine project approved by the minister has not yet been signed? When will this deed be signed? What, if any, additional requirements were added to the arrangement by the government for the deed to be signed? Did any government minister seek to impose any additional conditions on that agreement before it was announced last Friday, or since, in relation to the finalisation of the deed for signing? Has the minister done an assessment or asked for an assessment to be done on the impact of any of these additional conditions in terms of their impact on this project? Would it delay start-up? If so, by how long and what will the impact of these delays be on the ability of the Roy Hill project to secure its financing? Finally, can the minister confirm that side agreements for the Roy Hill mine yet to be agreed with construction unions could restrict access to foreign workers provided for under the enterprise migration agreement and approved by the government? What steps is the minister or the government taking to ensure that unions will not use these agreements on site as a secondary bar to frustrate the purposes of the government's EMA and therefore put at risk this $9 billion project and the more than 6,000 Australians jobs it will deliver?

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

In response to the honourable member: firstly, I welcome his support for our increased skilled migration program in particular. I must correct the member, however—my clear understanding is that we have kept the same proportion of skilled versus family migration since 2006.

In relation to SkillSelect, I also welcome his support. It is a good reform—a very good reform—which will help us better manage the skilled migration program. We do have a substantial backlog of skilled migration applications and that is something which has provided a very significant challenge. That is because Australia, being a very attractive place to live, does attract many applications for all our migration streams and particularly in relation to skilled migration. Those applications of course have varying degrees of quality and qualifications, and some will never be in a position to be approved. Nevertheless, we are legally obliged to fully consider the applications. SkillSelect is an expression-of-interest model which will enable the department to sift through those applications much more effectively and much more quickly.

On the honourable member's question about the tabling of the outcome for 2011-12, I am advised we will not be able to do that until 30 June at least, because 2011-12 is not yet complete. In relation to the further matter he asked to be placed on the website, I will take on notice the question of when that will be put on the website. But certainly we are not able to put the 2011-12 result up until the end of 2011-12.

In relation to the honourable member's questions: yes, last week I announced in-principle agreement with Roy Hill. I said in my speech announcing the Roy Hill enterprise migration agreement that it was an in-principle agreement and documents would shortly be signed. Those documents of course are the subject of discussion between the Roy Hill project and the government. There will be substantial discussions about those. They are important documents.

In relation to site agreements: site agreements are a matter between the enterprise and the unions. If there were to be any government or ministerial involvement it would be through the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Fair Work Australia. As Minister for Immigration and Citizenship I have no role in industrial relations matters. Site agreements, I dare say, will be a matter of vigorous negotiation between the unions and Roy Hill. But that will be a matter for Roy Hill and the unions under our Fair Work system.

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

I want to ask the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship some questions on a matter of government reform which is of great importance to me and to my electorate. I am referring to the expansion of the community detention program, which I will get to in a minute. I have spoken on many occasions in this place about the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation centre in my electorate. It is a smaller centre in the overall detention network across the country and was established some years ago under the previous government. Senator Amanda Vanstone was then the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and, through the budget of the time, she allocated some $240 million or thereabouts to have a maximum security detention centre built in my electorate at the site of the Maygar Barracks which was purchased by the immigration department all those years ago.

It was obviously a proposal that our local community—and that is important, because my local community has driven a lot of the activities that have taken place since—in Broadmeadows were, at the time, clearly very unhappy about: the idea of a high security detention centre. People would recall barbed wire and children, and all sorts of very negative images associated with the handling of boat people.

Our community was very sensitive to that and of course they fought a very successful campaign which they called, incidentally, 'Links not Locks'. They managed to fend off the building of this massive high-security detention centre and, in its place, a smaller centre was created which was initially meant to accommodate, for very short periods of time, those people who were visa overstayers, given the proximity of MITA to Melbourne Airport.

In recent times, especially in the last couple of years, the centre has been a place that has accommodated unaccompanied minors and, again, my community maintained the idea that they wanted links not locks in whatever was going on in MITA. We embarked on a program that saw us develop a community interaction with the centre, with MITA. That community interaction involved a considerable number of people in my electorate. Some had reservations, but when they did go to MITA and met with the immigration officials there—Serco officials—and when they got to know a lot of the people that were staying there, they decided that they really wanted to be involved in improving and advancing community interaction. That saw the creation of a very successful soccer program which involved a lot of our schools not only in my area but in the surrounding areas. The immigration department in particular were highly cooperative and we were allowed access. We conducted music evenings in there, as well as IFTA dinners. The whole idea was to make people feel like there was a community out there that was interested in their welfare.

After that we moved into the community detention program, which is what I want to ask the minister about, and I have a number of questions because that program has been expanded. It actually a very successful reform and one that I am certainly very proud of as a member of this government. Minister: can you tell me how many people have been put into the community since it was announced in 18 October 2010, and how many people are currently in community detention? How many of those are children and how many are unaccompanied minors? How long does that mean that eligible minors have spent in held detention prior to moving into community arrangements? How many people are currently living in homestay arrangements and how many applications or expressions of interest have been received by the homestay network, which I understand is a more recent reform and one that appears to have been implemented very well?

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

I thank the member for Calwell and I acknowledge her very real interest, particularly in the detention facility in her electorate, the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation facility, which she referred to. That is a centre which has changed its role over the last 18 months. With the release of children and families into the community, we have changed the role of the MITA. The member for Calwell is a very active visitor to that centre and has engaged very closely with the community to build the links that she referred to and to build understanding between the community and the people held in that centre. She is a very popular visitor to the centre as well as, I am told, very effective on the football field at the centre in particular.

I would also like to acknowledge the role of the honourable member as chair of the parliament's Migration Committee. She is conducting a particularly important inquiry at the moment on migration and multiculturalism with her colleagues. Also, I recognise her role as parliamentary co-convenor of Parliamentary Friends of Multiculturalism, which she founded together with the honourable member for McMillan.

In relation to the honourable member's questions—yes, I agree—the community placement program has been a successful one; frankly, I am very proud of it. I will take this opportunity to thank the members of my department who have worked very hard to see it implemented. It is an ambitious program.

When I announced in October 2010 that we would see the majority of children into the community by July 2011 there were many people who questioned whether that could be achieved. It sounds easy sourcing the accommodation and sourcing the carers but it is not. I particularly place on record in the House my thanks to First Assistant Secretary Kate Pope and her entire team. My thanks also go to the Red Cross and other service providers who assist the government in delivering that program.

I decided very quickly when I became minister that this was an appropriate thing to do and I actually decided on a visit to Christmas Island. When I visited families at the detention facility on Christmas Island and looked at the children in that centre, I thought there has to be a better way of doing this. A month later we announced the community detention program. It is one that has worked well. It has had the odd occurrence of people in the community who have had behavioural incidents. There have been some difficult decisions I have needed to make about those but, by and large, it has been very successful.

In order to answer the honourable member's question, since October 2010, 4,014 people have been approved for community detention. That includes 2,151 adults and 1,863 children—among them 800 unaccompanied minors. Of course, many of those people have gone on to receive protection visas.

In relation to community detention, as we speak today, there are currently 1,914 people in the community or transferring into the community. Of these, 672 are children, including 173 unaccompanied minors in or transitioning into the community program. That means that 66 per cent of all asylum seeker children are currently held in the community. That is a reduction from a couple of week ago, when we hit 71 per cent. It is a reduction because of course the figure is impacted at both ends. At one end by arrivals—when we see an increase in arrivals, particularly of children, that reduces the proportion in the community and, at the other end, by protection visa grants. When a protection visa is granted to a child, that child comes off the community program, becomes a permanent resident and is not counted in the community detention figures. However, we do have 346 children remaining in detention.

In relation to the honourable member's question about the amount of time spent by children in detention before being transferred into the community, that figure has come down. As we speak, any child who arrived in February or before is now being held in the community, if they are eligible. There is a very small number of children in relation to security cases, cases of behavioural concern and there are a number where I do have some concerns for the child's wellbeing because of a range of complicated factors. But everybody who arrived before February is in the community. I have run out of time to talk about Homestay. I can say there are currently 20 people in Homestay arrangements. If the honourable member wants to take another opportunity to ask me about Homestay again, I will do my best to answer her questions.

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

Just following up my earlier questions to the minister: what, if any, additional requirements have been added to the EMA for the Roy Hill mine project? Since the in principle agreement was reached, as I understand it, last Wednesday, have any government ministers sought to impose any of those additional commitments since that in principle agreement was reached? Has the minister done an assessment on what these additional conditions may require or mean? Will it delay the start-up of the project and, if so, by how long? Have any concerns been expressed to the minister in his capacity as the minister for immigration and being intricately involved with the EMA for the Roy Hill mine project about concerns of the project proponents about the potential for the arrangements under the EMA to be frustrated by site agreements in the Pilbara that are yet to be concluded with the construction unions?

Can the minister confirm that unions were extensively consulted in the formation of the enterprise migration agreement for the Roy Hill mine project? If so, can he outline the extent of that consultation? In reference to consultation with members of the government, which has been a topic of discussion this week in the House, I refer the minister again to his response in the parliament yesterday when, at page 29 of Hansard, he said:

… I have discussed with and updated informally the productivity committee of the cabinet in relation to this enterprise migration agreement.

As a member of the committee, was the Prime Minister present at any of these discussions and did the Prime Minister receive any of these informal updates—these two separate processes that the minister has referred to? Were any of the reports of the progress included in any minutes of that committee and were those minutes circulated to members of the committee?

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

In relation to the enterprise migration agreement, as has been commented upon by me, the Prime Minister and other government spokespeople, we are of course committed to ensuring that Australians have opportunities to apply for the 8,000 positions being created by the Roy Hill project. It is a requirement of the EMA that Roy Hill make every effort to employ locals. There are 6,700 jobs earmarked for Australians. Of course, as has been publicly commented upon, the Prime Minister and I have referred to the use of the jobs board and its reference in the enterprise migration agreement. I do not envisage that that commitment does in any way delay the implementation of the EMA or the project. In relation to site agreements, again, I remind the honourable member that I have no involvement in site agreements. Of course, I have met and discussed various matters with Roy Hill. They are a matter for Roy Hill and any discussions I have had with them are in relation to their approach to the project generally.

I can confirm the honourable member's suggestion that unions were consulted. That consultation process is outlined in enterprise migration agreement guidelines that I released in September 2011. That consultation is substantial. It requires Roy Hill to talk to relevant trade unions and enables trade unions to be participants in the program. That is what has occurred. That was a key recommendation of the National Employment Resources Taskforce committee, chaired by the then Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, the now Special Minister of State. The whole idea is to have a holistic approach, but that does not mean, as the honourable member may have noticed, that every trade union is happy with the results, but it does mean that they were involved in the consultation, which is important and would be the case for other enterprise migration agreements going forward in the future.

In relation to the honourable member's question about cabinet matters, I have nothing to add to my answer of yesterday in the House and I certainly have nothing to add in any question about timing.

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

I start by congratulating the job that the minister does in what is often a controversial portfolio and always in the spotlight. There is no doubt about that. I do not know if there is a sleepy hollow anywhere in the executive level, but if there is it is certainly not this portfolio.

I am particularly interested in some of the economic aspects of the portfolio, and an area that is very dear to my heart is international education and education services. It is dear to my heart because it is worth around $20 billion in export income to Australia annually; a figure not often understood in the Australian community when they think about our export earnings. It is also very important to my local area. The University of Wollongong has a very big international education services area. We attract students from about 140 countries from around the world to courses at the University of Wollongong, and around 27,000 international students are enrolled at any one time at the university's Australian and international campuses.

I am particularly interested in the Knight review that the government has commissioned and the findings of that review into the student visa regime. I am particularly interested in what the minister can do to update the House on the government's adoption of the recommendations of that report. In particular, which student visa reforms have been implemented as part of the second stage changes? Perhaps if you had the time, Minister, you could explain the streamlined visa processing for bachelors, masters and doctorate courses at participating universities and explain why the decision has been taken to increase the allowable working hours for student visa holders—another important area and why it is important that we continue to reform the visa framework around the international education sector.

In another area, I am also interested in something that has been discussed a lot over the last week and that is the enterprise migration agreements. I have received a lot of inquiries about this in my own electorate office and I would be interested in any observations you can make about how people from my electorate of Throsby in New South Wales can gain access to any of the 8,000 jobs that I understand are going to be created by that project and how they can be assured that Australian workers get first go at those jobs, and particularly workers who might have been displaced from other industries in electorates such as my own.

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

I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in international education. He referred to his advocacy of the University of Wollongong. In a very modest way he did not refer to his advocacy for St Paul's College in his electorate and the very important work St Paul's does in international education. The honourable member will correct me if I am wrong, but I think well over 90 per cent of the students at St Paul's are international. It is a great facility in the Illawarra and a great export earner for Australia and a great educator of young people. The honourable member is correct: international education is vital for Australia. It is one of our largest export industries. It also provides a very important stream of finance to our tertiary institutions. It is a creator of employment. Also—and this is sometimes forgotten—it is important to Australia's international strategic long-term best interests. If we are educating the leaders of tomorrow—from Indonesia, Malaysia, China and India—if we get it right we will stand in very good stead with those people who get their education in Australia. There are plenty of examples of senior leaders in Asia at the moment who studied in Australia, and I hope we have many thousands more.

For that reason, the minister for skills and I appointed the Hon. Michael Knight, a former minister for immigration, to conduct a review of our visas settings for international education. The number of student visa grants had declined between 2009 and 2011 due to a range of factors. We wanted to make sure that the visa settings were right for the times. Michael Knight made 41 recommendations and we accepted every one of them. Twenty recommendations have been implemented, a further eight are going to be implemented by early 2013 and work on the remaining 13 is ongoing because it involves long-term research and ongoing liaison.

A number of Knight review recommendations were made in March this year as part of the second stage of the review. The changes included streamlined visa processing for certain prospective students of participating universities. That was very warmly welcomed by Australia's university sector as a very important streamlining of their necessary processing. It really gives universities and other institutions—but universities in particular—the opportunity to ensure that their processing is as efficient as possible and, while protecting integrity, not overly bureaucratic.

We have also made significant progress on other reforms—in particular, the assessment level framework review. That will be very important to the honourable member because it goes to VET institutions and it goes to schools like St Paul's. It will look at how we can best take a streamlined approach and apply it to other institutions. It is not as simple as universities. There is a much smaller number of universities and they are easier to monitor. But there are many more VET or other institutions. But the principle is sound and good, and we are looking at how that could be expanded.

The very important new post-study work visa arrangements come into effect in early 2013. Graduates who have completed a bachelor's degree, a master's degree by coursework, a master's degree by research or a doctoral degree will have access to post-study work arrangements of two, three or four years respectively. In relation to streamlined visa processing, that came into force on 24 March 2012.

The honourable member raised the subject of working hours. We did make changes there. It was not so much an increase but more a streamlining. The previous condition was 20 hours a week. We have changed that to 40 hours a fortnight. That might not seem like a change, but it does actually provide a lot more flexibility. As you can imagine, there are different working hours and different working environments. Sometimes students might want to work 25 hours in one week and fewer hours in the next week. Averaging that over a fortnight makes more sense to employers and their record keeping.

In relation to the honourable member's question on enterprise migration agreements, as the government and I have repeatedly stressed, we want these jobs to go to Australians, particularly those who have been affected by structural change and adjustment in electorates such as Throsby. That is one of the reasons for the jobs board, which will have the capacity not only to advertise positions but for people to express interest in working not only at Roy Hill but at other projects throughout the resources sector. I know that Roy Hill is soon to begin a very major recruitment exercise across the country in a high-profile way. It will be making its own announcements about that. But I expect to see lots of capacity for the member for Throsby to refer people to Roy Hill, including through jobs expos which he may wish to hold in his electorate.

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

Can the minister explain what the Prime Minister's jobs board is, how it will function, when the concept was first raised and by whom, and when the Prime Minister first indicated to him that a jobs board should form part of the EMA policy infrastructure?

What is the process for prospective workers to place themselves on the jobs board and will parties to the EMA be required, as part of the EMA, to take workers from the jobs board prior to seeking overseas workers? How will prospective workers be vetted prior to their details being put on the jobs board? Is there an independent panel or an organisation that can ensure that the details and the background of prospective workers are accurate and up to date?

Minister, there was a report in the West Australian newspaper on 29 May 2012 which refers to a current investigation by DIAC into the claims that hundreds of Chinese workers on the $5.4 billion Sino iron ore project in the Pilbara are being paid half the wages that Australian workers are getting. They are being paid $70,000 to $80,000 instead of being paid $150,000. When were these claims first brought to DIAC's attention, what is the current status of the investigation and, Minister, which government agency is going to have oversight to ensure that overseas workers are paid in Australia or, if they are paid through offshore agencies, that they are actually receiving the correct workplace entitlements under Australian law? How are you going to ensure that they are paid the correct amount, both onshore and offshore?

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

I thank the honourable member for Brisbane for her contribution, and the honourable member for Chifley for his contribution, over the last few minutes. The honourable member refers to the jobs board. The jobs board is an opportunity not only for people to express interest in positions that might be available in the resources sector generally but also for resources companies to use—it will obviously be an internet based mechanism—to undertake some recruitment. A jobs board will be referred to in Enterprise Migration Agreements, and there will be requirements for companies to show what use they have made of the jobs board as part of their ongoing compliance. The jobs board will be operated and conducted by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and I know they have made good progress. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is very focused on ensuring that that jobs board will be up and running as soon as practical.

In relation to Sinosteel, yes, I am aware of those very serious allegations; I have been aware for some time. I would be misleading the House if I could say that I could recall the exact date it was brought to my attention, but it has been brought to my attention not only through my department but also through unions. I think I have answered media questions on it, particularly in a 7.30 interview about the Sinosteel allegations, in particular. They are serious allegations. They are being investigated not only by my department but also by other government departments that, I am sure, are involved. It is an ongoing investigation, a serious one, and it is not appropriate for me to comment on an ongoing investigation. My department will have more to say when it is in a position to do so, but serious allegations are taken seriously, of course. Not every allegation that is made turns out to be true, but some do. But every one of them should be investigated—as these allegations are being investigated very seriously by my department.

In relation to who conducts compliance, there is a substantial compliance unit in my department which looks at dedicated monitoring of employer sponsors of 457 visas in particular and of course there is Fair Work Australia. The Fair Work Ombudsman also has a role to play here. We work hand in glove in investigations and compliance and we would also work very closely in compliance on Enterprise Migration Agreements. If I could reflect, I must say that I agree with the contribution, which may or may not be recorded in Hansard, of the honourable member for Chifley in relation to the reforms this government has brought in for 457 visa holders. We have made using 457 visas not harder but fairer. We have ensured protections are in place. We have ensured, because of the reforms we have made, that some of the stories of exploitation that we saw in the latter years of the Howard government cannot be repeated. I think 457 visas are very important in making the Australian economy work, but nobody should see workers exploited, whether they be Australians or foreigners working in Australia. Our reforms make sure that that is the case. We ensure that there are protections in place for 457 workers, because some of the stories we saw and heard and that were proven in 2005, 2006 and 2007 were disgusting and should never be repeated in Australia. I am glad of the reforms that this government introduced.

I note that the Leader of the Opposition has said he would make it easier to use 457s. I want to know: does that mean reversing some of these reforms? There is not much else he could do. We already have very fast turnaround times in relation to applications for 457s. We have opened the Brisbane processing centre, which in March, for example, saw 457 visa applications being turned around in 10 days. I would like to see if the opposition could do better than that—10 days. The Leader of the Opposition, in a speech a couple of weeks ago, said he would reform the 457 system—but that is all he said. He cannot increase the numbers because it is an uncapped program, although he said he would increase the numbers. He did not seem to be aware that it is actually an uncapped program, so good luck with increasing the numbers in an uncapped program. I am not sure how you would do that. But I fear that he is referring to winding back or, dare I say it, clawing back some of the reforms and protections that this government has put in place in relation to 457 visas. If that is what he intends to do, he should have the guts to come out and say so.

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

I would like to ask the minister a question relating to offshore resettlement for people in certain countries. I do so having spoken with my good friend the member for Chifley about an issue that the member for Chifley and I have both spoken about, which is Coptic Christians—Coptic Christians in Australia and also Coptic Christians who are in Egypt at a very problematic time. I wish to raise this issue in light of the turmoil in the Middle East over the past 18 months, which we would all be aware of, and especially in light of the instability in Egypt that we are seeing on our TV screens.

In asking this question, Minister, I take you back to the events of 1 January 2011, when 22 people died after a suicide bomber set off a massive explosion as hundreds of Coptic Christians celebrated a new year's eve service in the Church of the Two Saints in Alexandria—a horrific atrocity. Several congregation members who were killed in this murderous atrocity had relatives in Australia. Moreover, since the start of the Egyptian revolution, violence in general and against Coptic Christians specifically has increased. Some of the more prominent examples are the church burnings in Sol and El-Marinab and the terrible violence at Maspero in Cairo on 9 October 2011 which resulted in 27 deaths and 300 injuries. This also affected our Coptic community in Australia greatly as well as those over there as the targeted victims of this terrorist attack. In particular, Salafist groups have organised violent demonstrations against Christians—for example, falsely claiming that Camelia Shehata, the wife of an Orthodox priest, had converted to Islam. The same group posted a film on the internet repeating the ridiculous claims of Dutch journalist Lex Runderkamp that Christians in the village of El-Marinab had set fire to their own church under construction.

As well as the ongoing instability, Coptic Christians have spent many months grieving the passing of his Holiness Pope Shenouda III. Pope Shenouda was an incredibly powerful voice for unity, tolerance and reconciliation. He was a much loved leader of Coptic Christians around the world and a great leader of his church who had a strong commitment to Egypt's national unity. His passing has made the transition to a new democratic Egypt all the more complicated. These are definitely difficult times for Coptic Christians in Egypt and also in Australia.

In recent discussions with Coptic Christians—who represent, as the minister knows, an 80,000 strong community—it was made clear to me that they are not pleased with this strong shift towards Islamism in Egypt. The Islamist parties have collectively won approximately 73 per cent of the vote in parliamentary elections this year. With Egypt in the midst of presidential elections at present, many Christians now fear the worst—an Islamist president who will enforce restrictive laws for Christians and liberals in the country.

I would also like to say, particularly given that they would be keen for me to be asking you this question, that I know you have been good enough to come down to my electorate to meet with Father Abanoub and His Grace Bishop Suriel. This is an issue that has been brought to our attention for some period of time. I am very proud to say that I have a very large and strong Coptic community in my electorate and when, in asking this question—which I am about to do with respect to giving us an update on what you are doing and how you are helping people like Coptic Christians who find themselves in danger and want to come to this country under the Humanitarian Program—I do so on behalf of my Coptic Christian constituents particularly at Saint Mina and Saint Marina Church, which you have been down to.

You can hypothesise about this. You watch it on your TV screens and you look at it and there is some distance. But when you meet with people whose families have been killed over in Egypt, when you see the desperation of these people looking at their TV screens, looking for hope and information about is happening in Egypt, you can understand the impetus behind their requests to find out whether or not they can come to this country through the Humanitarian Program. So, Minister, on the community's behalf, and I guess on behalf of my good friend the member for Chifley, Ed Husic, I would like to ask you: what you are doing through this Humanitarian Program to help minorities like the Coptic Christians who find themselves in danger and who want to come to this country?

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

Again, I would acknowledge the honourable member's very firm advocacy for the Coptic community. I did visit his electorate and visited Saint Mina and St Marina Church with Bishop Suriel and the clergy and a large contingent of the parish. The honourable member has been a very strong advocate for the Coptic community, as has the member for Chifley and many other members. The member for Parramatta was talking to me about the issue just today and I recognise all members and members opposite who have also raised concerns for the Coptic community.

The Sunday before last, I visited Saint Mark's in Arncliffe, my second visit, and spent almost all of Sunday at Saint Mark's with the community, and I think that the honourable member for Cook might have been there as well. It is a wonderful experience—three separate churches in the one facility—and they certainly know how to make you feel welcome and they are certainly passionate about their community. I am a regular interlocutor with Bishop Suriel about the issues facing the community and with Father Agostino and other fathers in Sydney and Melbourne as well.

In relation to the honourable member's question, the situation facing Copts in Egypt continues to be serious and the government has made, in relation to the foreign affairs portfolio, representations. Of course we would like protections placed in law for churches and other places of worship and we would like antidiscrimination law brought into place in Egypt. But until the situation improves in Egypt, then immigration and refugee issues will be front of mind.

The honourable member asked about the number of grants in the last four years. This government has granted 120 offshore humanitarian visas to Coptic Christians from Egypt. This compares to one offshore grant in the last three program years before the election of this government. A further 100 Egyptian nationals have been granted protection onshore in the last program year after seeking protection in Australia, and for the year to date, I am advised that to 7 May the figure for Copts was 33.

I would also say that one of the reforms I introduced on becoming minister was every six months releasing ministerial intervention statistics—this is my personal power to grant visas—and there are many thousands considered each year. I wanted to introduce more transparency to that process and be clearer with the Australian community about who gets those ministerial grant visas, because they are appropriately issued in unique or exceptional circumstances. It is a very important safety valve. Those figures that I have released would show a particularly high success rate for ministerial intervention when it comes to applications from Copts. They are all considered individually and on their merits. Certainly, in using my own powers I do take into account very clearly the situation in Egypt and the issuing of those visas is something that I take very seriously, and hence the high approval rating that is reflected.

In addition, during the height of the unrest last year, I announced that my department would take circumstances in Egypt into account when dealing with requests for visa extensions, something we do from time to time in relation to circumstances in home countries whether it be natural disasters or humanitarian issues such as we have seen in Egypt. I know that this has helped ensure that individuals can remain in Australia. They may not wish to have permanent residence. They may not wish to seek protection, but they nevertheless do not want to return while the situation is so uncertain. My department takes as flexible an approach as possible in those circumstances.

Again, my office engages very regularly with the Coptic community about issues broad, specific and individual. That is appropriate for a community which is facing such uncertainty and such dangers. I join with the honourable member, as I have in this House before, in paying my respects and condolences for His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. I have indicated, perhaps without authority, to the Coptic community that we will welcome the new Pope in the new year for a visit to Australia. I am sure the entire government and the entire parliament would hope that he—whichever bishop emerges as the new Pope—will be able to make an early visit to Australia to visit the vibrant and very passionate Coptic Diaspora in Australia.

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

First of all, can I just associate the coalition with the condolences and sentiments of the minister in relation to the Coptic community and the minister's response. Can I also associate the coalition—I am sure the member for Menzies in particular, who has been a keen advocate on these matters, as well as the member for Brisbane—with the honourable member's question to the minister. This is a matter that I think enjoys strong cross-chamber support. That is something that I am sure will continue well into the future.

In the time remaining, I will pull together a number of eclectic matters from different parts of the portfolio for the minister to address. In following up the member for Brisbane's question, can the minister advise when the concept of the jobs board was first raised in relation to enterprise migration agreements and more specifically for the Roy Hill EMA? Who raised it, and when did the Prime Minister first indicated to him that a jobs board should form part of the EMA policy infrastructure, in particular for the Roy Hill project? Can the minister please advise, will parties to an EMA be required, as a condition of that EMA, to take workers from the jobs board prior to seeking the overseas workers that are part of that agreement's entitlement?

On another matter, could the minister please confirm to us matters raised in evidence in estimates last week regarding the department's resourcing for monitoring these EMAs. Evidence was provided by the minister's department by officials last week that the government would not be providing any additional resources or officers to monitor the implementation of enterprise migration agreements to ensure that conditions are met for granting 457 visas. I refer specifically to the response of Mr Kukoc. Senator Waters asked:

… You said that that existing monitoring program will be extended to EMAs. Will there be any additional officers or resources to cover that new area of responsibility?

The response from the official was:

That will be covered within the existing number of inspectors and resources

So, how many additional inspectors? How much additional resources will be provided to the department to perform their responsibilities in relation to the monitoring of 457s? Could I also ask the minister to advise me, moving to outcome four, is it now the case that the government has adopted the coalition's policy that those seeking family reunion applications—who have arrived as EMAs or who have received visas as a result of an onshore application more generally—are now being directed to make applications for family reunion under the mainstream family reunion program as opposed to under the refugee and humanitarian program? Can the minister advise how many special humanitarian visas he anticipates will be granted this year to offshore applicants, and how many applicants there will have been to date for special humanitarian visas? As well, how many he anticipates may be available to be granted next year?

Finally, given that the average number of arrivals has risen since the last MYEFO before the budget to 750 per month and the estimates process has confirmed that the budget is based on a number of arrivals of IMAs of 450 per month, and given that since last year's budget there has been an increase of $420 million a year for 2012-13—which is an extra $1.1 million every day—can the minister guarantee that when the next MYEFO is released there will not be a further blow-out because of the higher than assumed level of arrivals?

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

I never thought we would get to the budget estimates session and that the member for Cook would wait for the last question to talk about irregular maritime arrivals. I guess that is some sort of achievement. In relation to his questions, I will do my best. He did have an eclectic bunch of questions.

In relation to the jobs board, this is a proposal which has been discussed for some time. The union movement has been vocal about it for a considerable period of time. It has been mentioned at Labor Party conferences and in Labor Party platforms. As a concept, it is something the government has been considering for a considerable period of time. That comes as no surprise.

In relation to enterprise migration agreements, as part of the compliance activity my department would look at use of the jobs board in assessing whether genuine efforts have been made to employ Australians. That would be one of the range of factors that the department takes into consideration. It would be necessary, of course, for employers to show that recruitment efforts had been made, including showing what efforts they have made to use the jobs board.

In relation to monitoring, there will be a specialised team in relation to my department and the monitoring of enterprise migration agreements. The resources level in my department for compliance in relation to 457s generally is good. It is a high level of resourcing for compliance per visa holder, for example, compared to other compliance activities around the government.

As I have said elsewhere, I think this needs to be kept in perspective. If you take the 1,700 potential 457 visa holders under the Roy Hill agreement, that is equivalent to the number of 457s that will be issued by my department over the next fortnight. There are 90,000 457 visa holders in Australia as we speak, and so the increase in 457 visa holders, as a proportion of the total in Australia, would be small. Of course, there will be necessary compliance in relation to ensuring ongoing recruitment and ongoing capacity for Australian workers to undertake those jobs. That will be a specialised team in relation to enterprise migration agreements and ensuring that is the case.

In relation to irregular maritime arrivals, the government updates its figures at regular intervals during the year: in the Mid-Year Economic and Financial Outlook, during additional estimates and at other points during the year and, of course, on budget day, and that is what we will do. I thank all honourable members for their very constructive feedback and contributions.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Human Services Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,025,778,000

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

The Department of Human Services provides policy advice on service delivery matters to government to ensure effective, innovative and efficient implementation of government service delivery. The department delivers a range of government and other payments and services to Australians, including through its three main programs: Medicare, Centrelink and child support. Total appropriation in the 2012-13 year for the department is $4.156 billion. This comprises departmental appropriation of $4,048 million and administrative appropriation of $107.2 million. Total appropriation includes the following moneys: through Appropriation Bill (No. 1), for ordinary annual services of $4,025.8 million; of $41.1 million, through Appropriation Bill (No. 2), for other services; and $89.1 million in special appropriations. The department received net funding of $226.4 million in the 2012-13 year for new measures. The new measures with significant funding impact in 2012-13 for the department are: call centre funding $50.9 million; Living Longer Living Better—Aged Care Reform Package $49 million; Parent Payment changed eligibility for 1 July 2006 grandfathered recipients $32 million; fraud protection and compliance $28.7 million; and the national e-health program $16.9 million.

Non-appropriation receipts in 2012-13 for provision of goods and services have been estimated to be $303.1 million. For example, the department will receive an estimated $160.7 million from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in the 2012-13 year for the provision of rehabilitation services. External receipts to special accounts in the 2012-13 year for child support payments have been estimated to be $1.273 billion. These are payments which are received from one parent and paid to another.

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

I seek clarification from the minister, as he is representing another minister. It used to be the practice in this place as he may recall, some others may not, that questions would be asked and then answered backwards and forwards. Given that he is representing the other minister, I presume he will not be in a position to answer questions in that manner and would prefer for me to put them effectively on notice.

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

May I assist the Chair, I am certainly happy to respond to the honourable member's questions. It is up to him, clearly, if he wishes to foreshadow a list of questions. I may respond to some immediately and for others I might want to come back to the honourable member.

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

I will give you the list of questions then at the outset. I would seek, as my first question, an undertaking from the minister that he would provide written answers to me for the questions that he is unable to answer tonight. Otherwise, this process is frankly a waste of time. I am not making that as a criticism of the minister but the same thing applies to whoever is in government.

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

I have been where you are sitting now.

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

That is right. The questions are to the minister and the minister he is representing. Question 1: does he have a charter letter and what is the date of the charter letter? Question 2, and these are more detailed questions: how many temporary visa holders claim family tax benefit A? For each of the past four years, including the current financial year, how many of these recipients were overpaid or incurred a debt; what is the total amount of debt and overpayment that has been incurred by the Commonwealth in this way; and how much of this debt or overpayment has been recovered by the Commonwealth? Question 3: how many noncitizens receive the disability support pension? Question 4: how many noncitizens receive Newstart? Question 5: how many noncitizens have been prosecuted or had debt recovery action initiated for overpayment or for an incurred debt? Question 6: what is the status of the collocation program and when will the collocation program be completed? Question 7: how many DHS officers have been located to date? Question 8: can the minister confirm whether any Minister for Human Services since 2007 has directed or made a request to the department to monitor the social media of any opposition parliamentarian or opposition staff member? Question 9: at an estimates hearing last night, officials confirmed that the department was currently the subject of an investigation by the Australian Public Service Commissioner; in broad terms could he outline what this investigation relates to and when it will be completed and, as part of that question, has the department briefed Minister Carr about this issue? Question 10: it emerged at Senate estimates that the department is using the term 'citizen' instead of 'client'. Are you aware when this practice commenced and what are payment recipients who are not Australian citizens referred to as now, or are they referred to as citizens as well? Question 11: of the approximate 600 residents on the Cocos Islands, 151 are recipients of payments. Of these, how many have been overpaid or incurred a debt and, of these, how many overpayments or debts have been recovered by the Commonwealth? Question 12: how many international social security agreements has Australia entered into since 2007? Question 13: do department employees attend migration detention centres to carry out business on behalf of the department? Question 14: is the department replacing departing staff or is there any recruitment freeze at any level of the department?

Question 15 is: do you agree with the findings of the ANAO and the Ombudsman that there are systemic issues relating to fraud in DHS, and why is more money from fraud prevention being cut from departmental appropriations?

I would reiterate that I appreciate that the minister is representing another minister; therefore, could I have an undertaking that these questions would be answered in writing? Otherwise, we can go through the charade of my putting them on notice, and that just duplicates things.

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

I say to the honourable member that he is correct in assuming that I am not in a position to fully answer what are very specific, significant and important questions. Of course he does have the facility, as members do, to ask for questions on notice. He is using this opportunity to require the minister—and I guess I am acting on his behalf—to respond to those specific questions in writing. I am happy to give that undertaking. They are important questions, and the responses should be provided to the honourable member. But, given the nature of the questions and the specific requests for certain information that I am not privy to at this point, we will indeed do that in writing and not attempt to do it by way of response now.

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

As to my first question about the charter letter, which goes to the minister as well as the minister he is representing: has he received a charter letter, and when did he receive it?

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

Are you asking me in my capacity as the minister for human services or as the current minister?

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

As the current minister.

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

Yes, I have. I cannot recollect the date. I am happy to get back to the honourable member. I have been in receipt of a charter letter.

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

I have a question to the minister about a very positive initiative that is taking place in my electorate, but I will just take a couple of minutes to bring the House up to date on where things are at in Rockhampton in regard to its inclusion—

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

There not being a quorum present, the Federation Chamber must temporarily suspend.

Sitting suspended from 18:12 to 18:20

The House having been counted and a quorum being present—

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

Before the suspension of the Federation Chamber I was bringing the House up to date on the range of initiatives that are taking place in Rockhampton at the moment as a result of the measures introduced in last year's budget under the Better Futures, Local Solutions package. Rockhampton was identified as one of 10 places around Australia to be the location for this range of initiatives, and we really are seeing differences on the ground in the way that services in our community are working together, very focused on shared results and shared outcomes, and looking at ways in which they can collaborate very effectively to achieve some of those outcomes for local people.

A lot of this is being led by the Government Action Leader Debbie Sear, who is a former manager of Centrelink in Rockhampton and is very well placed to play a role in joining up our government services and making sure that they are all working together to achieve the common goals of supporting people, addressing their needs and, very importantly, getting them ready to take up opportunities in the workplace. Debbie is assisted by Karen Gerrard, who is also doing a terrific job as the Community Action Leader, playing a similar role in identifying what community organisations are working in this space and how they can work together more collaboratively and effectively to meet some of the challenges. A lot of that work is coming together through the Local Advisory Group, which has the job of identifying some projects to be funded under the Local Solutions Fund. There is $25 million allocated to be shared amongst 10 locations around Australia. We are seeing some great results already in the way that government and non-government organisations are working together.

The measures take on a few different dimensions. There is support for teenage parents and support for jobless families, and income management and more targeted efforts to assist disadvantaged people and those who have been out of work for a long time to achieve a start in the workplace. While some of those measures, such as support for teenage parents and income management, are taking up a lot of the headlines and attention in the local media, one of the things that is actually at the heart of these place based initiatives, and which is something of a pilot for the rest of Australia, is the move towards case coordination within Centrelink. Case coordination is going on day in, day out inside our Centrelink offices and it is really driving some of the change in the way that the government interacts with people coming for payments and help. It allows Centrelink staff to be much more proactive in drawing together the services that might assist people, in a holistic way, to get into the workplace or meet other needs they might have.

My question to the minister is about the pilot program moving towards case coordination as the basis for the work of the Department of Human Services in helping people. Could the minister please update the chamber on the Case Coordination program trial?

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

Can I firstly thank the member for Capricornia for her support for what I think are very important attempts to provide local solutions to problems in communities like Rockhampton. I know she has a very strong record in providing support and providing insights into the way in which we should respond to our most vulnerable in our communities around the country, not least of all in Rockhampton. So I thank her for her interest and for her affirmation about the way in which the Department of Human Services and indeed other bodies—and the Gillard government—are going about providing support for people in this manner. We certainly do believe that there are some great results already from the efforts to dedicate resources locally and ensure that decisions and actions are taken locally that are peculiar to the community. I think it is a more effective way than having decisions made centrally and applied without regard for local considerations.

In relation specifically to the question asked by the member for Capricornia, on 10 May 2011 the government announced the budget measure of increased support for people needing assistance, which will provide $74.4 million to fund the case coordination trials over four years under the service delivery reform agenda. Case coordination complements the Building Australia's Future Workforce initiative. It operates in each of the 10 local government priority areas and it is part of a range of place-based initiatives. Case coordination was implemented in 19 locations are in 2011-12 and will increase, I am happy to say, to 34 locations in 2012-13 and 44 locations in 2013-14.

As at the end of April this year—and I am responding now specifically on the number of people assisted—I can inform the House, and indeed the member for Capricornia, that 6,861 people have received assistance and more than 11,000 referrals have been made. In Rockhampton, 1,035 customers have been assisted and 916 referrals made, which is a very significant number being provided with this sort of assistance.

Case coordination is trialling a service delivery approach to assist customers with complex needs to access services and support to improve their level of self-reliance and enable them to better participate in the economy and their own community. The objectives of case coordination are to deliver coordinated services that increase customers' ease of access to local support services; to provide enhanced assistance to people with additional needs, including appropriate referrals and follow-up; to provide the people, processes and systems to enable department staff to consistently identify customers with complex needs who will benefit from more targeted or specialised services; and collaboration with other local service providers to support better outcomes for customers.

The case coordination approach leverages the position of the department as a key first-to-know agency and facilitates connections with appropriate community services. Case coordination puts the customer at the core of our business, ensures that the customer rather than the service remains the focus, and promotes collaboration, engagement and empowerment—and, of course, it is voluntary. Staff spend time with people to identify the services they need, including those that will support their capacity to participate in work, education and training. People are seeking access to services that enable them to get the support they need to get on with their lives. The assistance provided is tailored to the needs of the person being supported. The data shows that customers are accessing a broad range of services indicating that a needs-based approach may be important when supporting vulnerable and marginalised people accessing services. Twenty-three per cent of people have been referred to housing related services in my own portfolio, 15 per cent have been referred to emergency services, 10 per cent had been referred to general health services, 10 per cent to education and training and nine per cent to financial stability services. I do thank the member for her question and her interest in these matters. It is an important area. To date, very good things have been done. Can I say on behalf of Minister Carr that more will be done to provide support for our most vulnerable in Australia.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

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

I am very pleased to present the appropriations here to the House of Representatives. I do not think we need me to make a long opening statement. I think there are some significant questions that people will want to go into. Let us get straight into it. I will only say that, for this portfolio, this was a very good budget. I am sure the questions will reflect that.

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

I wish, in the same spirit of brevity as the minister, to place a number of questions on the record. I will let the minister either answer them now or respond on notice. For his assistance and the assistance of his department, we have had some of them prepared in writing and we will table those. Let me begin with a question in relation to the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC. My understanding is that the department, through the Antarctic Division, makes a contribution. I also understand that the CRC is due to expire and is not able to apply for a formal replenishment in 2014. Our view is that this is a highly effective body, that it is well respected and that it is critically linked into the world of the Antarctic Division. The first question is whether the government has any plans to help assist and maintain the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, whether it has a migratory path for it to exist in the long term or whether it is the government's intention that this CRC will simply stop dead in 2014?

The second question is in relation to the Caring for our Country budget. In particular, we ask the minister to enumerate all of the different subprograms which have had allocations within the Caring for our Country budget. We understand the three strategic areas which are identified and which have been given separate allocations within the budget. But, within the general division and the other two specific divisions of agriculture and landcare, and Indigenous support for Caring for our Country, we seek a list of all subprograms for which commitments have been made or allocated. I think that would provide great transparency to the budget. I would put it in the context that there are many community groups that have expressed concern that they have not had access to Caring for our Country the way they did under the Natural Heritage Trust and then the Envirofund. That may take some time, but full and complete Caring for our Country budget subprogram descriptions, with actual allocations in the forward estimates against each of those areas for which allocations have been identified, would be much appreciated.

The third area is in relation to the Heritage Division and the treatment of heritage by the department. I have a series of brief questions, which I will hand to the minister so he and the department can work together on those. First, how many staff members work exclusively on cultural heritage? Second, has this figure gone up or down over the past three years and by exactly how much? Third, are there any plans to increase or reduce heritage staff numbers over the forward estimates period? Fourth, page 68 of the portfolio budget statement appears to show a reduction in funding for heritage grants from $8.42 million in 2012-13 to $4.42 million in the forward estimates period. Is this correct and what is the explanation?

Fifth, we understand that the budget cuts last year to the heritage division mean that staff are now struggling to fulfil their statutory obligations, such as assessments and listings. Has there been an increase in the time taken to perform these duties? Sixth, we understand that the Australian Heritage Council has no separate budget and is struggling to fulfil its responsibilities. Are there any plans to address this issue? Seventh, we understand that low staff numbers in the division mean that it is well behind on such assessment matters as the processing and announcement of the York community history grants and assessments and servicing of the Australian Heritage Council. Is the division appropriately funded to enable it to complete the development of the Australian Heritage Strategy?

Eighth, the Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and Heritage Organisations grant given to the Federation of Australian Historical Societies has been cut from $30,000 a year for three years to $23½ thousand for one year—that is, from triennial to annual. Why? Ninth, there appears to have been a move away from supporting heritage to supporting environmental organisations. Is this a new policy? Tenth, has there been a change of policy from supporting national peak bodies to supporting small local groups? Eleventh, will the department undertake a review of the grants to look into these matters?

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

I am tempted to thank a senator for the questions, in the sense that I feel I am reliving Senate estimates in this chamber in the nature of these questions.

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

No, they are all mine.

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

Please do not presume that I am saying someone else wrote them. I have absolutely no doubt that the member for Flinders put them together. This specific style of question would normally be answered almost immediately when we have all the officials present in Senate estimates. That means I will have to work my way through a whole lot of them subsequent to this and communicate with you.

There are a few overarching points that I think would be helpful. I am going through the heritage questions, which are the only ones I have been given in writing.

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

All of the heritage questions have been provided in writing but not the Antarctic ones.

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

The Antarctic CRC, as the honourable member would appreciate, is a part of the CRC program itself, which is not run out of this portfolio. Notwithstanding that, there are substantial items in the budget which reflect our ongoing commitment to Antarctica and Australia's presence in Antarctica. It would be remiss of me if I did not refer to that and take a moment to do so. On the specifics of the CRC: CRCs by definition and by entire program design are meant to be temporary organisations. That is how the model has functioned under governments of both sides. No-one should see an expiration date for a CRC as being a reflection on the seriousness of the work that the organisation is doing. Rather, expiry dates are in the nature of the model. That has been the case ever since CRCs were first established, which I think goes back to Barry Jones.

In the budget, the government has committed $41.1 million to sustain our level of engagement in the Antarctic program itself. This includes $11.2 million for continued funding for Australia's Antarctic program, $6.7 million for shipping support for the program and $23.1 million to continue operation of the Australia-Antarctic Airlink. There is ongoing pressure on our Antarctic operations. Let us not underestimate the significance of Antarctica to our nation. We are the biggest claimant in the area with the Australian Antarctic Territory. We have also played a very significant role—in particular there was the role played by then Prime Minister Hawke in his work with then Prime Minister Rocard—in making sure that we had an area preserved and dedicated to science rather than one that became a new area for minerals exploration. I think that work has been continued very effectively under governments from both sides of politics. The problem that we have—and this is a very real challenge—is that the air transport link we have into Antarctica simply has not provided the functionality which it was meant to. When it was opened by the member for Wentworth when he held this portfolio it was welcomed by all as being great technology and effectively establishing an ice runway in Antarctica. What happens repeatedly now with access to Antarctica is that there is a limited number of months when you can get in there. Those are obviously the months when there is light. After that it is not just that it is dark but also that the weather conditions become quite torrid and quite difficult to get into. Each summer now that runway melts for a significant period, and while it was presumed at the time it was built that that would not be the case, historically it has been. So we have ended up with a situation that, while for a number of months of the year the runway is still able to be used and is used, the level of access to our facilities there that we thought would be provided simply has not been. That has been repeated each year. Last year was not as bad as the one before; in the one before there was a significant period where we simply could not get planes in and out. We have had a situation where, frequently, we have had to use United States facilities and other facilities and then come over land into our own territory.

So in terms of future pressures on our engagement with Antarctica, if we are going to provide the leading role that Australia has, the issue of how we get people, supplies and equipment there is probably the biggest issue facing us. I have all the different budgetary measures for what is in front of us now, but I think it is important to advise the Federation Chamber of the very real pressures that are there in the years to come in order to make sure that we have ongoing access and can provide the leading role which would be expected. I am getting some information on the subprogram lines, as they are within the Caring for our Country budget, and I suspect during the period that we are here I will be able to provide more information on them.

Needless to say, for the area that has just been added to the forward estimates, some of those subprogram decisions—in fact, many of them—have not yet been made. We have them for the previous five years and we now have the appropriation going into the extension of the program, and that means that there are a number of decisions on program and design lie in front of us. (Time expired)

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

Recently I had a meeting with Charlie Lewis, a koala protection activist in the Somerset region. She lives up at Toogoolawah and she talked to me about the fact that the Somerset Regional Council has not signed up to the same degree of protection as have, say, the Ipswich City and Brisbane City Councils. She was arguing for some corridors for the protection of koalas and other native fauna. I know the Somerset Regional Council has just had an election and that there are some changes there.

I also met with some other activists who are campaigning against coalmining in rural Ipswich around Ebenezer and Rosewood. They are also concerned that further mining leases, if they are granted and if mining is undertaken in and around those areas—Mount Maude, et cetera—would have a significant adverse impact on native fauna, particularly koalas. I know that in some of the schools in those areas, particularly around Peak Crossing, just outside of my seat, there are trees with koalas, and clearly whole ovals are set aside for that.

I ask the minister: what action are you taking on the protection of native fauna, particularly koalas, and how is that being reflected in the budget?

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

I thank the honourable member for the question. The koala listing has been one of the more complex listings that has come before the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. It is a subject that I know the member for Flinders has also taken a keen interest in during his time as shadow minister.

There are a number of problems. First of all, a problem that we have in identifying endangered or threatened species throughout the entire country is that the quality of data is always significantly limited. The work of surveys is very important, but when many of these decisions first come to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee they are grappling with limited data sets. That is the first problem that we have been faced with for the koala. The second problem with the koala has been that if you simply say that whether or not something goes on a threatened species list is based on how hard they are to find and how strong some of the populations are, in some parts of Australia the koala population is unbelievably strong. South Australia is a classic example, where there are actually programs to control numbers. I should add, before anyone gets worried, that it does not involve culling—but there are issues of number control that take place in South Australia.

At first glance, some people work on the basis that, 'If you have anywhere where there are heaps of them and where they are actually in such numbers that they are eating themselves out of habitat, it is hard to argue that they are also in some way threatened', particularly with iconic species. But as a general principle it is a bit much to say that here is a species that used to be found across so much of Australia and that we are just willing to tap the mat and concede defeat in the vast majority of those areas because you can go to South Australia to find one.

I do not want to see a situation where for Queensland or New South Wales—or the ACT, for that matter—the only possibility you have of ever seeing a koala is to visit a zoo. I think Australians have an expectation that protection is afforded. That means that we had to do something which is done rarely, but which has been done previously. It was done, for example, with respect to the grey nurse shark, where you had listings that applied differently in different waters. On this occasion, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee's recommendations to me recommended that a listing that would only apply at the 'vulnerable' status to Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT.

The New South Wales government welcomed the decision. The Queensland government, it is fair to say, did not. I have spoken about that elsewhere in the parliament, but I remain of the view that it was a surprise, so soon after the Queensland Premier had been saying that he wanted to enforce federal standards, that he would be suddenly outraged by federal standards.

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

I did say that, actually.

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

You did. And I have read some of the media clippings in Ipswich about the extent to which Mr Newman disagreed with Mr Neumann. I have seen that in print there.

What a threatened species listing means at the category of vulnerable is a few things. First of all it means that a plan needs to be put in place to try to get the numbers to recover—a recovery plan is to be put in place. We work very closely with the states on that. Certainly New South Wales, as far as I understand, is being completely cooperative in playing that role and they welcomed the decision when I took it. It also means that for development proposals the koala, if we are dealing with koala habitat, now needs to be taken into account. On the simplicity of the question: does that add an extra layer of bureaucracy? Yes, it does. But, let's face it; if we are not going to use threatened species legislation to protect the koala we may as well give up. Occasionally for anyone who holds this job, some species that no-one has ever heard of will be used as a way of trying to ridicule environmental protection. You always get that. There are not too many people in Australia who have not heard of the koala, and there are not too many people in Australia who will not be seriously alarmed at the decline in numbers.

In the state of the member for Blair, since 1990—so this is a fair way into your process of land clearing—we are talking about a further 40 per cent decline in the numbers. The rate of decline has been extraordinary, and with that in mind I think it is not merely good policy but the very purpose of threatened species policy to make sure that the appropriate plans and protocols are put in place.

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

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority's revised draft Basin Plan to states was greeted with dismay and disbelief by communities in the Riverina, Minister, as I am sure you could imagine. The MDBA received nearly 12,000 submissions during its 20-week consultation period, and tens of thousands attended consultation sessions across all parts of the Basin, including 12,000 people who attended the meeting at Griffith on 15 December, which you attended yourself, Minister.

The revised plan is mostly unchanged from the draft plan released on 28 November 2011. The sustainable diversion limits remain unchanged, resulting in water use reduction of 2,750 gigalitres of entitlement compared to 2009 levels. Are you concerned about the 2,750 gigalitres figure for surface water to be taken from productive use—that is, growing food by farmers—and given to the environment remains?

Is it too high? Is it too low?

Can you work with state governments to get an outcome from this process which moves us beyond 120 years of contention among the states? The plan is underpinned on state cooperation. We all know that without the support of the states this plan becomes more difficult to implement, because the plan calls for the states both to run the system and to develop the detailed environmental watering plans. Every state, as you mentioned in parliament only yesterday, has so far refused to support the revised plan. To get the support of the states, it is clear that the government is going to need to better address the concerns of each state. What do you propose to do to achieve that?

The government has failed to outline commitments to invest in water recovery options, which will reduce the impact on jobs, communities and food production. Craig Knowles, the chairman of the MDBA, says that more water needs to be recovered through investments in water infrastructure compared to water buybacks, but there is nothing so far, Minister, from you or your government that reflects these statements. The government has spent $1.8 billion on water buybacks but just $413 million on investments which will deliver water into the basin. For every one litre of water which has been saved through infrastructure, five litres have been taken out of communities through buybacks. I would like to ask: why did the government defer $941 million of Murray-Darling Basin infrastructure funding until 2015-16 yet keep the money for largely unwanted buybacks in the Treasurer's 8 May budget? The plan remains complete. The government has not done its work on environmental works and measures, and I would like to know why. The government says that environmental watering must become more efficient, just as farmers have asked to become more water efficient. I would like to know what the government's response is to that. The coalition remains, as always, available for sensible dialogue with the government about the plan. I believe you have met with our shadow water minister, Barnaby Joyce. I would like you to just to perhaps briefly outline what came of that meeting, if that is possible.

Also, does the government have an estimate of the additional cost of recovering up to 2,750 gigalitres, compared with what will be necessary through buyback with the current budgetary allocations? If the states develop environmental watering plans which determine different environmental watering needs from what is in the current plan, will the government change the plan? Has the government decided to seek a minimum amount of water recovery through means other than water buybacks? If so, how much? You could take some of these on notice too, because I know there are a lot of questions.

I would like an update on the Nimmie-Caira landholders' proposal in the Lower Murrumbidgee, where historical extractions are in the order of 310,000 megalitres. I would like to know where that is up to. I spoke with Michael Spinks, at Maude, just an hour ago. He says that they have had a meeting with the state office of water. I know there have been funds provided by the federal government for a feasibility and business plan with that.

Just on something completely different, can the minister and department advise me what the government has decided in relation to restriction of land use in littoral lowland rainforests? I ask for and on behalf of the member for Cowper. Can the minister advise what actions he has taken in relation to relinquishing power under the EPBC Act in relation to flying foxes?

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

I have to say that I am going to try not to take any of it on notice, because I really want to address every issue that has been asked, although I know some of your colleagues will not be too keen for me to do that, because I will have to jump up a couple times to be able to get through it.

Could I deal with the last issue first, the issue of trying. You have all heard me talk about my frustrations with this in the chamber again today. The states have been asking and both sides of politics in this parliament have been saying, 'We are willing to explore and willing to go down a path where, as much as possible, if we can streamline decision-making processes so that they are only dealt with at the state level, we want to.'

On flying foxes, I decided not to wait for the COAG process to finish, the reason being that one of my great frustrations—and I think a great frustration of anyone who holds this particular job—is when delays through duplication of processes do not just cause delays but actually fundamentally change outcomes for the worse. The flying fox is a classic example. There is a limited period of time, during the first half of each year, when flying foxes can be relocated without triggering the EPBC Act. Once you hit their breeding season it is much harder. If you have to go through a state process and a federal process, you are more likely to go beyond that period and then you end up with a challenge.

I wrote to the state governments and said, 'If you are willing to sign a conservation agreement, I will give you this one immediately.' To the credit of the New South Wales government, their officials are talking to my officials, so some progress is being made there; they have not signed it yet, but at least there are conversations. It will be much better for people. If the right environmental decision is going to be made, my view is: make it quickly. But to my great frustration the Queensland government still has not responded at all. The government that was actually championing this issue at COAG has not even bothered to reply as an immediate down payment on something that is a huge issue up and down Queensland.

On flying foxes, if a state is willing to sign the conservation agreement, I will put my signature on the document with them that day. I do not want to see the situation we have seen in the past where schools, hospitals and homes end up being infested with bats and living there just becomes a disaster. I do not want to see that happen. But the only way to fix it is to streamline the process so that decisions can be made and actions to relocate colonies can happen quickly. For the life of me, I do not understand why the states have delayed on this. I do not want to be critical of New South Wales, because they have at least had their officials dealing with mine.

A number of the environmental groups are quite upset that I have offered this to the states straightaway. But I have seen, and been frustrated by, what this does to communities. There is a period when flying foxes can be relocated without causing any significant objection from the federal legislation. Why on earth, when the conservation agreement is on the table and ready to go, the states have not taken me up on it is beyond me. But every community that ends up with problems in the second half of this year as a result of it will know exactly the outcome of the delays.

On Nimmie-Caira, I think the question was answered during the question: we have paid for the feasibility study and, until that comes in, you are not able to take the first step. You need the feasibility study to work out how the project would operate and to make it happen. Suffice it to say that it is my view and the view of the New South Wales minister that, while this project is complex in a number of ways, it actually has real potential. We funded the feasibility study not to make it go away but to try to find a way of making it work.

On the Murray-Darling Basin issues, I will first go to the question on why infrastructure money has been deferred. It is a really simple and, I would hope, unanimously agreed principle that you do not give the states money to do things unless they have signed the contracts to tell you what they will do. That is a logical thing. These are massive projects. Some of them have long planning periods once contracts are signed. If we want them to be high-quality projects, the money does not just rush out the door. That means that with the initial run of state projects a lot of them did not pass due diligence. They were not able to—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

It will put at risk getting the answers on the record. I am not going to take everything on notice. If you want that, you will then get some pretty brisk answers without the details.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

We do not have the same notice provisions in here. I mean, you can put them on the Notice Paper, but we have one hour to answer questions here and I do not want to take up any extra time discussing what our procedure will be. But I want to flag that we have been given some extraordinarily important issues. I have seen the anger of the community of Griffith, who are about as upfront as you can be on this. I would be disappointed if the expectation of the opposition was that I only provided that response in writing. I think the people of Griffith have an expectation that I turn up in person to their meetings and they have an expectation that I respond directly to what has been raised by the member for Riverina. On the deferral of infrastructure money, where contracts have not been signed it has to be deferred. The money does not disappear; it remains there. But for projects like Menindee, for example, the New South Wales government, when Premier O'Farrell came in, unilaterally terminated that agreement. We have kept the money there because we want it to be spent. We are still negotiating with the state government but, until we get an agreement, I am not going to have a situation where budget figures appear where there is no prospect at all of money being spent. I do not think that is sensible. I will certainly not send it out of the door without contracts being concluded.

On what came of the meeting with Senator Joyce, I do not want to breach the confidence of your colleague, so I will simply say it was a positive and productive meeting. We certainly do not have anything like agreement at the moment, but we are meeting and I think that is significant. I have no doubt that Senator Joyce is conducting the meeting in good faith.

My principal concern about the numbers being unchanged in the SDLs is that there were changes to the groundwater numbers. I thought those changes were good and I have said so. I would like to see the environmental outcomes be more ambitious than they are. That goes beyond the concept of an SDL. Even wherever SDLs land, there are other things that can be done that deliver much more significant environmental outcomes, through things like the release of capacity constraints. That is important. Also, Menindee is a classic example. The SDL does not refer to how much additional water will go into the river. The SDL refers to how much water will be stored in dams for environmental purposes. If you are getting sensible environmental works and measures like, say, Menindee, that does not actually count towards the SDL because it is not being stored in dams. But it is already in the river. So it is already delivering a better environmental outcome. That is where I think some of this debate gets too caught up in the SDL, from an environmental perspective as well. We have to look at what the problems are that we are trying to solve in terms of the health of the Murray-Darling Basin and then drive the best ways of dealing with that. Held water is part of it. Buyback needs to be part of it, but it should not be the only game in town.

If you look at the infrastructure projects where we have reached agreement with the states—NVIRP 2 in Victoria is a classic example—you will see that you get the infrastructure money flowing there now. The Victorian government put together a well designed program—there was a change of government—and they wanted to change it from what the previous Labor government wanted. That was fine. We have ended up negotiating something that works for them, works for those communities and that will ultimately deliver more water for the environment than we previously would have had as a result of NVIRP 2 and 3. So where those projects can be put together, we are doing so.

Every state was always going to reject it at this point. If we get agreement, it will be agreement further down the track. I would add that the reasons for states rejecting the current plan are not consistent. Some of them are diametrically opposed. I do not particularly think we will ever come up with a plan—we certainly have not done so for the last century—where every state believes that it is ideal. If we end up with a plan where the objectives we are trying to reach are met, then I think that is a sensible objective. I think I have covered what needed to be covered.

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

(   I have two clusters of questions, the first one picking up from MILD research that more than half of small businesses still have very little idea about the way the carbon tax will impact upon them. I have one particular area of concern. Can the minister confirm that, under the carbon tax as administered by his portfolio, the cost of certain synthetic refrigerant gases will cost up to $75,000 per tonne? That is causing enormous concern for refrigerant trucking operators, small retailers, convenience store operators, butchers, cool store operators, supermarkets—everybody right across the board. Anywhere where refrigeration is a part of daily operating costs, there will be an astronomical increase in the cost of those gases. Relating to carbon tax cost impacts, can the minister confirm that the off-road diesel rebate for council heavy vehicles was to have been 38.1c per litre after 1 July 2012, prior to the creation of the carbon tax package? Can the minister confirm that the figure will now be reduced by 6.1c or 6.2c per litre to 31.9c as a consequence of the shadow carbon-pricing policies that are being implemented?

Those are two particular questions around costs. The first one relates to refrigerants; the second one relates to the off-road diesel rebate for council vehicles.

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

Why are you directing these to me?

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

Because you are the nearest, neatest correct entry, Minister, to ask that question of. The second cluster of questions relates to the heritage area within SEWPaC. I am an extremely patient person, and thankfully so are the good folk of the Mornington and District Historical Society. Former Acting Prime Minister James Fenton is buried in the Mornington Cemetery. Being a former acting prime minister, he was given a really splendid state funeral, but he has no surviving relatives and his grave looks like a wombat hole or as if something of that kind has decided it liked the gravesite. In partnership with the Mornington and District Historical Society I have pursued the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—the protocol and ceremonial officers and those that organise present-day state funerals—for over a year now. They have all said that they do not have anything to do with earlier state funerals and the fact that this eminent person's final resting place is now in a great state of deterioration. I was then guided to liaise with your department, which I did. I was guided towards the Commemorating Eminent Australians program, and I learned that it expressly excluded grave restoration—even if they are state funeral graves. I sought to bring about a change to the program eligibility criteria, which I managed to achieve. Then, about a year ago, I was told an opening in that program was imminent.

The good folk of the Mornington and District Historical Society realised a couple of months ago that Mornington's 150th anniversary commemoration celebrations were on. Part of bringing to life the Mornington community's history is the very informative walks the society conducts through the cemetery. They were most optimistic and, given the extraordinary lead time that was available, we had hoped to have Mr Fenton's grave restored. But, as of today, I do not even think the program has been opened for applications of this kind. Given that he was a unique character who served both Labor and the conservative parties, helped to create the Australian Broadcasting Commission and was quite distinguished in his day as Acting Prime Minister, I urge you, sir, to get that program that has been such a long time coming to activate itself. He has certainly perished, and we are concerned that the program has perished as well.

In a similar light, you also offer a Your Community Heritage Program. A grant application was made by the same historical society in partnership with the chamber of commerce to put up some signage, plaques and street walk information. Again, the ambition was to have that up for the 150th commemoration. That has now passed but they are still keen to do the work and I was hopeful of getting some advice. Senator Farrell has been most helpful, but we have not concluded this matter for some time now.

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

I will deal with the issues in reverse order. I thank the honourable member for the question and in particular for the tone in which the last issue has been put, and I take it completely in good faith.

I remember getting quite a shock when I was presented with a brief called 'Commemorating Eminent Australians'. I was very excited about it and asked what it did, and then discovered it was entirely dedicated to cemeteries. Given the particular sensitivity of this one, I am very conscious of making sure that any of the projects are run through the department, because I think that is the right way to do it. I do not want to get personally involved in the judgment calls on this. I have signed off on some issues within this program quite recently. Whether the one that was referred to by the member was included in those or not I do not recall. If it was not, then let us have a conversation and look at whether or not there are deficiencies within the guidelines. I am very happy to have that conversation in good faith, but I do not want to provide any particular level of expectation on the current round.

On the council heavy vehicles issue I think the nearest correct fit would be the answer that was given in question time today by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and I am not proposing to go beyond my portfolio in answering that.

On the issue of synthetic greenhouse gases, the figure when referred to by tonne does sound like an extraordinary figure but what also needs to be remembered is that these gases, while potentially having an extraordinary impact, are used in very, very small quantities in refrigerants. For example, the rough bench mark that has been given to me is in the order of $4 for a fridge. I asked the question specifically and that is the advice that came back to me from the department. So the issue of dealing with their value under the carbon price per tonne needs to be taken in the context of how many grams of the gas are in fact being used within any individual item. As I say, there are some refrigeration projects massively bigger than a domestic fridge, but in terms of a benchmark, I think it does give a slightly different lens to the figures that the member put forward.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister I have two questions. Firstly, why has the minister refused to fund the restoration of the St Joseph's Catholic Cathedral in Rockhampton? This is a gothic church, the only one north of the Brisbane line. It is undergoing $6 million of repairs. The church itself has come up with about $3 million but there is quite a shortfall. The church was built in 1899 and covers quite a few of our electorates including Capricornia, Dawson, Maranoa, Flynn and Hinkler. The church community is in a quandary and we would like an answer on that please.

The other question concerns water quality in the Fitzroy River, Australia's second biggest river catchment and the source of drinking water for Rockhampton and other towns in the area. Of late, there has been a noticeable deterioration in the standard of the water—the colour and salt content of the water. I put this down to two things. One is the discharge of water out of mine sites—that is, water from mine pits which fill up after floods and heavy rain. The other is groundwater that comes off mine sites and washes into the river, and I am talking about larger heaps of coal. When it rains, there is no catchment for that water and it ends up in the river. The other reason is the Mount Morgan mine. Everyone is aware that Mount Morgan mine discharges water which is heavy in metal, is poisonous, toxic and visually blue and green on all parts of the river. There have been six testing holes in the 60 kilometres of the Dee River until it flows into the Dawson, which in turn flows into the Fitzroy. The federal government grant of a few years, did some good for the—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 19:14 to 19:37